Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-07

Announcements

If you think a gadget is broken … aka jQuery updating

With the next week's upgrade of MediaWiki (1.24wmf8) there has been an alert announcement for communities relating to an upgrade of one of the library packages (software) that Mediawiki utilises. In short, the jQuery upgrade has culled some old legacy components, and that may break old gadgets, or gadgets written with old query language, with the full impact of this occurring in the next local upgrade, Tuesday next week.

Users

If there is an impact, one of the gadgets that you utilise will not work as expected. If you think that a gadget is broken by this change

What you can do:

• check your browser's console log to see if there are any warnings tagged "JQMIGRATE". If you don't know about browser console … Firefox or Chrome or a more generic
• start a new message in the help section (below) and report your problem giving gadget details, page of problem, and what you were trying to do.

Developers

There has been a stepwise change to jQuery at Mediawiki as they migrate from JQuery 1.8 to 1.11. With wmf6 the change was to 1.11 with a jQuery migrate package, and with wmf8 that migrate package will be then be removed.

Further reading (noting that they are mediawiki — not wikimedia — targeted messages)

• Wikitech-ambassadors — BREAKING CHANGE jQuery upgrade to 1.11 coming soon
• Wikitech-l — BREAKING CHANGE Upcoming jQuery upgrade: Removing jQuery Migrate

And maybe we will have no effect, and we can all cruise along. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania panel

So the Wikisource panel is on the programme:

https://wikimania2014.wikimedia.org/wiki/Programme

on the Friday, mid-afternoon, Data I strand. What next? Well, who would be there and would like to take part in some fashion? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

i will be there, (but conflict with Lila) programme in flux ;-( Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 21:28, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I will be there, though haven't waded through the programme as of yet. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:16, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Proposals

RFC: Disclosure policy

Overview: Disclosure policy

Background

On 16 June, WMF has changed the overarching "Terms of Use" with the change prohibiting paid editing without disclosure at each of the Wikimedia Foundation wikis.

• WMF's explanation Making a change to our Terms of Use: Requirements for disclosure

Consultation was undertaken with the community prior to this change with banners utilised at wikis, including English Wikisource, to draw attention to the discussion.

Local impact

The inclusion policy of English Wikisource regulates additions to our repository of published works and historical documents, and would seem to be capable of welcoming and encouraging contributions of works irrespective of the payment status of the contributor. In fact, contributions from employees of numerous institutions could be deemed to be encouraged rather than discouraged. This being the case, the new terms of use requires all such contributors to publicly disclose any such relationship to the English Wikisource community and in our case this may discourage contributions. This issue was raised during the development of the new terms, and terms of use allows for a community to undertake community consultation and adopt a specific alternate disclosure policy.

Tentative proposal

• That English Wikisource develops Wikisource:Disclosure policy that allows for paid contributions at our site within the scope of the inclusion policy without requiring that they declare that they are paid for their contributions, nor the institution that they represent. Further that the policy is listed on Wikisource:Policies and guidelines.

Suggested wording:

The English Wikisource community encourages contributions from any contributor where in line with our inclusion policy and does not require users to identify any affiliations with organisations when editing in line with Wikisource's goals.

• That English Wikisource develops/expands guidance that encourages declarations of conflict of interest, or vested interest in decision-making processes; and that this ties in any existing guidance that the community has about disclosure.

I have started the above request for discussion, and would value contributions at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy. I would think if the community sees that this should take place that we should put in place a timeline for discussion, and a central notice to point contributors to this discussion. Initially I would like to suggest two weeks of discussion to be evaluated for closing 1 July 2014, though requests for limited extension of discussion should be considered favourably. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Please comment at Wikisource:Requests for comment/Disclosure policy

04:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Other discussions

LGBT collaboration as part of Wiki Loves Pride 2014?

Greetings! I was wondering about the possibility of having a Wikisource collaboration related to LGBT culture and history, as part of w:Wikipedia:Wiki Loves Pride 2014. This would be for the month (or part of the month) of June, when pride celebrations often take place. Thoughts? Or, is there another avenue in which this discussion should take place? I'd be more than happy to update the Wiki Loves Pride page with details about the Wikisource project, if one comes to fruition. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thanks for your consideration. --Another Believer (talk) 18:51, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Are you asking for volunteers from Wikisource or asking permission to form a Wikisource:WikiProject yourself? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:17, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

I suppose the former. I was curious if there were any contributors interested in collaborating on an LGBT-related project. Wikimedia Commons will be hosting an LGBT photo challenge during the month of June, and my hope was that other Wikimedia project might be interested in interwiki collaborations as part of Wiki Loves Pride. I must admit, though, that I am not very experienced with Wikisource. --Another Believer (talk) 15:27, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

@Another Believer:, I'd be interested in helping out with such an initiative. -- Cirt (talk) 17:39, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear, Cirt. One of my goals is to shine the spotlight on Wikimedia projects other than Wikipedia, so any LGBT-related content created here would be displayed on the English Wikipedia Wiki Loves Pride page, which may be enough to convince some new or established Wikipedians to check out Wikisource and other projects. :) --Another Believer (talk) 21:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Just sharing a link to the Results page, now that we are half way through the Wiki Loves Pride campaign. If any LGBT -related projects come to fruition at Wikisource, feel free to ping me so I can showcase the work! --Another Believer (talk) 05:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Hosting authenticated statements

