Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-02

Proposals

Switch header template foundation from table-based to division-based

The proposal entails the replacement of the current Header template familiar to most with a structurally redesigned new Header template. Replacement is a needed first step in series of steps needed to properly address the long time deficiencies behind several issues as well as enhance our mobile device presence.

There should be no significant operational or visual differences between the existing and proposed Header templates under normal usage (i.e. Desktop view). The change is entirely structural -- moving away from the existing HTML all Table make-up to an all Div[ision] based one.

Please examine the testcases where the current template is compared to the proposed replacement. Don't forget to also check Mobile Mode from the testcases page -- which is where the differences between current header template & proposed header template will be hard to miss.

For those who are concerned over the possible impact replacement might have on specific works, you can test the replacement on your own by entering edit mode, substituting the header tag {{header with {{header/sandbox and then previewing the work with the change in place. Saving the page with the change in place should not be needed but if you opt to save the page instead of just previewing it, please remember to revert the change soon after your done inspecting the results.

Your questions or comments are welcomed. At the same time I personally urge participants to support this proposed change. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support – I have checked a few other unusual edge cases—e.g. Song of Songs (Bible), The miscellaneous botanical works of Robert Brown/Volume 1/A brief account of microscopical observations made on the particles contained in the pollen of plants—and am satisfied that the output is identical. Therefore I support the proposal. For those who have no idea why divs are better than tables, and why you should care, the first dozen or so slides of this might help. Hesperian 03:18, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support Sounds like a good idea. Tables are for tabular data, not layout. :) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 06:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support This is great.—Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:36, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support I trust you and your ideas George. Just remember there are beginners here and I am one of them. —Maury (talk) 17:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support--Mpaa (talk) 17:13, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support I am encouraged to see in the examples for EB1911 that apparently Wikipedia links will be handled as before. Many times multiple links are required, and the icon approach with the non-transparent single link I don't think makes it in this situation. This is what we are currently stuck in with CNE, and it results in multiple links being handled asymmetrically, with one being unreadable. The other thing I would like to see handled for collective works is being able to specify an author for a section, with it clearly indicated that the author is just for the section and not for the work as a whole. Library Guy (talk) 18:11, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

@Library Guy: Authors of sections is already supported with the contributor field in header template. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. Library Guy (talk) 15:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support — Ineuw talk 18:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support — It looks better and it is simpler! This is like a dream :) --Zyephyrus (talk) 18:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Support—I've checked behaviour of a work-specific header that's based on the generic header and it looks good to me. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:04, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support—Looks like progress to me. Hywel Dda (talk) 16:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 Support -- DutchTreat (talk) 10:16, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘

Update 1/19/2015: — Based upon the responses above, the proposed switch to an all-DIV based common main-space header has been implemented as of this post. Please continue to post your observations and/or questions - particularly for those visiting us in mobile mode - in a new sub-section(s) below this one as we move forward from this point on.

Thanks to all who have participated in this proposal and more is sure to follow in the coming weeks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:52, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

Import the Early English Books Online project (Phase I)

The EEBO phase I is a corpus of over 25,000 texts from the first books published in English in the 1400s up to the year 1700. These are high-quality keyed texts, not OCR. They have just released the whole of phase I under a Creative Commons License with limited XML markup. These can be downloaded from this repository. I suggest that somebody with the know how import them here.--Brett (talk) 20:35, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide an institutional link where the release under Creative Commons can be confirmed, the link you give is a file-share site NOT the actual institution responsible? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:49, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Will this do?--Brett (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you. The reason for asking is to do with fussy people at Commons.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:41, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Other discussions

Index:The Botanical Magazine, Volume 2 (1788).djvu

Is it just me going crazy or are Index's not previewable right now? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:28, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

also when doing a preview of a page I KNOW is a proofread (Yellow band) I get a RED one? Anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:33, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

All looks fine. Sounds like you have a connection issue, and where a page exists but cannot connect it is serving a cached version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm having a similar problem right now in that the text layer of files is not showing up in the edit window. It isn't a connection or cache issue at my end, as far as I can determine. Could it be a result of today's software update? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:40, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

Eventually this turned out to be related to live preview 17:37, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Index:The cutters' practical guide to the cutting of ladies' garments.djvu

Any "volunteers" to typeset the adverts at the back of this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:29, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Per comments left on my talk page ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:38, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Requesting scan of missing Mary Wollstonecraft work

