Please do not post any new comments on this page.

This is a discussion archive first created in May 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.

See current discussion or the archives index.

Announcements

Proposals

Featured authors

Latest comment: 10 years ago12 comments7 people in discussion

The Wikisource:Community collaboration (previously Wikisource:Collaboration of the Week) started by Sherurcij appears to be dead since they retired 4 years ago. Given that most editors here at Wikisource are busy with their own projects and there already is Wikisource:Proofread of the Month to propose and complete specific works by any given author, I believe it is unlikely that there are sufficient editors here to proofread/transcribe all works of any prolific author. I instead propose that we start a new "Featured authors" initiative.

Contrary to the previous approach there would be no "collaboration", editors will nominate an author for "featured" status, after say, 50% or more works of that author is proofread.
Like the "Featured texts" process the author nominated and thereafter selected will be linked from the main page.

This can be synchronised with the featured list process on Wikipedia and can help draw traffic to this site. I am primarily inspired by the efforts of Hesperian regarding Henry James. Solomon7968 (talk) 19:27, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

I like the idea. Let's build a backlog of qualified candidates for review: Author:Plato, Author:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, Author:Rabindranath Tagore, Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, Author:James Joyce - DutchTreat (talk) 10:44, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Comment If there isn't going to be any collaboration, then the page should be moved to a new title. Any suggestions? —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 12:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

I have slightly modified my comment now to give some context. The community collaboration was previously "Collaboration of the Week", with a notable/prolific author chosen every week to improve the works of that author. Now take the case of Henry James. The first major collection of his work was published in 35 volumes. 35, that's a lot!!!! Do folks here seriously believe that there are that many editors here to proofread 35 volumes in a week? The answer is no. But I suspect that by starting this "Featured authors" initiative a lot of editors of Wikipedia can be drawn to this site. Now why? The boost to quality improvement in articles on Wikipedia comes from the desire to get an article featured on the front page, there it gets a lot of page views and recognition etc. Now here on Wikisource an author will stay up on the front page for 30 days (i.e. the time span of "Featured texts" or 30 times that of Wikipedia). Solomon7968 (talk) 16:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Hmmhrmhm. So, in effect, the same process as CotW is used for notable authors with more than 50% of their works transcribed, but with the time period extended to a month. Is that it? I think this proposal should be taken to the Scriptorium for more comment... hey, wait a bit, this is the Scriptorium! Anyway, joking apart, I still feel that the project page should be moved (and considerably renovated) if the project is to be known henceforth as Featured Author and not Community Collaboration (it's the third time it's being moved...) And oh, better start creating a backlog of authors right now, as DutchTreat has suggested. Start on Wikisource talk:Community collaboration for the time being. And I think I'd better bring my Poem of the Day proposal as well to the S'm now... —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 17:03, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

We (I) changed the COTW to Community collaboration as it wasn't happening weekly, if at all. I like the idea of an extra set of features and dynamic content, though I don't think that a wholesale replacement from one fixed set to another is perfect. Though I see that a Featured author or Featured subject component is something that can fit within Community collaboration as while we focus on an author or subject, look to fit works together, we can also look to encourage users to contribute. My reasoning is that Featured sections will take time to build, and if there is a wider options available, then they can be compiled over time. We still want to encourage participation, and not just view. They can also be planned as we do for PotM. Keeping flexibility still allows 12 months of featured authors, but it also allows change and interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Question: Is this a featured content item, spotlighting high-quality material on the project (like the Featured Text, Wikipedia's Featured Article, Commons' Featured Picture/Media, etc), or is it a collaboration item, listing things in need of improvement or group-work (like the current Community Collaboration, Proofread of the Month etc)? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:04, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

My initial proposal was about featured content item i.e. spotlighting high-quality material (here the time span will be 30 days by default [i.e. the time span of "Featured texts"] or 30 times that of Wikipedia's Featured Article) and try to draw more volunteers here by synchronising it with the featured list process on Wikipedia (see for example the recognized content listings of WikiProject Bibliographies; such FLs of public domain authors are especially relevant here). Solomon7968 (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Support - This is a nice way to bring attention to author portals. As long as we keep overhead low for reviewing candidates, we should have plenty of authors in backlog that could qualify. DutchTreat (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support oh yes. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 11:03, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
Support, wonderful idea. -- Cirt (talk) 19:44, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Know I'm late to the party, but I support this idea. I've always wanted to do this myself, but balked at the sheer amount of work involved.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Poem of the Day

Latest comment: 10 years ago10 comments6 people in discussion

As discussed above in #Main Page improvements, it has been proposed that a new Poem of the Day feature be introduced on the Main Page [originally suggested to occupy the extra space on Main Page/sandbox, I believe this has since been fixed]. We have plenty of poems on Wikisource, of which not many are featured. As User:Beeswaxcandle has said, poems from A Treasury of War Poetry can be featured this year to commemmorate WWI. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 17:19, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