Forgive me but I don't know much about Wikisource. At Jimmy Wales's en.Wikipedia talk page we're wondering about the simplest, most reliable way for our biography subjects to alert us to changes in biographical details that haven't yet appeared in reliable sources. I've asked there if Wiksource could host authenticated statements (authenticated through a third party process - like Wikimedia's OTRS system) from our biography subjects. Would that align with Wikisource's mission? --Anthonyhcole (talk) 21:18, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Our scope is defined at Wikisource:What Wikisource includes what you describe is not in our scope. Scope can be modified, so it not completely ruled out. There are of course several issues, but the first one is human resources. Assuming all the other issues of Copyright, validation, etc, as well as the Wikipedia issues with w:Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and w:Wikipedia:PRIMARY and probably a few others were addressed. Where would the volunteers come from to manage all the associated work to make this happen? Jeepday (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

This is just one of several options so far proposed - several of which seem to me to be simpler and easier than involving Wikisource. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 06:25, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It sounds like the sort of thing that would be suitable at Wikiversity. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 08:02, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Seems that it is WPs problem for their rules, I think that they should solve the issue for themselves, be it use of talk pages, subpages or a new namespace. Thinking of poking it off to the sisters or OTRS is making a rod for someone else's back. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:56, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

ORCID

Fellow Wikimedians may be interested in ORCID. ORCID is an open system of identifiers for people - particularly researchers and the authors of academic papers; but also contributors to other works, not least Wikisource editors. ORCIDs are a bit like ISBNs for books or DOIs for papers. You can register for one, free, at http://orcid.org As well as including your ORCID in any works to which you contribute, you can include it in your user page using {{Authority control}} thus: {{Authority control|ORCID=0000-0001-5882-6823}} (that template can also include other identifies, such as VIAF and LCCN - there's an example on my user page). {{Authority control}}, including ORCID identifiers, can also be added to 'Author' pages. Pigsonthewing (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: Andy, I would hazard a guest that we would just pick up any updates that are being made to the Authority control template, and collect whatever is within WD, such that it happens in our Author: ns. It will be useful for helping to identify modern academic authors, as they tend to be a little more difficult to identify and differentiate. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:26, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: That's great for subjects (authors whose work we include here); but ORCID is also for contributors (you, me, other editors). Pigsonthewing (talk) 14:11, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-23

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 (1.24wmf7) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on May 29. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 3, and to all Wikipedias on June 5 (calendar).
• CirrusSearch was enabled as the primary search method on all Wikipedias with less than 100,000 pages on May 30. [1]

VisualEditor news

• Templates that redirect to other templates now get the TemplateData of their target. [2]
• The toolbar of the PageTriage extension will no longer be visible after you save an edit with VisualEditor. [3] [4]
• VisualEditor now checks if your browser supports SVG files to avoid displaying broken icons. [5]
• There is now a new type for TemplateData parameters: date for dates and times in the ISO 8601 format. [6]

Future software changes

• MediaViewer will be enabled on the German (de) and English (en) Wikipedias on June 3. Feedback is welcome.
• You will soon see a warning if you visit a contributions page for a user that does not exist. [7] [8]
• The search tab will soon be removed from user preferences. You will be able to set your search preferences on Special:Search. [9] [10]
• You will soon see a label next to the little triangle arrow for the Actions menu in the Vector skin (screenshot). [11] [12]

Problems

• For about 20 minutes on May 29, all wikis were broken due to a configuration error. [13]

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

08:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Poems and extracts - Wordsworth.djvu

Almost completed (another 15-20 pages or so to do), Can someone do a typsetting pass? (namely vertical spacing and lines.)? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:14, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I've looked at a couple of pages randomly and it's very nice. Placing {{Dhr}} in the footer has not effect in the main namespace. Placing {{Dhr|25em-30em}} in the text body below the poems to emulate a full page is problematic in transclusion and printing. Just leave it as is. — Ineuw talk 13:27, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Parading my erudition

Pardon me, but do you suppose that the Mad Hatter character in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland (1866) was based on Author:William Rowan Hamilton? ResScholar (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Funny but no. He wasn't a hatter. Hatters slowly went mad due to mercury poisoning. Mercury was used to soften the hides for hats. —Maury (talk) 17:41, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

These Scripts

Scripts

    Custom regex
    header [z]
    clean up [x]
    uc
    hwe
    Custom regex
    title [t]
    author [a]
    author (surname first) [,]
    small-caps [c]
    upper [^]
    hws
    makeref
    makeoverflow1
    makeoverflow2
    footer [f]
    pagename

What are the above scripts - what are each used for and - how did they get on my sidebar as shown when I am editing text? —Maury (talk) 18:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

'Custom regex' was written by Pathoschild, and provides both a tool for regular expression-based find-and-replace, and the underlying framework that the other scripts use. I wrote the remaining scripts, which perform various convenience functions e.g. if you highlight "THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER" and click "Title", the text will be changed to "[[The Man from Snowy River|THE MAN FROM SNOWY RIVER]]". You added these scripts to your sidebar yourself on 11 March 2012.[14] Hesperian 00:24, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Wow! I added them!? I do not remember it and am baffled. Scripts are wonderful when one understands what they do and yet I added these and didn't know what they were or how to use them? I don't know where they came from. I must have added one thing that I saw somewhere thinking I needed it but until recently I do not recall ever seeing them. My spell checker in this updated version of Firefox disappeared. I saw on my watch-list where Ineuw did something with my common.js and therefore started looking for my spell checker when I first spotted this Script. I asked him to remove whatever he had done without telling or asking me what he had done and he did. I strongly felt he had messed something up due to this and due to a note he wrote about scripts, how some of mine were out-dated &c in my common.js file, including one you wrote (I think) 1+1=2 the sudden missing of spell checker, note on my common.js, emailed me a backup of my former common.js.txt and sighting of this Script that I knew nothing about. I understand what some of these showing do but I had no recall of ever seeing them before yesterday. I hereby do sincerely apologize to Ineuw and thank you for the explanation. I must be getting very, very old and with memory loss! Shrug, oh Lord, this world and one more.... —Maury (talk) 01:02, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Questions relating to Mediawiki extensions

IN GENERAL: I am exploring Mediawiki extensions which have the appearance of HTML tags like <poem> etc. Aside from increasing general knowledge, I am particularly interested in what constitutes "classes," and which CSS definitions are usable with these extensions.