Over at w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Newsroom/Suggestions#The Lives They Lived: Wadewitz there's discussion about the notice of the recent passing, this past year, of the editor named. She seemed to have some interest in the work of Mary Wollstonecraft, given her user page there at w:User:Wadewitz. I still have trouble figuring out exactly how to create a scan page, but if anyone wants to set one up for one of the missing or incomplete Mary Wollstonecraft works, preferably one she did one of her FA or GA quality articles there about, I can try to start a transcription of it. John Carter (talk) 23:16, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Here's one that exists already —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:Original stories from real life 1796.pdf Anyone? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:00, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

@John Carter: @ShakespeareFan00: Adrianne is a friend of mine. I started on the easy parts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

Pardon my ignorance.

What's the difference between these two categories?

• Volume list templates

• Scanned volume navigation templates

Thanks, --Rochefoucauld (talk) 03:58, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

There isn't any, they can be merged. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 30 December 2014 (UTC)

Done--Mpaa (talk) 20:31, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Book of the Damned (Fort, 1919).djvu

Typed this up a while back, any one care to write an editions page or compare it with the existing version in Article Space? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:34, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

To me it looks the same. I would replaced the current one with the transclusion of this scan.--Mpaa (talk) 12:49, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Trevor Allen

Who was (and when did he live) Trevor Allen, author of Underworld : The Biography of Charles Brooks, Criminal (1931) and Ivar Kreuger : match king, croesus, and crook (1932)? The years of his birth or death are missing from the British Library, the Library of Congress, and Worldcat. These two books are biographies of criminals, published in London. Perhaps he was an English journalist? Three Google Books snippet hits indicates that "His books include We Loved in Bohemia, Roads to Success. Jade Elephants, Ivar Kreuger, Underworld, London Lover" and that he "was formerly editor of London Opinion and features editor of The Daily Chronicle" and "reporter with Westminster Gazette, News Chronicle and The Observer". Is there a register of British journalists or a list of members of some guild or trade union? --LA2 (talk) 11:39, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Full name Albert Thomas Trevor Allen, died in 1983. See here for more info. Hrishikes (talk) 12:18, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, very useful! --LA2 (talk) 12:22, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Copyright Sanity check (Protect and Survive)

We don't on Wikisource appear to have a copy so I went looking for one on Archive.org Found one here:- which claims to be PD. - [https://archive.org/details/ProtectAndSurvive_94

So I checked the rear page, which says it's a 1980 Crown Copyright work.

Whilst this has not expired, would it be covered by OGL? (There was also a concern that this wasn't necessarily formally published as such, even though other archive sites have reproduced it.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:25, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

You love to make life complicated. The IA page specifically states that it is released under Creative Commons license: Public Domain Mark 1.0. Also, I believe you live in the UK, and this being a Crown Publication, you would be in a prefect position to check if such publications are in the public domain. — Ineuw talk 18:03, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it's fully PD. As I said I think it's OGL at best. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:54, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The IA page is completely not authoritative. The Community Texts section of the Internet Archive is user-uploaded and every bit as reliable license-wise as if someone had uploaded it straight here, probably less since the uploaders know that IA doesn't police that.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:41, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Plans to move Cite configuration from wikitext messages to CSS styles

I would just like to point out to an email to a mailing list last December that talked about some of the technical plans to deal with updating the creaking mw:Extension:Cite

• References made using Cite will be configurable with a different system
• New approach being prototyped in Parsoid's native implementation of the Cite extension

For all the detail, please see Wikitech-l: BREAKING CHANGE Plans to move Cite configuration from wikitext messages to CSS styles

— billinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Its not clear to me if they mean the Special:CiteThisPage thingy or the RefTools bundle like they have on Wikipedia (which I'm not sure if anybody here is actually using). If its the latter... here's how to bypass the whole thing -- works on WP; should work here too.

/* refToolbar specific */
window.refToolbarInstalled = 'bypass';

George Orwell III (talk) 12:20, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

No, Extension:Cite is <ref> and <references/>, so this is our footnotes and endnotes.— billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Tsk, is that all? My initial complaint from wiki-birth 'till today -- "no way to switch current alpha & roman counter items with trailing (the suffix) dot to use parenthesized ones instead" because ⚠ Warning: @counter-style currently works only on Firefox 33+ problem?