If it comes in handy, I have begun a chronological list of poems from TWP with poems that lend themselves to such a list. You can find the [incomplete as of this post] list in my sandbox. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Sure! Let's fill up the Main Page with two one-sixth-sized sections devoted to the single academic field of literature. And debut them at the same time. Why the hell not? ResScholar (talk) 08:47, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: We would need 364 poems. I'm not sure we can manage that if the criteria become too strict. (It might be a push anyway). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:12, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Yes, but it looks like many editors here focus on poetry anyway, so it shouldn't be too difficult. And if there aren't enough for a daily selection, then we can change it to a weekly feature. 52 poems aren't too many--many poetry anthologies contain around that many poems, if not more. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a proposal, it's a provocation. Why not a Popular Science or physics article of the day? Or a social science or political article of the day? Or a court decision of the day? Or a Dictionary of National Biography or history entry of the day? Or an encylopedia entry of the day? You certainly think highly of literature. But why should everyone else be pressured to think of it as highly as you? ResScholar (talk) 19:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps it could be placed at Portal:Poetry? There is a link to the portal already under "Highlights" on the WS Main page. I don't think that Portal has been updated in a while (2012, actually)...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Comment: well not many poem articles in w:Category:Poems. might require some curation. are anonymous poems notable? just cause i haven’t written the bio, doesn’t mean they’re not notable. need to make more source links to articles like w:The New Colossus. now that user:AWadewit is gone, we have fewer good article editors for old literature. the gall of putting literature on main page. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 03:41, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Possible elements to include

Picture (either that of the poet or an illustration from the poem/book itself)
Short description (might include name, poet's name, date, collection name, background info, etc.)
Excerpt
Audio
add next

User:Clockery/Sandbox1 is a draft of the Main Page template. Feel free to modify.

Criteria for a poem to be featured

must be scan-backed
the scan should be a significant edition e.g. first edition.
must be validated
the poem itself must be notable, and preferably downright famous
- What does "notable" mean in this context? —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 13:51, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
  - If it has it's own article on Wikipedia it is notable. If it is mentioned in an article on Wikipedia, it is probably notable. If the author does not have a article on Wikipedia, none of their works are notable. Some grey area left in the middle. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 17:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
add next

BOT approval requests

Help

Other discussions

Authority Control, VIAF, and pseudonyms

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Hi folks. I just ran across a problem while working on cleaning up VIAF mismatches. Author:Isaac Asimov (VIAF) used the pseudonym Paul French (VIAF) for some of his works. VIAF lists this pseudonym record as a "related name" to the main name record (the pseudonym has its own ISNI number) -- but it's not clear that this is universally the way that VIAF and ISNI handle pseudonyms (see slides 16 & 17). My question is this: Should I put an additional authority control template on the Author:Isaac Asimov page with the pseudonym's VIAF number? Or should these instead be two separate pages? Or some third option? Thanks in advance! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:58, 28 March 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the ISNI api would allow the two clusters to be merged, thatwould be checked by the ISNI QT, and propogated back to VIAF? Rich Farmbrough, 18:23 29 March 2014 (GMT)

At the moment it is not clear whether VIAF/ISNI plan to merge authors' names with their pseudonyms into a single authority record. In the meantime, how should we handle them here in Wikisource? Have one page with two authority control templates OR have two separate pages (each with their own authority control template) that then cross-link to each other? Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:38, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignore the VIAF data for the pseudonym. How is it needed? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I was asking in an attempt to understand how to handle a complex situation like this. I'll do as you suggest and ignore these situations and just let someone else deal with it. There's plenty of other stuff to do. Tertiaryresources (talk) 15:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Way-forward on Wikidata and Authority control

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments6 people in discussion

Hi. I feel a bit lost on what we want to do as next step with WD and VIAF. I have the feeling that there are different schools. Another option is that I am the one completely out of synch. All I want is to clarify the status, so I will not put effort into something that can be thrown away any minute from now.

1. Does it still make sense to add VIAF data locally here?

yes, iff a page is not yet linked to Wikidata ....?
no ...
yes, always ...
...

2. Is it time to remove local VIAF data and rely on WD and {{authority control}}?

yes, iff ...
yes, but only after ensuring WD data is same as local data ...
yes, but only after ensuring WS is listed as source in WD ...
no, not yet ...
...

3. Are there other runs of bots planned in WD to continuously update WD with new info in WS?

if so, what they will look for ...? (if someone from WD is listening, I am available so support here, not just putting the burden on you.)