IN PARTICULAR: Is there a compact list of Mediawiki extensions (particularly relating to text formatting)? — Ineuw talk 20:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

All installed extensions are listed at Special:Version, and installed extensions should have a link to their homepage, eg. mw:Extension:Poem, and if not then we can bugzilla to get links added. Re adding classes or css, it is hit and miss. I find them not overly documented, so I just try where it is a formatting type extension and see whether it works or not (soooo very scientific).

Extensions that have been coded are listed at Mediawiki. I am unaware of any compact list there, though there may be some categorisation there that will assist. You can always look view their Extension: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I have been going over the Special pages\Version and it has most of what I wanted to know except classes and css as stated above . So, trial and error it is. Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 05:43, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: for information about the classes that are hidden away in some deep crevice of wikimedia, eg. plainlinks, I remember at some time seeing some explanatory pages at mw: about classes and ids. It would be worthwhile you doing some searches over there to see what is about, and adding to any local help pages here with any good findings. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Might I suggest if you are looking for class definitions, starting at MediaWiki:Common.css and its cascaded inclusions, MediaWiki:Common.css/Tweaks.css, MediaWiki:Common.css/Boxes.css, MediaWiki:Common.css/Lists.css and (believe it or not) User:George_Orwell_III/common.css/dynimg.css. You won't necessarily find everything there, but almost certainly most classes. AuFCL (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh and with regard Billinghurst's teaser of where class="plainlinks" is defined this (truly horrendous) URL might help, as it delivers that class (and others) to my browser. As it includes references to both gadgets and skins I expect it may be usefully pruned (quite a lot! And don't expect the output to be pretty either.) AuFCL (talk) 01:07, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Are we looking for this --> https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/admin/projects/  ? Scroll down a bit and you'll find all the additional extensions not standardized in the core but still commonly found from one wiki to another (like our ProofreadPage extension for example). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:49, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for taking the time to search and find possible answers.— Ineuw talk 17:48, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Iran Air Flight 655 investigation.djvu

And another item proofread. Validate anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty to add this document to the validation queue. The fact that it's a small doc of ~60 pages makes it an attractive do. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 17:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

There are a number of hand corrections from (C) to (U) on my page; should these not be noted in some way?--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Prosfilaes: Sorry, but I don't understand your question. That is if it's directed at me.— Ineuw talk 21:13, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It was directed at the people working on this book; we have pages like Page:Iran_Air_Flight_655_investigation.djvu/84 where hand-written corrections were silently added to the proofed copy, and I thought they should probably be noted.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:20, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

fwiw... those handwritten "changes" deal with the classification authority &/or status (U=unclassified, C=confidential, S=secret). Sometimes the sub-section ((b)(1)) of the governing Executive Order in force at the time justifying changes are also cited.

The point here is all handwritten changes are technically post-July 1988 so what you really have there is 2 versions in one work. How to handle that is open for debate - especially in this case where the "stamp" at the header & footer of most pages did not come thru in scanning (deals with governing EO #, gives dates, authorities, etc.)

See Page:Pentagon-Papers-Index.djvu/1 for another example of "duality" in one work; original content was created in the 1960s/70s but the version released to the public was done in ~2011. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:39, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I also wasn't sure about the redaction size in places.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:43, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-24

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 (1.24wmf8) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 5. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 10, and to all Wikipedias on June 12 (calendar).
• You can now use guided tours on the Arabic (ar), Bengali (bn) and Norwegian (no) Wikipedias. If you want this tool on your wiki, you need to translate it and ask in Bugzilla. [15] [16]

VisualEditor news

• You should no longer be able to add empty references with VisualEditor. [17] [18]
• The "use an existing reference" button in the reference tool is now shown as disabled, rather than hidden, when the reference has content. [19] [20] [21]
• You will now see category contents again after saving an edit to a category page with VisualEditor. [22] [23]

Future software changes

• MediaViewer will be enabled by default on all wikis on June 12. Feedback is welcome. [24]
• You will be able to use information from Wikidata directly in Wikiquote pages starting on June 10. [25]
• On wikis with the Translate extension enabled, translation administrators will soon be able to use the page migration tool to import existing translations to the new system. [26] [27]
• You will soon see metadata on file description pages for Ogg files (example video, example audio). Some metadata with non-English characters may need to be purged or transcoded to UTF-8 before they show correctly. [28] [29]
• Templates containing <ref> or <references> tags will no longer need dummy parameters to prevent caching. [30] [31] [32]
• You will no longer be able to use Special:Thanks directly. The page will soon show an error message when you visit it. [33] [34]
• Hovercards will no longer flicker. [35]

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

07:39, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Collection extension not working again?

It was reported that the book tool was no longer incompatible with the ProofreadPage extension, with the exception of Labeled Section Transclusion. But... is that true? Try downloading the book I've just saved and you'll see that nothing is rendered for <pages> tags.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

@Erasmo Barresi: time to bugzilla it, as it similarly appears that way for me. The Epub wsexport still works fine (thankfully). We may wish to neuter the link as an interim measure. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:02, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

bugzilla:66597--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:48, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Leaflet For Wikisource At Wikimania 2014

Hi all,

My name is Adi Khajuria and I am helping out with Wikimania 2014 in London.