Are you telling me this parsoid thing is not only going make the language specific counter-styles work for everybody but also for the types like I've needed for too many years now? I really only need

@counter-style alpha-modified {
	system: extends lower-alpha;
	prefix: "(";
	suffix: ") ";
}

...to work. I've tried every 3 to 4 months with no luck (under IE) every time.

Sorry too good to be true & feels... like... smoke... is... once... again... being... blown... up... my... George Orwell III (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

How you smoke or burst into flame is your own business. All I am is the bearer of a message, not more (see opening statement). Follow the links, ask the questions for the reality of it all. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Wikisource Community User Group

Aubrey and Micru are seeking feedback about the m:Wikisource Community User Group to which many in the English WS community have not paid much attention. The second report for the user group is in preparation, and both Aubrey and Micru have needs for other commitments, so are seeking further input and leadership from others in the WSes.

Please read his email in the mailing list January archives and please consider adding any broader achievements to the report in preparation at m:Wikisource Community User Group/2014 Report. We are a community of significant size in the Wikisource space, and we have led in many ways by the sheer fact of our number of contributors. There are many learnings that we can share with our interlanguage cousins, and there is more that we can do to advocate the value and benefit of the Wikisource community. If you feel that you want to assist in the development of the community, then the mailing list is a good place to contribute. Success in WsCUG promotes our site in the popularity, and the outcomes, which is why many of us are here. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

LST

"Easy LST is now a default enabled Gadget -- The simplified syntax for section labeling in the Page: namespace is now a selectable Gadget in your User: Preferences. If you've been contributing to Wikisource using this "easy" method for labeling prior to this - you don't need to do anything in response to this change. Easy LST will work just as it did before. For those User:s who prefer contributing to Wikisource using the standard (or Old) section labeling syntax, simply disable the Gadget in your User: Preferences. Please post any questions or comments to the Central discussion page."

I have always used the old method. I did suggest and use the script to protect eyes though. I do not know what the new editor looks like and I have a big concern about trying new things here (codes) that I don't use. My concern is that if I try to change anything I will mess something up and lose what I do have now.

Maury, this is not like previous instances where "code" was manipulated in the "raw". Gadgetizing something just means all of that raw-code type of nonsense has already been whittled down for you and all that is required is selecting or deselecting a checkbox more often than not.

Go to your User: Preferences HERE, scroll down until you see section dealing with tools for the Page namespace and un-select the entry for Easy LST: Enable the easy section labeling syntax in the Page: namespace. Remember to save your changes at the bottom of that page before you leave it. Thats it; you are done. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

I understand and have always understood the word "Gadget" and what they are here and I use them. Throw codes into a "BAG" name it, squeeze it to hear it scream. —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(1)Old way or new way, I am concerned about code and the acronym that goes with new codes developed under each acronym. Therefore, what is "LST" and whatever it is it should not be written as "Easy LST" unless that is it's full name.

The culprit behind the terms used is long gone. Fwiw... Labeled Section Transclusion is not Wikisource specific -- just about every Wiki____ whatever can do it -- but we rely on more than the others.

The hope was using symbols (### & such) instead of beginning and ending section tags (in 2 below) would be easier to work with because symbols don't need translating into any other language. They sold that lack of initiative as some sort of "enhancement". All it did was eat resources and compound the translation issues for every Wikisource. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(Have read) —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(2) "method for labeling" -- "labeling" what? I don't know the meaning of it here.

You know it as... <section begin="blah blah" . . .text text text. . . <section end="blah blah . The blah blah is the label of the section we wish to transclude in certain cases. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC)(Have read)—Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

(3) I still cannot widen the book's pages I edit. I have had to do without it and that was a very good option. —Maury (talk) 03:47, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Thats a reality for everybody. There is a Bug report already filed asking if it can be restored but its not likely to happen any time soon -- if ever -- I'll paste it here the next time I trip over it looking for something else to fix. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 22 December 2014 (UTC) (I did not know others here are missing the option of widening to transcribe! I felt like I was the only person here with that problem. I had been using it often because, alas!, my eyes are giving out at times due to diabetes. So, a larger page to transcribe was a grand cup of tea for me and then it disappeared. I thought I had messed something up. When enlarging a .jpg page I have to move the page.jpg around or as I prefer and do, I download the page.jpg and use an image reader to enlarge that .jpg page and look at that as half screen and look here on WS for the area to transcribe. I thank you kindly, George, and again I hope and pray that not only do you and your loved ones have Happy Holidays -- a happy rest of your life -- for everyone here and their families as well. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:51, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