And similar others.--Mpaa (talk) 21:29, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

My thoughts:

1. I don't think it hurts to have authority control data here but it should all go to Wikidata where possible. Obviously, pages not yet connected to Wikidata should keep their data until there is somewhere to put it. I have not found a VIAF importer gadget on Wikidata yet, so I still sometimes find it easier to import here and then copy across; I probably shouldn't do this, however.

2. I think we are keeping the VIAF number itself locally. We should probably aim to delete local copies of the rest eventually. As with no. 1, I don't think duplication of data hurts, so there is no immediate deadline and we would want to be sure the Wikidata data matched ours (or better) first. In my opinion, eventually we should be relying on Wikidata for all except VIAF itself.

3. There are no bot runs planned that I know of. I don't really know how Wikidata bots work in this regard. Similarly, I don't know of any plans to harvest our VIAF data. Either would be nice. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:29, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

First, I think it's important to recognize that WikiData and VIAF are both relatively new tools, and as such there is a lot of messy data in both of them (duplicate records, incorrect data, etc.). However, I think that's a good thing -- although there is a lot of work to do to clean up all these authority records, the fact that all this data is being centralized (instead of being spread across Wikimedia projects / individual nations' catalogs) is going to make a HUGE positive impact in the long run. But at the moment, I'm trying not to expect too much from either tool too early. Now, having said that, Mpaa is right that we need to be thinking about long-term workflows and their impact. So here are my thoughts:

1. Yes, we should add VIAF data to author pages via the authority control template. However, I agree with AdamBMorgan that we should make pointing to Wikidata the highest priority. Making that connection will allow for later bots to do authority control cleanup as VIAF records are merged/fixed. As an example, I've already found several instances where a VIAF number in a Wikisource page is out of date (pointing to a VIAF record that has been merged into another VIAF record with a different number). When I find these, I manually correct the VIAF number in Wikisource, but I think bots can do this later as things are cleaned up over time.

Regarding out-of-date VIAFs, I am planning to clean them up with a bot (I need to find some time). Data can be found on VIAF Dataset page, redirections within the VIAF dataset.--Mpaa (talk) 22:50, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

2. I think it's too early to remove VIAF records from Wikisource pages. In my vision of things, the VIAF number will always be visible on Wikisource pages, but those numbers will be automatically updated by bots as corrections are made on VIAF's site. But that would consist of VIAF sending updates to Wikidata, and Wikisource would then display the updated Wikidata information (like an infobox).

3. I have no idea what bots are planned, but I envision Wikisource author pages automatically displaying an infobox with whatever relevant information is in Wikidata. I think it would be great for Wikidata to start by harvesting our author metadata (firstname, lastname, birthyear, deathyear, etc.) so that it can be shared amongst sister Wikimedia projects. Eventually the data will be edited only on Wikidata and reflected amongst all the projects the moment that the change is made. That's how I picture it in my head, anyway. I look forward to others' responses! Tertiaryresources (talk) 18:34, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Let me preface what follows by first saying I'm largely playing catch up with all this myself & that I'm generally in agreement with what has been said so far. I would like to revist some points, however....

1. The current AuthControl template & Module we use is -a copy of the Commons version that was-a copy based on the Wikipedia version. The categorization originally intiated by the Template part, originally, tracked No VIAF on Wikidata & VIAF mismatch on Wikidata returns. Based on the latter & some common sense, I added a third Cat that first checked to see if we even had a VIAF (No VIAF on Wikisource) string that could be "pinged" to accomplish the same - otherwise, any polling asked of us would be inaccurate and or incomplete. So it is not I who made tracking these nuances key - they did. I just followed in their footsteps.

In short, the ~600 or so No VIAF on wikisource hits must be satisfied locally by manually adding at least the VIAF string here on WS. I believe this is priority 1.

2. Removal is premature. Based on the original 2 (now 3) categories generated by the authority control Template, VIAF (at the least) must be present to properly bring the no VIAF present cats down to zero both on Wikidata & on Wikisource. Zero-ing those 2 cats out would leave both WS & WS with the task of resolving the remaining Cat, mismatched VIAFs.

Bring that last Cat down to zero resolving mismatches along with the other 2 and imho only then can we safely revisit this point and how to act on it as a permanent policy.

3. As far as I can tell, the batch of now obsolete interwiki bots that ran under the old scheme seem to be finding new life by working on one thing or the other for Wikidata - can't say if that helps or hurts our efforts here locally. Again, the point now is not so much about harvesting all our labors in compiling accurate Authority Control data pre-Phase 2 (that train has left the station) and ~~seems now~~ I surmise now are more about addressing and resolving issues more in the vein of the two (now three) VIAF tracking categories mentioned above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As a general rule I am not keen on removing author/portal AC references from Wikisource ever. However having inflamed you all with that statement I shall explain when I do consider removal acceptable… and along the way I hope make clear my personal support for the concept of WS AC entries having their very own local IDs:

You might note that the WikiData property entries all have have a "Source" and "Rank" attribute (the latter is the three little boxes icon. To the best of my knowledge "Rank" is currently now always "normal" which effectively means absolutely no quality control—from the point of view of wikidata—has been taken whatsoever.)