One of our initiatives is to create leaflets to increase the discoverability of various wikimedia projects, and showcase the breadth of activity within wikimedia. Any kind of project can have a physical paper leaflet designed - for free - as a tool to help recruit new contributors. These leaflets will be printed at Wikimania 2014, and the designs can be re-used in the future at other events and locations.

This is particularly aimed at highlighting less discoverable but successful projects, e.g:

• Active Wikiprojects: Wikiproject Medicine, WikiProject Video Games, Wikiproject Film

• Tech projects/Tools, which may be looking for either users or developers.

• Less known major projects: Wikinews, Wikidata, Wikivoyage, etc.

• Wiki Loves Parliaments, Wiki Loves Monuments, Wiki Loves ____

• Wikimedia thematic organisations, Wikiwomen’s Collaborative, The Signpost

For more information or to sign up for one for your project, go to:
Project leaflets
Adikhajuria (talk) 09:37, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick question for a US collaborator

Can someone in the US please tell me the half-title and full-title of this work?: http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/012445644

The English and American editions of this work are half-titled A London Life and Other Tales, but full-titled A London Life, The Patagonia, The Liar, Mrs. Temperly. I understand this Continental edition omits "The Patagonia", so I speculate that it is still half-titled A London Life and Other Tales, but full-titled A London Life, The Liar, Mrs. Temperly.

Hesperian 01:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Hesperian, I have sent the title to your e-mail. Respects, —Maury (talk) 01:51, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015000534751;view=1up;seq=376

A London life. The Patagonia. The liar. Mrs. Temperly.
By: James, Henry, 1843-1916.
Published: (1976)

A London life, The Patagonia, The liar, Mrs. Temperly, by Henry James.
James, Henry, 1843-1916.
English
London, Macmillan, 1889.

Note: The last of the above tales originally appeared under a different name.

4 p. l., 366, [2] p. 20 cm.

—Maury (talk) 01:57, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Leipzig, Heinemann and Balestier; 1891.
Note:"Mrs. Temperly" originally appeared under the title "Cousin Maria" in Harper's weekly, August 1887.

Is this what you wanted? I am willing to get the entire book for you if you want it. — —Maury (talk)

Thanks heaps Maury. I already have a copy to work on at Index:A London Life, The Patagonia, The Liar, Mrs Temperly.djvu. I'm just trying to untangle the various editions for when I have to make the versions page. A two-volume first edition printed on Globe octavo was issued in England in early April1889 — only England, despite being listed on the title page as "London and New York: Macmillan and Co." In late April a one-volume edition was printed on Crown octavo and issued in both England and America. The American issue was allowed to appear to be a first edition, but the English issue had a "New edition" note added to the full-title verso, making it a second edition. So far so good figuring all that out. I just needed to know where the 1991 Continental edition fitted in. Thanks again! Hesperian 02:36, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

You are always welcome for whatever I can do for you, Hesperian. Over the years here you have always been good to me as well as well-mannered. Respects, —Maury (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Index talk remarks template

The {{Index talk remarks}} template currently looks like this:

I'm just wondering if anyone else is bothered by that extra space before the exclaimation mark in "established!"? I know it's a very minor thing, and it's only visible to editors so doesn't matter that much, but every time I look at an index page it bothers me! Should I just get over it?

I have brought this up on the talk page, and User:George Orwell III has replied that it doesn't matter. I guess I'm just flogging this dead horse because typographical errors bother me! Sorry. Please just tell me to get over it, if I'm being too silly. Thanks! (And I'm not going to say anything about the word-spacing.)

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 02:33, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I can't for the life of me think why the kerning was overridden for that one character gap! I've removed it for now. I suppose George will revert and explain if it turns out there be method in this madness. Hesperian 02:41, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Looks better. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:03, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Reverted. The purpose was no such thing as 'it doesn't matter' - the "annoyance" is to insure User: attention is paid before the typical series of editorial "mistakes" are made when new contribtors enter a project already in progress where editing pointers have been put into place. I've explained this more than once now and Sam seems to be taking advantage of the previous Scriptorium discussion concerning this being archived to subvert the intended - and previously rationally explained - purpose. We've even cut down the gimmicks to just this one at an attempt to appease his concerns - which he seemed to accept at the time as well. So what gives now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Interesting. I never pay any attention to that one space. I see the bright, orange circular images and think of how pretty they look. —Maury (talk) 04:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh I'm really not trying to stir trouble! Sorry. I really do understand the idea of drawing attention to the talk page and the formatting guidelines there. Doing so is a good thing. The only reason that I'm mentioning the typography is that it looks like a mistake! And this site doesn't need mistakes in typography. :-) The whole point of having the {{mbox}} templates (in this case {{ombox}}) is so that messages/warnings/etc. have the same appearance throughout the site. Wikisource isn't exclusively about typography, but surely we all agree that the spaces between letters and punctuation and words do matter? :) Consistency throughout Wikisource is a good thing in my opinion; it helps with communication.

Could I respectfully suggest the following? (It's just an idea.)

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:29, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

In some cases the proofreader will be experienced enough to know which kinds of debatable questions there are on how to format, once he or she has taken a brief look at the way it's already been formatted. He or she can look at those guides when a such a question crops up.

In other cases, however, it will be appropriate to read the formatting guides beforehand, so I agree with both tags.