 Comment where was the discussion about this change? I wasn't aware that we stopped having discussions and arriving at consultation prior to making a change. This is a very clumsy implementation as there is ZERO guidance on what is LST, what is easy LST, and what is old LST. This is exactly why we should discuss and plan things, than just into an implementation based on the consensus of one. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:10, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

+1 Billinghurst. Ironically this is also how I felt when "easy LST" was first foisted upon us. That too was done without discussion; and we had no recourse, as no amount of community opinion can force an extension developer to roll back a code patch. Very frustrating. Hesperian 12:24, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Merry Christmas? Consider this the roll-back 5 years in the making (I not all that smart; just persistent). The only thing that has changed is attention has been drawn to something that's been in effect for ~5 years and in the manner in which it now loads. When this was first pushed on us, regular (or "old") LST was just an extension available to all on WS whether it was used or not (of course its key to doing our transcription work).

Easy LST came along and overrode that default -- one that could not be stopped from loading -- again whether one used it or not. The only alternative was to opt out via a gadget (so everybody loaded "Old" LST only be overriden without choice by Easy LST only to be opted out of by choice by most -- I say "most" cause I can't get hard numbers on who-uses what-gadget thanks to Developer Dept. of Secrets).

Now that Easy LST is a gadget itself rather than a choice to opt-out-of after the fact, nobody is forced to accept the resource "hit" unless they want to use it. More choice is always better and that is what we get with this change.

Recap for those technically retarded like myself:

• BEFORE - Tick (enable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST
• AFTER - unTick (disable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST

Everything else to be said (or already said) in this matter are just semantics. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

┌──────┘
 Comment² I.C.B. If either Billinghurst or Hesperian were remotely serious regarding their objections (and not grandstanding) they would use their rights to reverse this change (its a wiki!) and risk taking the heat for their actions. Every user who is really interested has long since found out what LST stands for (and probably at least some of the easyLST controversy); and those who were not interested… on the whole remain uninterested as of right now.

Give praise for good work where it is due, and stop punishing a wholehearted attempt to publicise a legitimate change. Lets be honest, how many people would have noticed if it were not for the banner notice and this very discussion?

Using senility to suggest that the conversation bubbling along for as long as I can remember had lapsed/didn't happen is not a good look either. AuFCL (talk) 20:50, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

That is just ridiculous AuFCL and you are being needlessly provocative. There are many ways to contest the means that an action has been undertaken without a declaration of war with a revert. The rest of argument is unsubstantiated verbiage that is neither helpful nor supported by evidence

There is simply a due process and due courtesy of having the conversation in a community before undertaking an action, and GOIII knows it and chose not to undertake that process. There was neither necessity nor urgency to undertake the actions at that time, or in that way, and it is not unreasonable to ask for that consideration.

I commented that the change in the means that it has been made is uninformative and lacks context. Please explain how the statement "Easy LST" is self-explanatory to any new or occasional user. LST is not a widespread concept, and in that sense should be explained as labelled section transclusion, and preferably off to a wikilink. There is neither context, nor pointer to the means to undertake either means of transclusion which could have been done. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

You may be right on that last point. The problem, again, was whether or not to assume opting-out is the majority Gadget setting or not & there is no current tracking of such user preference data. The choice was either piss off the people opting-out or confusing the Easy-users; I made a call and now I will have to live with it. Does anyone contest the outcome however? -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:06, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Thanks ever so much for the personal abuse Billinghurst. So often the resort of an unscrupulous scoundrel. I can only conclude you are actually trying either to make this easy for me or perhaps this is an inept attempt at entrapment? I could debate you and even possibly win; frankly that would not either serve the project nor do I value your opinion or that of your sycophants sufficiently highly enough to so bestir myself.

The facts remain these: for good or bad reasons George Orwell III has done a good thing in the long-term interests of the project as a whole and for such I applaud his actions. For whatsoever your own reasons you (and here I suspect largely to protect your steward status, and certainly not in any way to promote project progress) make protest that correct procedures were not followed. Your further unwillingness to back out GO_IIIs changes pending resolution of your fatuous call for debate prove you lack the courage to follow through upon your so-called convictions.

Final points and take-home messages:

• Don't rock the boat; this is far more important than attempting to improve any situation, and it makes the bureaucrats (cringe!) actually think.
• Don't advertise future "improvements"—you will be punished for having the temerity to do so.
• The emperor does rather appear to be lacking in apparel.