If enWS ever wants to be taken seriously as a source of this kind of research local records must contain some kind of locally unique ID (to permit those Source attributes to back-link to)—and retain locally the information which gives the WD property its "legitimacy." If everybody runs around merrily deleting information on the basis it is "now in WD" then where has that chain of factual establishment gone?

By all means delete local references you are confident were researched elsewhere (by the way, how do you know that?) but otherwise there is a severe risk of simply flushing the fruits of sound effort away pointlessly.

A point I feel is being missed in all this controversy over authority controls is that the Author: record is likely to become WikiSource's "public interface" and for that an externally-usable record ID will be essential to index (non-AC as well) things like works published from WikiSource, and area where surely we are the definitive record-keepers?

I am painfully aware I have not expressed this nearly as well as I wanted to, and I hope under the ridicule I fear this comment may generate will be able to make myself clearer. AuFCL (talk) 09:03, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

As a comment about source and rank with regard to authority identifiers. They are completely irrelevant! The identifier is a link to a evident self-reference source (see d:Help:Sources). How does one rank a reference to a primary source? You simply don't (see d:Help:Ranking) The closest you could say is that VIAF is the source for the other data of LCCN/NLA/etc. but do we really want to go there when the data provided links back to the respective identifier sources. In short they are a distraction to the discussion here.— billinghurst sDrewth 11:16, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Frankly, I don't care about this whole issue enough to fight with you. I tried to raise what I perceive might be a relevant point in good faith and can see a waste of time and effort as a result. Until this matter is home and hosed I shall refrain from wasting any effort whatsoever with any kind of author references. I simply do not know what any of you guys want or expect any more. AuFCL (talk) 11:42, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

There is ZERO need to maintain any authority control data at this site, where and when it can be pulled from Wikidata. Authority control data at WD can be and will be tested against authority database, so for us to maintain static and unqueryable data is simply makes no sense. The contacts at VIAF are more involved with WD than we will ever be, and you just need to watch that space. There will be data interchange, data, fixes, etc. able to be undertaken that we will only dream will happen here, more bot operators, and more connectivity and especially the schema design to make it happen easily. If there is no WD data, then go and add it.

So if the WD data exists, just add the template. If the WD does not exist, then please add it, and just add the template. If no WD and no desire to do WD, then sure add the AC template with VIAF link, and it will be removed once WD has been done. @AdamBMorgan: there is a VIAF importer at WD, look in d:user:billinghurst/common.js and it inserts more data than our tool, though the search function is a little more limited. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Cheers! I thought there should be something like that around. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

I am reliably told that Module:WikidataCheck, which GO3 has already imported from enWP, will be able inform us whether data is available at WD, or not. By using that methodology, as per {{WikidataCheck}}, we should be able to identify which author pages have VIAF data, and which do not. The situation we will still face is where there is no authority data for individuals, and I have only been managing that so far with an html remark in the body, and we may wish to formalise that somehow. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

To re-cap.... The presence of a VIAF identifier was already being tracked via the {{Authority control}} template using the same premise [code] as found in the WikiDataCheck template. Recall...

Category:VIAF not on Wikisource‎ (474 P)
- Category:VIAF not on Wikidata‎ (1917 P)
  - Category:VIAF different on Wikidata‎ (375 P)

... all pretty much at the same levels as when we first started; so I will make the plea again

For the ~2800 pages falling into one of the above please, stop removing local data for the time being; if anything - add data to maintain uniformity. It can all be removed in the future. There is no Rush here - we are already behind the 8-ball as it is.
applying an authority control template with no(0) parameters prevents its reuse by the VIAF gadget if and when discrepancies/inferior identifiers are found/present themselves down the road. You will need to manually remove the blank AuthCont template in these cases (please do not forget to do this when encountering a blank AuthCont template that needs the gadget; duplicates cause false positives all around).
The alternative is to apply the AuthCont template with at least one parameter w/identifier in place as a best practice. This will allow for any future manipulation by the gadget if need be.
If there is a connection established with WD, feel free to update, this, that or the other thing @ WD. This still does not warrant the removal of local data afterwards. In fact, IMHO removal shouldn't take place until a WikiDataCheck for each [core] identifier we host locally is vetted first.