This distinction is about to have practical consequences. Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu is at the top of the validation queue, and will be a case of the second kind, from what I've gathered from listening to Charles Matthews. On the project discussion page, he's outlined some of his ideas for the best way to proceed (which may even call for re-validation). These ideas, however, have not made their way into a formatting guide on the Index discussion page. And this is a special case where instructions would be appropriate on the Proofread of the Month page and maybe even the Scriptorium. ResScholar (talk) 08:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Good point. Would it be suitable to put the DNB formatting guidelines in a template and stick that on each Index page? Or at least a pointer to the project page?

Also, it seems that the exclamation mark that I was being so pedantic about above has now been removed. :-) Thanks Billinghurst!

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:03, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what Charles Matthews wants to work on yet. I haven't asked him. I don't want to bother him open-ended questions about where the guide should go or what else should go in the guide, especially if he's busy getting ready for Wikimania, so it might take a while for me to come up with appropriate questions to get together the info our editors will need to know. ResScholar (talk) 07:22, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

No worries! Of course. :) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 07:29, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I put some DNB specific text together and have my bot appending it to the respective Index talk: pages of the 70 DNB volumes. That should show the box on the Index pages. No need to have the template be specific. If there is more needed, then we should template the summary help text, and we can paste that in its place. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikisource usage statistics; enWS hits visually classified according to type of page accessed through a pie chart

I've never seen statistics on the various Wikimedia statistics websites that show the breakdown into groups of the actual usage of the server. So here it is! The data is based on two 24-hour periods in 2011 and 2012, and note that this doesn't show the popularity of various projects on Wikisource in a particularly readable way, but it does include major ones as fairly small parts of the whole server use. If in the future I were to show our projects in a more readable way by excluding hits not having to do with content, I would want to use more recent data, but as for the full picture, I would expect it to remain pretty much the same, so I probably won't bother to redo this chart with newer data if I do make a new chart presenting those project classes. DNB00 stands for the main section of the [British] Dictionary of National Biography. ResScholar (talk) 04:38, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Very cool! I don't know where you got your data, but if it is anything like the "typically available", its not very accurate. See how large the Special: namespace is? Its probably due to over-inflated counts to stuff like Special:HideBanners (more here-> over 830k page views in last 90 days). -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:11, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The whole pie represents 541,996 hits and the largest two Special: pages were autologin (93,546; 17.3% of total pie) and hidebanners (953; 0.2% of total pie). There were 271,250 different pages accessed. ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for not being more clear, Special:HideBanners is only the most recent (~2014) "null" page recieving a gigantic number of [false] hits. I'm quite sure something similar would come up highly ranked in error over a course of days if not months in 2011/12. The other point I wanted to get across is these kind of non-existant pages should default to their proper error messages - Special:HideBannersX "defaults" properly while Special:HideBanners does not; appearing to be a legit part of the code at somepoint that hasn't been entirely removed & thus 'exploited'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:21, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned something similar at the top of the Administrators' Noticeboard. Do you think it's the same thing? ResScholar (talk) 08:02, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

It fits alright. From what I've observed to date, the pattern causing hundreds of thousands of [faux] hits seems to "rotate" every so often amongst such page oddities as HideBanners as part of whatever it is "they" are up to at the moment. And as far as I can tell, Special:HideBanners should only come up if a cookie for donating has been executed (via CommonSettings.php?) on donate.wikimedia.org (I doubt that is case given the insane number of hits) -- I can't even tell if that donation component is still needed & not long deprecated or something. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:20, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay, so now. ....

Okay, that was easy as pi ain't square so now list every book by popularity - the # of hits it gets. —Maury (talk) 05:23, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Historical Works of Venerable Bede vol. 2.djvu

And another work trannscribed. Would really appreciate someone taking a second look at the dates in the Appendix with a view to standarding them for anchors. Thanks. I also note 2 pages in the index I don't feel confident about transcribing due to page quality. Anyone here got a better eye for eading poor scans.?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:18, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

If that's an example of your proofreading standard, we're in big trouble, with all the work you've done. ResScholar (talk) 04:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Is this one of those situations where irony is being lost in translation, as it were? :) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 04:47, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I think he's saying, I've missed some typos.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

And he's right, I found plenty on a second pass. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah! Cool. Always the way. :) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 23:46, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-25

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

Reminder

• You can subscribe to the wikitech-ambassadors mailing list to get news more quickly and to send feedback or report problems.

Recent software changes

• The latest version of MediaWiki (1.24wmf9) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 12. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 17, and to all Wikipedias on June 19 (calendar).
• You can now read a summary of the Wikimedia technical report for May 2014.

VisualEditor news

• You can now easily see the target of a link or other information using the context menu. [36]
• When you edit a reference, you can now empty it and click the "use an existing reference" button to switch it to re-use another reference. [37] [38]
• You can now add and edit {{DISPLAYTITLE}} and __DISAMBIG__ in the page settings menu. [39] [40] [41] [42]
• The tool to insert special characters is now wider and simpler; the order of mathematical symbols is now correct. [43] [44] [45]

Future software changes

• Media Viewer will be enabled by default on all wikis on June 19. Feedback is welcome. [46]
• You will no longer be able to use navigation popups and Hovercards at the same time. [47]
• You will no longer see image thumbnails on search results pages on Wikibooks and Wikisource wikis. [48] [49]
• It will soon be possible to globally rename global (SUL) users. [50] [51]
• Tablet users will be redirected to the mobile view of Wikimedia wikis starting on June 17. [52]
• The special page that lists most linked-to templates will soon include pages from all namespaces; it will also be renamed to Special:MostTranscludedPages. [53]
• An IRC discussion about Phabricator will take place on June 17 at 17:30 UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). You can also read a blog post about the upcoming switch to Phabricator.
• You can now comment on the draft 2014-15 goals of the Wikimedia Foundation engineering department. [54]

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

07:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Wikilink policy: how do we handle external links?