AuFCL (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL, it is not acceptable for you to speak to other contributors this way, regardless of what you think of them. This is not the first time and Billinghurst is not the first person you have targeted. It is past time you reviewed the way you interact with people here. You are regularly dragging the tone of discussion down to the level of personal attack and it is bad for the project. Hesperian 01:03, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

To corroborate: I am a reasonably new user, and I use this Easy LST all the time, but I didn't know it was called that, and had to do quite a bit of searching to figure out what this announcement and discussion were about. Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

And now, sadly you have learned more than you ever wanted to know. "They" say learning should be fun. "They" were clearly lying… AuFCL (talk) 23:26, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

Somewhere in the rules it states something to the effect of Be Bold. George Orwell III should have that same option. I am glad he took the time to explain all of what I asked to me. As long as the option of using Easy LIST or not using it is there I see no problems. There only a few high ranking coworkers who labor for free in the arguments. I appreciate what George Orwell III did and another person in the above also learned about LST which he had wondered about. Another point is to treat others with some leeway as well as politeness. Think fellows, imagine George Orwell III leaving here. We all would suffer because he is excellent with codes aside from being helpful to the rest of us. It looks like a game of oneupmanship of the smart fellows to me. I make this statement because I believe it and because I regret asking questions here that have caused others problems and arguments -- friends vs friends? Man, it is Christmas time. Apparently George was Bold but he has that right -- by the rule to "be bold". I don't know the politics behind it and for that I am glad just from reading the attacks and arguments here. The world is getting crazy and dangerous enough with killings and protests. Let there be peace here during holidays we (I) cherish. Seriously, these arguments are saddening. —Maury (talk) 02:50, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree mostly with what Maury said above. I am new and have not yet learned the politics here. But it seems to me that there are a few interfighting camps here. This is a good project and we should not sabotage it by fighting amongst ourselves. There is so much to do here, you know, everyone can do or find something to do here without colliding with others. Let us work peacefully and in harmony. Merry Christmas to you all. Hrishikes (talk) 03:16, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Amen to peace and harmony. Merry Christmas! May we find common ground... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:48, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Peace and harmony comes from a community approach to moving this site forward. I asked for a consensus approach for such a change and the consideration to be given to the community to have an opinion on a change prior to a change being made. Review what I have said, and I have not expressed an opinion either way on whether I am for or against the change. I did express an opinion that I thought that change had not been handled well, and is not informative.

Re being bold, that is about editing and at enWP, and I can point you to the other rules talking about consensus, and consensus has always been our preferred methodology here. I ask that we look to a consensus and informed approach for making changes at our site. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

I beg to differ... you yourself asked for exactly what was delivered - albeit ~4 years ago (2nd to last and last paragraph quoted below):

Is it possible to still leave it as a gadget, though default to ON? I would prefer that we set it up so that it is easy to turn it off. Doesn't seem right to have the instructions not readily available, ie. you have to have read this thread on the wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:10, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

sure, we can have make it a gadget. ThomasV (talk) 11:12, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

Comments since then (October 2010) only reinforce the notion that forcing 'Easy' LST for everyone and allowing folks to opt out after the fact was inferior to making it a Gadget with the default state as "enabled" (ON) for everybody -- which also allowed folks to opt out if they wished so. The upside was 1.) as a Gadget, the function(s) within East LST would have the benefit of ResourceLoader management, and; 2.) Folks opting out of the Gadget recovered the resources forced to be used when loaded the other way via Base.js. There were no discernable downsides to the Gadget approach that I could find at the same time.

Now, to be clear, is the expectation to re-visit consensus established in the past (or the accumulated consensus reached over time) before implementing changes in the here and now that meet that consensus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:47, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

'Easy' Labeled Section Transclusion

perhaps you may have missed it, but there is a banner for non-logged in users touting this feature. perhaps someone could explain it, since i see no tab, nor tool, nor is it easy. a good place to add such an explanation would be at the banner, or on the preference page. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 13:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for your concern, could probably get away with a link to Adding Section Labels This should help clear confusion. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 13:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

you can get away with wasting a lot of people’s time. show where you have a consensus for this banner; show where it is dismissable; show how it meets usage guidelines [1]; show where it is on the meta central notice schedule [2]. you need to provide links on your banner that land on specific landing pages or sections, that do not astonish the user; have you read about the SciencesPo fiasco. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 21:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

My apologies. I'm handling the "LST" fiasco and got online just now for today. I moved this section to a subsection of #LST, the previous discussion regarding this. Look over the debacle there and post back any questions you still might have, but in a nutshell -- Easy LST is the labeling method that uses symbols ## Chapter 9 ## to sectionalize content, while "traditional" LST (or Old LST) uses begin and end <section begin= / tags. Now its possible to prevent the loading of eLST is all...