Then there is the matter of the ~4,000 pages not connecting to Wikidata at all regardless of AuthControl template being present in each or not and/or with or without the VIAF parameter present. See the Maintenance of the Month for that tracking in detail. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Regarding the 4000 pages, it is worthwhile to continue to add VIAF data locally. VIAF data can be used as a search key in WD. If in WD there is (will be) an item with P214=VIAFnnnnn, a bot can easily search for it and connect the two. Once the picture is clear and stable, removing info from {{Authority control}} (checking connection to WD and same VIAF value on WS and WD) is easy to automate as well.--Mpaa (talk) 12:37, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

We can probably just request a bot run on Wikidata to harvest all of our authority control data (but not delete it). I'm not sure, however, if we should wait for the last quarter of the authorspace to be connected (it will probably be a few months yet) or go ahead with that now. After that, we can sort out our side of the data ourselves. As far as I was aware, this ultimately means just keeping the VIAF number itself and no others, but I am not opposed to keeping everything; it's, at worst, inefficient but won't actually damage anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm of like mind - asking for a bot importation of what we have AC-wise seems like the obvious next step. If I can get some help drawing down the ~444 left in Category:VIAF not on Wikisource‎, that should result in the true fill out of Category:Pages with authority control data well enough to then produce a dynamic list cross-referencing Category:Author pages connected to Wikidata with it for a reliable final list of Author: pages targeting the bot import of what we currently have manually stored in our {{Authority control}} template. That is somewhere in the ballpark of 12,500 pages - some of which seems to have our AC/VIAF data imported correctly already.

When that runs it's course, we'll have a far more accurate count in the other 2 CATs (VIAF not on WD and VIAF mismatch) than we have now. Concerning these 2 conditions, I've found the causes behind can be numerous in nature but are mostly due to poor differentiation between similar names between domains. For example... our Author:Edward Livingston Wilson was "imported" incorrectly to Edward L. Wilson at first - I assume because we still pointed to the Wikipedia article of the same middle-initial title in plain-sister even after name-expansion had taken place here. Our AuthControl data was manually input and in place prior to importation - it associated the page with the right WD entry, Edward Livingston Wilson. The current condition is VIAF not on WD through no fault of our own here. The only conclusion I can draw from that is importation is dependent on our Wikipedia association(s) when it should(?) be independent of others.

The point of the example is to illustrate the need to resolve our maintenance CATs as soon as possible or the vetting of data imports will only be partial at best. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Few remarks.

Category:VIAF not on Wikidata‎ -> this is composed by: 1) this http://tools.wmflabs.org/wikidata-todo/autolist.html?q=link[enwikisource]%20AND%20noclaim[214]%20AND%20claim[31%3A5]# (about 800) and all the authors on WS that have VIAF but are not connected to WD. I checked if items in the list on WD have VIAF locally here on WS but I was able to cut it down only from 900 to 800.
Category:VIAF different on Wikidata‎ (now 215 P) -> I removed all the mismatches due to VIAF old id, they need to be check manually at WD.

My conclusion is that the new bot run will not import a lot of new data into WD unless we connect pages first, but it is nevertheless worth to try.--Mpaa (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

OK. I'm getting lost a bit here. If your findings indicate poor return on investment regarding whittling down the 3 VIAF specific maintenance CATs, then what is the Authority Control status of the ~4000 or so non WD connected Author pages? Should we / do we need to address that here locally to maximize eventual data importation? -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf20) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 27. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on April 1, and all Wikipedia wikis on April 3 (calendar).
Typography Refresh was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on March 27. You'll only see it if you use the Vector skin. For users on non-Wikipedia wikis, it will be enabled on April 1, and for Wikipedia users on April 3.
CirrusSearch, the new search tool, was enabled as a beta feature on over 30 new wikis on March 27. [1] [2]

VisualEditor news

Blocked users now see the same messages in VisualEditor as in the wikitext editor. [3] [4]
The search box for re-using a reference in VisualEditor is now cleared after each use. [5]
New links on sub-pages no longer point to the wrong location in VisualEditor. [6]
VisualEditor's media dialog no longer breaks when opening some types of images. [7]

Future software changes

You will not be able to use the Wikitech wiki for a short period around 16:00 UTC on April 1 due to a server change. [8]
CirrusSearch will become the main search engine for all non-Wikipedia wikis except Commons, Meta and Incubator on April 2.
You will soon be able to use a new special page listing duplicate files. [9]
Deleting a version of a file or a version of its description page will soon be shown differently in the logs. [10]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

09:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

Changes to the default site typography coming soon

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

This week, the typography on Wikimedia sites will be updated for all readers and editors who use the default "Vector" skin. This change will involve new serif fonts for some headings, small tweaks to body content fonts, text size, text color, and spacing between elements. The schedule is:

April 1st: non-Wikipedia projects will see this change live
April 3rd: Wikipedias will see this change live

This change is very similar to the "Typography Update" Beta Feature that has been available on Wikimedia projects since November 2013. After several rounds of testing and with feedback from the community, this Beta Feature will be disabled and successful aspects enabled in the default site appearance. Users who are logged in may still choose to use another skin, or alter their personal CSS, if they prefer a different appearance. Local common CSS styles will also apply as normal, for issues with local styles and scripts that impact all users.