Last year a request for comment was conducted to establish the details of how the community wished to host derivative works on Wikisource. Now this has to written up as policy. I think the annotation policy and the wikilink policy should come into effect simultaneously, since the annotation policy needs the wikilink policy to determine what kinds of basic wikilinks do not count as annotations, and all the works containing non-basic wikilinks must also comply with the annotation policy.

But the community's suggestions are needed to decide how to handle links to non-Wikimedia sites. Should we allow them all or, conversely, ban them all? Should we only allow links to Wikilivres, or to sites that have been given a prefix, or to non-commercial sites? Or draw the line somewhere else? Take into account than any work containing such links would be clearly marked as annotated in the title and categorized as such. Please write your suggestions below.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 06:39, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

• I am happy for the content name spaces linkages to be limited to wikilinks + (maybe, controlled) WMF sites. However, there is a case for:

• No such restriction to apply to talk-spaces (as an aid to evolving research and general transient helpers.)
• Also consider making (say) Template: a special case on the basis sensitive templates can be protected individually, and (e.g. {{authority control}}?) there will be instances where specialised external linkage via a template will be entirely justifiable.

My 2¢. AuFCL (talk) 07:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

If we are talking

• the annotation perspective, then we are firmly wedged in the main ns, (so this answer is going to be a subset of external links) and we are talking in the body of the work, which I suspect would be very few cases
• where/how to externally link holistically through the site is a bigger topic than I would wish to tackle here, though the general answer is where it brings specific value to the work, or the page, generally an authoritative site/page, for a main talk page, to the source of a non-transcribed work, eg. gutenberg.

I suspect any policy/guidance that we prepare is going to take a while to wade through, and the edge cases will be interesting. A RFC is probably the way to progress. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Before everyone descends into acronym-Hell… wasn't the Requests for comment that Erasmo Barresi referred to at the top of this item the RFC you are calling for? Or is this all intended to be a do-over because the community couldn't get its act together the first time 'round? AuFCL (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Objection withdrawn in light of discussion below. I now see this is a new variant discussion. AuFCL (talk) 23:12, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I ought to clarify. We are only talking about annotated works in the main and Translation namespaces. The 2013 RfC was about derivative works in general, and it didn't specifically address the issue of what kinds of links would be allowed in an annotated work. That's what I'm asking for here. Here's the draft of the wikilink policy. [You can see my note: <Rules about external sites to be made>.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:57, 17 June 2014 (UTC)]--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, but your clarification has made me less certain what it is you want to discuss. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

The question is, "To what extent should external links be allowed in annotated works?". I'll make some examples:

• You're annotating a work that mentions another work which is hosted on Wikilivres rather than Wikisource due to copyright restrictions. Should you be allowed to link to it?
• You're annotating a contemporary work that mentions a blog post. Should you be allowed to link to it?
• You're annotating a contemporary work that mentions a YouTube video. Should you be allowed to link to it?

--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Technical Assistance

I would like to request a script that when viewing Page: namespace items in Special:Contributions , 2 "blobs" are shown by the relevant items, indicating the current (and when saved page status). I was starting to reviews some old efforts and wanted a fast way of seeing what I could reasonably avoid needing to check in depth again.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Twitter: WeAreWikipedia

The @WeAreWikipedia account on Twitter is run by a different Wikipedian each week. This week it's me, and I'm trying to include something about each sister project. Do drop by, and follow it if that's your thing. Pigsonthewing (talk) 14:41, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu Proofread.

OK. Anyone want to play hunt the typo? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

LMAO ! —Maury (talk) 08:32, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages I've validated

Hi Any chance of getting a list of pages this account of User:Sfan00_IMG validated?

I'd like to recheck some pages. 21:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

This shows all your Page-namespace edits with that account. I don't know if there is a way to only show validations.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:10, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Are you meaning those pages that you moved to stage of validated (4)? Are you meaning pages those pages that you moved to stage of proofread (3) or validated (4)? Some specificity of examples of exactly what you are desiring to see would help. It would be possible to generate a list of pages where you were the last to increase the page status, ie, if still at 3, and you did it, or took to 4. That data is stored in the pages' data, and can have a bot run through it. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Pages where User:ShakespeareFan00 or User:Sfan00_IMG changed the status from proofread (3) to Validated (4) (This includes pages subsequently reviewed by a third party.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

It also occured to me that a nice to have would be the ability to see the current status of a page in Special:Contributions. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:52, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Can someone verify this single page document?

It's been needing it for a while and I want to list it in a portal. Two Undescribed Specimens of Castoroides ohioensis Foster from Michigan. Abyssal (talk) 17:46, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

What precisely is the problem here? Is it the appearance of the yellow band beneath the title which is concerning you? If so, then simply validating Page:Two Undescribed Specimens of Castoroides ohioensis Foster from Michigan.pdf/1 ought to be sufficient to turn it green. As I was the initial proofreader of that page, logically mine should be the only logged-in user unable to perform this step (and that includes you.)

If the system is preventing you from doing so also then something is broken and ought to be reported as such. AuFCL (talk) 05:17, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Using only UploadWizard for uploads

Hello! It was noted that on this wiki upload is not fully functional for users, who will experience a very difficult and/or illegal uploading. In fact, the licenses/copyright tags dropdown is empty, making it hard or impossible to comply with copyright requirements during upload itself.