• BEFORE - Tick (enable) the user preference to turn off Easy LST
• AFTER - unTick (disable) the user preference to prevent Easy LST from loading.

- - George Orwell III (talk) 22:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

i do appreciate the cleanup of legacy code. but do you think it’s appropriate for every ip newbies to get a banner about an obscure "feature"? wouldn’t it be better, for a banner about "wikisource game" micro contributions that on board the new user? it’s astonishing to me how quickly insider jargon is plastered in a prominent place that can only turn off the newbie. Slowking4♡Farmbrough's revenge 14:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

My decision (or 'course of action' if you like) was based on the limited stats available and the situation at hand. Could it have been introduced and implemented "better"? - probably. But the idea that it was so awful, so obscure, so confusing and all the other negative connotations it may have been painted with to date has caused both the IP & member communities such grief and anguish that its apparently rendered them incapable of posting a question or comment over it has been a bit "much to take" to say the least.

And just so that its clear - this was no mere 'cleanup of the legacy code' but a fix to a problem forced upon those who opted out of eLST after its implementation. I regularly had enough cached copies of MeadiaWiki:Base.js (the previous host file of eLST prior to being made a gadget) being generated to build a bridge to China; preventing the feature from being enable as opposed to disabling it after the fact puts an end to that.

At any rate, I was going to leave the banner in place for 30 days but with 10 days still to go and only a handful of "comments" on this so far, I will take it down earlier unless somebody has an objection to that. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Pagelists

User:ShakespeareFan00/Indicies Is a diminishing list of works with a <pagelist /> situation.

Much as could work through the list manually, I'd appreciate some effort to render the list un-needed

So are there people here willing to do the boring task of checking page numbering against scans? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:13, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

You mean go through the indexes in Category:Index - File to check? Is that what your list is based on? I shall try to help! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 02:29, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

I meant the list on the linked page specifcally... which appears to be mainly works that were upload prior to the pagelist checking status being introduced.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:20, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah right. Will do. :) — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 05:38, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

Uploading large files

I have access to a large number of old PD Anatomy Atlases that are scanned at the somewhat unusual 348dpi resolution (with OCR searchable text). Some of the books are in excess of 500 pages, which makes them over 1000mb in size. I'd really like to upload these in the maximum possible resolution because they are full of valuable images. Is this possible, do I need to apply for any new upload rights? CFCF (talk) 10:28, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

P.S. They are in pdf format. I also have access to single page images, but these are cumbersome to work with. CFCF (talk) 10:31, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

Have you tried down converting to djvu?

Also you would need to check what Commons limits are, (seem to recall some previous works having to be split by Chapter.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:50, 9 January 2015 (UTC)

@CFCF: It is my understanding that large files of that size can only be uploaded by staff. I would think that a phabricator: request for assistance and a process would be the most appropriate and most likely bring about the requisite assistance. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Index:Our Sister Republic - Mexico.djvu

Am I being crazy or are there some missing page scans on this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:57, 11 January 2015 (UTC)

Looks broken. The paragraph split on either side of the missing pages don't even make much sense joined like they are. You'd think one of the prominent editors who worked on that one would have noticed that and at least left a comment about it? djr13 (talk) 03:54, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I think was one was commenced before the current pagelist check process was in place. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

There are three pages that need to be validated. —Maury (talk) 06:17, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Done. Moondyne (talk) 06:40, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-03

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

Recent software changes

• Rotated PDF files in landscape format used to show too small. They will now display correctly. You may need to purge older files. [3]
• You can now use the {{!}} magic word instead of Template:!. Many wikis used the template to create a pipe (|) in tables and templates. You can delete the template. [4]

Software changes this week

• The new version of MediaWiki (1.25wmf14) has been on test wikis and MediaWiki.org since January 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from January 13. It will be on all Wikipedias from January 14 (calendar).
• A bug in VisualEditor sometimes added a ☀ (Sun) character. This is now fixed. [5]
• The search and replace tool in VisualEditor is now much faster in long pages. [6]
• The TemplateData editor now uses the same design as VisualEditor. [7] [8] [9]
• The thumb option is now shown in your language in the help of the classic editor toolbar. [10]

Future changes

• You can sign up to answer questions from designers. It will help them make editing easier. [11]

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

16:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Index:The origin and deeds of the Goths in English version.djvu

The way sidenotes are done needs an overhaul - It doesn't work correctly for this work, I'd set them out on the pages in a specfic way with good reason but the transclusion doesn't want to behave. {{sn-paragraph}} exists, but it's not a full answer for works like this with sidenotes on bothe sides of a page.