For more information:

Summary of changes and FAQ
Discussion page for feedback or questions
Post on blog.wikimedia.org

-- Steven Walling (Product Manager) on behalf of the Wikimedia Foundation's User Experience Design team

Can some css expert advice on what I have to insert in my .css to have the font in the edit box in edit mode larger? When I inspect it, it is the area called TEXTAREA#wpTextbox1. I tried to look around but could not find anything related to it.--Mpaa (talk) 17:11, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Can't claim "expert" status but what about this:

#wpHeaderTextbox,
#wpTextbox1,
#wpFooterTextbox {
	font-size:120%;
}

—I am assuming you want headers and footers similarly sized as well? If not drop "#wpHeaderTextbox" and "#wpFooterTextbox" (but remember to retain the "{" as the syntax needs it!)

Adjust "120%" to factor of your choice. To resize preview area as well add

#wikiPreview,

—to the top of the list. As far as I can tell, none of this affects non-edit viewing or main space/transclusion in any fashion, but bear in mind all edits both inside and outside of Page:-space will be affected. Hope this is what you wanted. AuFCL (talk) 00:48, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Perfect. Thanks--Mpaa (talk) 18:15, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

This does not work

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

"Alternatively randomly have a page selected that requires validation."

" 403: User account expired

The page you requested is hosted by the Toolserver user erwin85, whose account has expired. Toolserver user accounts are automatically expired if the user is inactive for over six months. To prevent stale pages remaining accessible, we automatically block requests to expired content.

If you think you are receiving this page in error, or you have a question, please contact the owner of this document: erwin85 [at] toolserver [dot] org. (Please do not contact Toolserver administrators about this problem, as we cannot fix it—only the Toolserver account owner may renew their account.)

HTTP server at toolserver.org - ts-admins [at] toolserver [dot] org " —Maury (talk) 04:29, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

The Toolserver is being shut down by Wikimedia Deutschland sometime soon and many tools have been shut down and/or moved. If there is no toollabs: replacement, then whatever Toolsever link we have probably needs to be removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation, Adam. I thought that link was a good idea. Do you want me to try to remove that Toolserver Link? —Maury (talk) 13:26, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

There is a page for toollabs:erwin85, so he may have ported his tool across. I'm not sure which tool it is, however, so I can't check. Where is this link? (Otherwise, yes, you might as well remove the link entirely if there is no working replacement.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:05, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

@AdamBMorgan: This is the tool (the working one, anyway--the other one doesn't work). Maury, on which page does this link appear? I can't remember. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 17:21, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I found three instances of this link and changed them. If there are more, the new link is a wikilink like this: toollabs:erwin85/randomarticle.simple.php?lang=en&family=wikisource&namespaces=-1&categories=Proofread (it can be piped like a normal wikilink, so any text can be displayed). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:52, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Erwin has retired from the Wikimedia space, Magnus shifted Erwin's tools to labs, though there is no guarantee that the tools will be supported into the future. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Proofread of the Month is on my talk page and the last on the list is a random choice by the system. It works now. Thanks —Maury (talk) 19:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Hillary Rodham Clinton title discussion at Wikipedia

Latest comment: 10 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

A proposal has been made at Wikipeda, at w:Talk:Hillary Rodham Clinton#Requested move 8, to change the title of the article, "Hillary Rodham Clinton" to "Hillary Clinton". If that move succeeds (so far it looks like a substantial majority of editors support it), would we likewise move Author:Hillary Rodham Clinton to Author:Hillary Clinton? Cheers! BD2412 T 16:02, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Probably not. Wikisource tends to use the full name whenever possible, as a form of disambiguation as much as anything else. Judging by the various authority controls and Internet Archive, this is somewhat standard for libraries. Sister projects can move their pages around without affecting us too badly as long as Wikidata/interproject links all point in the right direction (and I expect they'll have redirects even if they don't update links). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

[MORE] Looking into it further, we should probably add a "Diane" in there too. There is no WS:COMMONNAME or WS:CONCISE; the closest case I can recall is disagreement over Author:Mark Twain vs. Author:Samuel Clemens, and that page can now be found at Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens. As long as we have redirects it makes little practical difference. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for the explanation (and for fixing the header). I see now that you also have Author:William Jefferson Clinton where Wikipedia has "Bill Clinton", and Author:George Herbert Walker Bush where Wikipedia has "George H. W. Bush". BD2412 T 18:10, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

good to see the reference librarians prevailing, but is Author:O. Henry an oversight? Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 23:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Naughty, naughty: preying upon the academically gifted yet simultaneously stupid!