Presumably, you don't have interest nor energies to have hundreds templates with the now required HTML, even less a local EDP. I propose to have

• local "Upload file" restricted to the "Administrators" group (for emergency uploads) and
• the sidebar point to commons:Special:UploadWizard,

so that you can avoid local maintenance and all users can have a functioning, easy upload interface in their own language. All registered users can upload on Commons and existing files will not be affected.

All this will get done around 2014-07-03.

1. If you disagree with the proposal, just remove your wiki from the list. Remember also to create MediaWiki:Licenses locally with any content (see a simple example), or uploads will be soon disabled anyway by MediaWiki itself (starting in version 1.24wmf11).
2. To make the UploadWizard even better, please tell your experience and ideas on commons:Commons:Upload Wizard feedback.

Nemo 13:09, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose This is a bad solution to a problem enWS doesn't really have, isn't it? There is always going to be a need for some kind of local upload facility for non-privileged users, even if it is to share a screen-dump for debugging purposes which may be flushed the very next day. Whose job is this making easier at the expense of expending real thought? AuFCL (talk) 19:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't quite understand. It's better to upload to Commons than here, isn't it? Unless there's some specific reason (such as fair use, although I think that's just a WP thing). Why would we want files here that are accepted on Commons? Even the temp-file sharing scenario that AuFCL mentions could as easily happen on Commons, I think (I've certainly done that in the past). Unless I'm missing something, I think I  Support this change. :-)

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 03:12, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

We use uploads on Wikisource to make duplicate index pages for things like annotations and de-annotations. ResScholar (talk) 04:31, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

..and for public domain in the U.S. but not in its originating country. For example, start with this list (I am sure there will be others.) AuFCL (talk) 04:44, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: Two points may need to be driven home in case they are not already clear:

1. All File: entries on the prior list are stored locally (on enWS) not on Commons, and contain a warning note not to transfer them.
2. I am not against taking every effort to discourage local storage, or making people jump through reasonable hoops to justify doing so where appropriate. However I am concerned about the "slippery slope/thin end of the wedge" aspect of this proposal; thus my opposition to it. AuFCL (talk) 05:16, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I see what you mean AuFCL. Thanks for the clarification. I don't really see the need to prohibit local uploads, but yeah discouraging them seems sensible. Most people who are aware of the issues will know how to get to Special:Upload anyway, so just changing the main upload link (in the sidebar) seems like a good way to go. As for needing to create all the licence templates… surely there aren't that many, given the few reasons that exist for local uploads?

— Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:38, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Not keen—However, I'm not sure what is meant by the threat of MediaWiki 1.24 disallowing uploads anyway. Particularly as it was MediaWiki that deleted the page MediaWiki:Licenses as not required here. We already have all the license templates that we would need because every work's Mainspace page is supposed to have a license template on it showing why we can legitimately host the work. Additionally, while I usually use the UploadWizard on Commons because I want to upload more than one file at a time, it is flakey and falls over too easily. In terms of numbers of files we host directly, these are not large (155 DjVu, 77 Gif, 1.0k Jpg, 13 Ogg, 2 Ogv, 154 Pdf, 10k Png, 6 Svg, 2 Tif, 1 Xls, as at 30 April), which suggests to me that we don't have a real problem here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:57, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose On occasion, I upload screenshots of problems (for temporary display) that are particular to this wiki and community. I don't see the point of uploading them to the Commons, and then go through their process of deletion after the issue is resolved. Also, there is plenty of garbage on the Commons already. (At least our collection of the same is much smaller) .— Ineuw talk 09:09, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Yes, I see the issues now. :-) Quite unnecessary. — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 09:26, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

•  Oppose bloody rubbish. Changes are meant to be by community consensus, not this rude imposition. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose Ugh!, balderdash! —Maury (talk) 10:14, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

 Oppose As per all above. If no-one opposes, I think we can remove enwikisource from the list mentioned above... —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 11:49, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Done en.source Removed JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:45, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Cryptanlysis works

Is something like this in scope?

http://www.nsa.gov/public_info/_files/military_cryptanalysis/mil_crypt_I.pdf (it's about 120 pages - and is Part 1 of set of pre war notes about intermediate cryptanlyss which has seemingly been declassified.)

Anyone want to make some checks annd upload it to be transcribed? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:52, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see why it wouldn't be scope. It's got two physical pages for each PDF page, so someone should process it before uploading it.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:30, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Media Viewer is now live on this wiki

Media Viewer lets you see images in larger size

Greetings,

The Wikimedia Foundation's Multimedia team is happy to announce that Media Viewer was just released on this site today.

Media Viewer displays images in larger size when you click on their thumbnails, to provide a better viewing experience. Users can now view images faster and more clearly, without having to jump to separate pages — and its user interface is more intuitive, offering easy access to full-resolution images and information, with links to the file repository for editing. The tool has been tested extensively across all Wikimedia wikis over the past six months as a Beta Feature and has been released to the largest Wikipedias, all language Wikisources, and the English Wikivoyage already.

If you do not like this feature, you can easily turn it off by clicking on "Disable Media Viewer" at the bottom of the screen, pulling up the information panel (or in your your preferences) whether you have an account or not. Learn more in this Media Viewer Help page.

Please let us know if you have any questions or comments about Media Viewer. You are invited to share your feedback in this discussion on MediaWiki.org in any language, to help improve this feature. You are also welcome to take this quick survey in English, en français, o español.

We hope you enjoy Media Viewer. Many thanks to all the community members who helped make it possible. - Fabrice Florin (WMF) (talk) 21:54, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

--This message was sent using MassMessage. Was there an error? Report it!