I am interested in a solution that actually works , rather than might work suggestions. This needs to be looked at and resolved once and for all. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've brute-forced an approach here - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_origin_and_deeds_of_the_Goths_in_English_version.djvu/61, it would be nice if someone could at some point combine this code with the parent into readable Lua code, as the parent is a nightmare to maintain..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:04, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

And the brute forced code doesn't seem to want to behave either :( OK folks, what am I doing wrong here? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You had a small error in the CSS for {{sn-paragraph/dual}}; I fixed it. It seems to work now; you may need to clear your cache to see it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I found that in the /s version as well... Now if you can figure out why the parser or browser isn't seeing a paragraph break, which is a long standing issue, with this approach. 22:12, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The non line break issue has been raised here - https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T86716

Per GO3 this discussion has been handled.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Just to sum up (for the benefit of others who read this): people should avoid working on works with sidenotes, especially complicated ones, because there are known issues in the ProofreadPage extension and the dynamic layouts (and probably WikiMedia's parser too) which will break whatever workarounds you come up with when they get fixed. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

facebook.com/Wikisource

Any of you guys knows who's the person behind facebook.com/Wikisource? Somebody did a good faith share of Time (Shelley), but at that time the mentioned text unit wasn't with originals. I've proofread and embed the digitized page quickly as I can, but the post was 7 hours old. IMHO featuring pages without originals only will reinforce the general view that Wikisource is a disposable trash can with tons of CTRL+C CTRL+V texts, but maybe I'm wrong. Any thoughts? Lugusto 17:14, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

There is 29 persons behind the Wikisource Facebook account.

This post was made by Dmitrismirnov (talk • contribs) (who just edited Time (Shelley) before you).

I don't really see a problem to feature pages without originals from time to time. This specific poem is interresting because it exists in several languages, it compensate the lack of originals.

Cdlt, VIGNERON (talk) 18:00, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

OCR Gadget

Has this been removed, I don't see the tool-button when editing Pages ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Please see discussion on talk page of GO3.Hrishikes (talk) 01:54, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

New effort to help "wikiprojects" and collaboration

There is a new initiative through a grant to work on subject area collaborations at wikipedia:Wikipedia:WikiProject X. One of the leading editors in that effort has indicated he would be willing to help in developing similar efforts in other WMF entities. I suppose anyone interested can feel free to take part. John Carter (talk) 19:21, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-04

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

Recent changes

• You can download the new version of the Wikipedia app for Android. The new version shows lead images, better galleries and content from Wikidata. It also has many other new features.[12] [13]
• Programs and bots still can't read information about images on many wikis. You can see the list of wikis with the most files to fix. Wikipedia in Italian, Indonesian and Japanese language have the most files to fix. On the biggest wikis you should use bots. Bots can add information templates to groups of files. You can ask other tech users to help you.

Problems

• All JavaScript on Commons was broken for a few minutes on Tuesday. It was because of old code in the HotCat tool. The same problem happened on some Wikipedias on Wednesday. It is now fixed. [14]

Software changes this week

• There are no software changes this week and next week due to annual meetings. [15]

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

18:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)

PDF generation problems

Years ago, I learned that the <pages index=...> syntax would not permit exporting PDF files via the Book Creator. This seemed like a big problem, but manageable if it was going to be fixed some day, and also if there was another option for creating PDF-friendly pages (i.e., transcluding pages with {{Page:Text.pdf/1}} syntax).

Just now, as Guidelines for Open Educational Resources in Higher Education nears completion, I've tried to generate a PDF. But it seems that neither syntax works. I have tried to narrow down what page is the problem (see my edit history, both to that page, and to User:Peteforsyth/test, from today). But I only seem to be able to generate a PDF when I remove all but a couple of the pages. It seems to me that the size of the document, not any specific syntax error, is the problem.