\scriptstyle {\underset {\text{?}}{\overset {\text{shooting}}{{\text{fish}}\in {\text{barrel}}}}}

AuFCL (talk) 23:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

There are lots of oversights, or exceptions — depending on your point of view. Author:T. S. Eliot is another case, where a move to "Thomas Stearns Eliot" was reverted and the underlying disagreement never resolved. Hesperian 00:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Help link in sidebar?

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it just me, or does the help link in the sidebar go to mediawiki.org instead of our own Help:Contents page? — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:41, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

My fault. It should be OK now. Sorry for any trouble I may have caused. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Thanks for fixing it. :-) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 01:55, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser permission

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Where can I ask for AWB permission here in Wikisource? --Tito Dutta (Talk) 12:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you need to have permission on this project (I don't know of any area where that would happen). If you want to run it as a bot, with a bot flag, that needs approval in an earlier section of this page, and see Wikisource:Bots for more information. If you want to run it manually just to semi-automate your own edits, then I think you can just do so. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:17, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Hello AdamBMorgan, yes you are right, it seems I do not need permission to use AWB here (I did not expect it. AWB may be abused as it can make many edits quickly). I tried to test in my user talk page, But there it detected no error. I have just made a test edit. Although I told in edit summary that the "test edit" would be reverted quickly, I have not made the reversion. I think the edit was fine (an article should not be linked in the same page. AWB worked fine here). But feel free to revert the edit.
And about my AWB need— I have been working at Wikipedia (En)’s Swami Vivekananda project for last two years. I have a website too. This website directly cites Wikisource content. I have noticed there are many errors in The Complete Works of Swami Vivekananda. Please see my contributions, I am trying to fix errors. But it is a tedious work. AWB may help in gather pages/fixing some errors quickly (I’ll not need to open new page in new tab, click on edit link etc). Fully automated edits will not work. I’ll need to check edits manually before saving. Plus, I am going to propose removing all special character alphabets (à to a, ń to n etc) from these few thousand pages’ Complete Works. I have noticed, these are not consistent. In some pages they have used IAST/IPA, in some pages they have used general Roman alphabets. It becomes very difficult to search or follow. I’ll propose the change first, and if it is accepted, AWB will be very helpful here.
Plus is there any bot here that fixes paragraph justification like this? Most probably it is the result of "bad copy paste", lines are breaking "before 78 characters" like plain text email. --Tito Dutta (Talk) 00:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
I think there was a line break removing tool for paragraphs somewhere but I can't remember where or what it was. AWB can remove line breaks, or replace them with spaces, (I believe a line break is \n) but it will affect all line breaks, including the ones you want to keep. NB: Special characters should match characters used in the original publication (I can't find a scan anywhere, so I can't tell what that was). Feel free to make the proposal though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:28, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Index:Homer - Iliad, translation Pope, 1909.djvu

Latest comment: 10 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

Can someone please do some assembly work on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

ok, done, please check work. reformat titles how you want. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 01:44, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

It does bother me a little that this is classified only as "Early modern poetry" and "18th century works". Is that our norm for translations of Classical literature? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Help request

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Request for someone to take a look at the couple questions in the Help section above. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate file - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan - What to do?

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've found 2 files of Index:Ambulance 464 by Julian Bryan - Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.djvu and Index:Ambulance 464 by Julien Bryan.pdf the djvu file is the most advanced but the pdf appears to have pages missing from the djvu file. What should be done? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-15

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please inform other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent software changes

The latest version of MediaWiki (1.23wmf21) was scheduled to be deployed to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on April 3, however it was temporarily put on hold due to localization issues. (calendar).
Typography Refresh was enabled on non-Wikipedia wikis on April 1, and on all Wikipedias on April 3. You'll only see it if you use the Vector skin.
CirrusSearch was enabled as the primary search method on over 400 non-Wikipedia wikis on April 2. [11]

Future software changes

A new special page (Special:TrackingCategories) will soon list all the tracking categories on a wiki. [12] [13]
All Wikiquote projects will start using language links from Wikidata on April 8. [14]
The Hovercards feature will soon work with right-to-left languages. [15] [16]
You will soon be able to download files directly from MediaViewer, the new multimedia tool. [17]
MediaViewer will be enabled for all users on MediaWiki.org on April 10. Comments are welcome.
You can help check that users can read CAPTCHAs in your language. [18]

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by MediaWiki message delivery • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

08:00, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned reference

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

If anyone has insight as to where the reference should be placed on this page, please feel free to place it. Also, there are two characters (letters) in the reference (in the word "samrad") that I can't replicate; if someone has the ability, it would be appreciated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:47, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I entered the two characters, by copying them from Wikipedia:Dot (diacritic), but I'm not sure where the reference is supposed to go. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:33, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

We both plagiarized Wikipedia except you beat me to it by a few seconds because I got the simultaneous editing notice.