Not seeing a sidebar in monobook for Special:UnconnectedPages

Just wondering if anyone else does not see the normal sidebar stuff when they are in the monobook skin [55]. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:12, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The sidebar is loading at the very bottom of the list under monobook for me too. Vector OK however. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:35, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Done -- Found it! Needed a closing DIV tag in MediaWiki:Wikibase-unconnectedpages-summary. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

<facepalm> thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Cirrus Search updates (with 1.24wmf10)

(Unchanged paste from the Wikitech-ambassadors mailing list — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 21 June 2014 (UTC))

• Categories will now be considered in result ranking which should improve results
  • We took a shortcut to get this deployed (much) more quickly and the consequences are that the incategory operator won't work for up to 24 hours after the deployment. We'll make this time as short as possible. If this is going to be a horrible pain then file a bug against Cirrus with the wiki you work on. We can either prioritize your wiki so the outage is very small or, if its a big enough deal, come up with a workaround.
• Text from the lead paragraph in the article will be given a boost when ranking results which should also improve results
  • This will take some time to roll onto the wikis after wmf10 because the index will have to be rebuilt. Days, likely.
  • I don't imagine this'll have any impact on wiktionary and commons but file a bug against Cirrus if it seems like it has a negative impact on results
• We're on track to add support for searching in article source including regular expressions. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch#insource: for more.
  • Like the lead paragraph the article source will take some time to roll into the index after the deployment.
  • Right now we haven't implemented snippet extraction from article source searches. You'll only get snippets back from the regular search terms. If you don't have any regular search terms you'll get back a snippet from the beginning of the article. I know this isn't ideal at all, and its on the list of things to fix.
• We'll cut all wikis over to a new snippet extractor
  • You should only notice improvements in the snippets generated but if you see any trouble file a bug against Cirrus

As a follow up, there is some sort of descriptive detail at gitWMF though it takes a little wading. While I can see that there is capacity for us to build more intelligent searches, the how and where still somewhat escapes me. I can see that we could do more at disambiguation pages. We can probably do something better for author pages. Categorisation has never been our strongest point, so some of that is going to be less effective. Maybe there is some customisation that we can do at the general search pages that presents some options.

On a similar note, if there is functionality that we think could be useful, then we should be looking to put forward our ideas though bugzilla requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Index talk:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu

I've given a very quick pass through the images used on this- see talk page linked. Can someone with access to the relevant source libraries comment, so that appropriate redactions can be made in the source file?

The text itself is fine. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:22, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-26

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 (1.24wmf10) was added to test wikis and MediaWiki.org on June 19. It will be added to non-Wikipedia wikis on June 24, and to all Wikipedias on June 26 (calendar).

VisualEditor news

• You can now drag-and-drop selections of content, not just files and templates. [56] [57]
• When dragging an item, you will now see a line that helps you to drop it. [58] [59]
• You can now only move an image to the start of a paragraph, not to the middle of it, so you don't accidentally split it. [60] [61]
• You will now be warned if you add wikitext to file captions and references. [62] [63]

Future software changes

• You will no longer be able to upload files on wikis that do not have any copyright tags. [64] [65]
• CirrusSearch will be enabled as the primary search method on additional 70 new wikis, including Meta-Wiki and Wikimedia Incubator, during the next week. [66]
• CirrusSearch results will soon take into account categories, the first paragraph and the wikitext of a page. You will also be able to use regular expressions to search the wikitext. It will take a few days for the changes to be enabled on all wikis. [67]
• You will soon be able to watch translations for e-mail notifications without receiving an e-mail when they are reviewed by another translator. [68] [69]
• An IRC meeting to organize old high priority MediaWiki bug reports will take place on June 24 at 17:00 UTC on the channel #wikimedia-office on freenode (time conversion). [70]

Problems

• On June 19, all wikis were broken for about 15 minutes due to a high server load.
• Between June 13 and June 15 there were problems with the scaling of video files due to a configuration error. [71]

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

07:20, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Should {{w}} be deprecated?

I noticed in passing that {{wikipedia}} is already deprecated, and that set me wondering why {{w}} (being only a simpler form of the other) is not subject to the same treatment? I have no problem keeping it if this issue has already been explored. AuFCL (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

"Wikipedia" is the box, and it was the sister boxes and their irregular sizes that were problematic (initially). "w" is used for inline linking, and that still happens, eg. Royal Navy ships, etc. So that hasn't been deprecated, though would fall under our annotation policy and related aspects. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:07, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Aha! I understand now. Query withdrawn. Thanks. AuFCL (talk) 00:12, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Wind in the Willows.djvu

Per some comments on my talk page, I've paused on updating this because I'd seriously misunderstood the style guide. Thusly I'd been updating the quotation style, against what the style guide ACTUALLY said.

Suitably trouted, I'd appreciate the assistance of some other people here in getting it to : i) a consistent state. ii) a 'validated' state.

Whilst a simple roll back could do this, because of some other minor fixes noted in the course of doing the (wrong) update, a roll back would remove some minor fixes I noted at the same time. :(

The start of the trouble - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Wind_in_the_Willows.djvu/16&oldid=4939489 The most recent revision-id is - https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ShakespeareFan00&oldid=4940434 Which is a convenient block for rollback if anyone wants to do that. (I can easily put the minor fixes back in.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:19, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Now you get it straight.--Mpaa (talk) 19:59, 24 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, It's largely proofread, and for obvious reasons I can't self validate.ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Scripts for flagging tedious minor corrections whilst proofreading.

In a private discussion on IRC, I raised the possibility of using tool assisted scripts to highlight potential issues with text on pages to be proofread such as "smart quotes", and mismatched brackets.

Are there other common issues that could be automatically flagged up? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:49, 24 June 2014 (UTC)