. I will move the reference to the header.— Ineuw talk 16:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to both! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:55, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I've been trying to solve the reference issue too but the footnote isn't very clear. It might be referring to the line 'Air—"The brink of the White Rocks."' under the title. After googling a few phrases, I came up with an Edward Bunting who included "The Brink of the White Rocks" in his 1840 book The Ancient Music of Ireland. I can't tell what herring have to do with anything, however, and Google can't match the Irish text to anything. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:57, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Public domain texts digitized by Google

Latest comment: 10 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Are we allowed to archive public domain texts digitized by Google? They have watermarks everywhere so I don't think we can use the scans. Does that rule them out completely? Abyssal (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

well, if you look at the current Wikisource:Proofread of the Month, i.e. Page:The_Spirit_of_the_Nation.djvu/13, you will see watermarks galore. apparently the scanners, will keep trying to get their credit. apparantly ok on Commons:Watermarks: "uploading of files with visible but relatively unobtrusive watermarks is merely discouraged, not prohibited." see also [19] for NC claims of PD works. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 21:27, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Books in whatever format can be avoided when a Google watermark is on pages. Watermarks can also be removed by programs. I have had and upgraded a purchased program that removes googles watermarks which is Adobe Acrobat. Mine is Adobe Acrobat XI Pro. But I believe there are free or inexpensive programs that will allow the removal of watermarks. If I found a djvu book that could not be found elsewhere and filled with google watermarks I would download the .pdf version of the book and remove all watermarks on every page and then upload the cleaned book to Internet Archives aka Archive.org so that a .djvu version would be created. I would then download that clean djvu file and use it on WS. Google, I believe, $ells the best books and we (and others as well as companies) get the watermarked versions so we cannot sell the scanned books. Amazon.com, eBay, Google, Google Play and others offer books for sale. So, in this manner when there are any expenses there are also profits to offset the expenses. Long ago I worked at a university and where I worked they had students scanning books as an "assignment" so there the student pays for the opportunity and scans books. Each book is them is printed as needed, or requested, and sold. It cost the university nothing. I am guessing now that some companies that have scanned pdfs and sell them make a deal with universities but I do not know for positive because my work was long, long ago. Still, that may still be the process or a part of the overall process. I do not think anyone selling is not making a profit and therefore keeps going. Companies are not going to work with books for free. Companies exist for profit or they would not exist. —Maury (talk) 03:24, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

meh, when we transcribe, then the machine readable comes to the fore, only see the watermark on drill down. the fees from e-readers will make money from copyrighted works not free works [20]; this is a prestige thing. ponzi schemes would make a profit, or they would not exist. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 02:11, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

"Epigram" not accounted for in PotM TOC

Latest comment: 10 years ago8 comments2 people in discussion

There is a poem (scroll to page end) that appears in the text, but is not represented in the TOC [It would appear after "Nation's Valentine", on pg. 25; it was written by "Terræ Filius"] What to do? There are 11 other "Epigrams" in the text, which I have disambiguated in this way for Mainspace (& TOC): ex: The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (3). If this poem were present in the text, it would be Epigram #4. Links for the remaining Epigrams in the TOC (as well as their corresponding Mainspace pages) would need to be adjusted accordingly (which I can do myself after opinions on direction). Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:52, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

One option would be to add the piece to the TOC in its proper place and wrap the title in a {{SIC}} with a "not listed in original, but appears in text". The Mainspace title could be The Spirit of the Nation/Epigram (unlisted) instead of using a numeral (which would require moving several pages and renaming)... All that would be necessary is to adjust a couple prev/next's on pages in the Main... If that sounds okay, I'll go ahead; I'll wait for either approval or another idea. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:24, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Would {{auxTOC}} work? I'm not too sure whether it can be inserted between two other entries, but it is usually used if there is no table of contents in the original work (and sometimes when the introduction, preface, &c. are not listed). —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 06:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

I think that might look a little "bulky"... If something could be inserted that would be inline with the rest of the TOC text (listing title, author, page no., etc.), without bringing too much attention to the fact that it is not in the original but without making it an eyesore. That's why I was thinking of using {{SIC}} with a "variable". But feel free to test something out if you're technically savvy! I may change my mind! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:49, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Well then, I think your suggestion is better--but maybe {{tooltip}} instead of {{SIC}} might be better, since (a) SIC is used to mark typos and such errors in printed text (not text which was never printed...), and (b) you can give your own notes in {{tooltip}} (in {{SIC}}, a preceding [sic] is added). Feel free to do whatever you think is best. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 17:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll give it a try in a little bit. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:43, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done using {{tooltip}}, unless there are objections. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2014 (UTC)

Looks nice, not too obtrusive. :-) —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 03:16, 12 April 2014 (UTC)