Can anybody confirm or refute this? Am I missing some simple fix here? -Pete (talk) 02:42, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Fairly certain this is due to a known bug which boils down to any use of "tags" like <ref> or <pre> will cause the PDF "thingy" to fail at some point or another - especially in those cases where the content is transcluded-in just like we do here on en.WS.

I guess you can try removing/nullifying any refs the content might have and see how much "further" you get (if at all) to see if my recollection about "tags" is still true or not followed by any usage of other wiki-mark-ups like === foo === heading sectionalizing. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Ah, thank you for that. I didn't consider that the ref tags themselves were the problem -- you're probably right (I suspect it was only when I happened to remove all pages with footnotes that I was successful). I'll test a bit more as you suggest.

If this is the case, it seems like something should be done...at minimum, perhaps the error code generated by the book creator could be improved. You say this is a known bug -- do you happen to know a bugzilla ticket I should read up on, or discussion somewhere eles? -Pete (talk) 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It was known; of that I'm sure. But now that Bugzilla has been usurped by Phabricator, I couldn't begin to tell you where to start looking for either a closed ticket or an open related one; sorry.

One thing to try comes to mind -- although admittedly unrelated at face value. Just like we use NOP to get around paragraph starts at exactly the point of a Page: start for the transcluded page to follow for proper rendering, try the "same approach" for this ref-tag processing thing. It's a long shot but no harm in trying. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:02, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Will try in the morning -- thanks. -Pete (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

So I don't think it's as simple as that, because the most recent test I had successfully generated a PDF (with 4 pages of the document), and it included a footnote. Hmm. I will enter a phabricator bug, and see what comes of it. -Pete (talk) 03:00, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry if you feel it was a waste of time. Pretty sure your footnote at the bottom of that page is completely different on your screen (refs here typically start after ALL the pages have rendered) no?

I'm still fairly sure it will boil down to something like that however: the application of hyphenated word start & end spanning a page break; the embedded pagenum links sharing a page with starting, spanning or ending of a table when transcluded. Inline-block refs being "interrupted" with higher level block element or similar.

Please; let us know the bug task # if you open one and/or any other findings you might make/feel relevant. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I certainly don't feel it's a waste of time -- sorry if I gave you that impression. I'm just a little frustrated not seeing a clear path forward. But I do want to sort through this and hopefully make it a little easier for the next 'pedian (or PDFian)... I see you did a little experimenting of your own, did you learn anything useful? I did try your code, but it didn't seem to help. I'm stuck right now on two things:

• I haven't used phabricator yet, and need to learn it (you don't need to worry about that part), and
• I'm not sure I yet have a clear enough understanding of what's going on to write a useful bug.

I'll work on the first part...if you have any insights for the second, I'd love to hear 'em. Thanks for your help on this. -Pete (talk) 02:33, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, I couldn't resist fiddling with it; but I did come away with some new observations.

First, there are issues both with the .PDF Collector (or whatever it's formally called) as well as our local formatting practices. After taking a look at some external sites w/similar "conversion-to-PDF" features, one particular facet kept coming up -- we frequently lack the basic document structure/outline/semantics that those type of programs look to in the conversion process regardless of transclusion being involved here or not (e.g. even straight copy & paste dumped text in our mainspace have issues). Some of the hurdles I identified seem rooted in our role in developing locally established practice(s) over time; some of it is "out of our hands" thanks in large part to the current configuration of mediawiki parser/parsoid (wiki mark-up).

To the point(s) that "we" have control over - the ToC (Page 5?) is one galactic screw up thanks to that god damn Dotted TOC List template. Some 40% to 60% of the processing time used to render your milk-toast test page is consumed by the "generation" of just that single ToC page. Open the hidden list below to see the specs I generate for the page (Win 8.1 / IE 11 )...

Test page's limit & expansion reports

<!-- 
NewPP limit report
Parsed by mw1047
CPU time usage: 0.266 seconds
Real time usage: 0.360 seconds
Preprocessor visited node count: 4518/1000000
Preprocessor generated node count: 0/1500000
Post‐expand include size: 109012/2097152 bytes
Template argument size: 6679/2097152 bytes
Highest expansion depth: 8/40
Expensive parser function count: 0/500
-->
<!-- 
Transclusion expansion time report (%,ms,calls,template)
100.00%  226.964      1 - -total
 31.47%   71.431      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/5
 28.36%   64.357     18 - Template:Dotted_TOC_page_listing
 10.32%   23.419     18 - Template:Dotted_TOC_page_listing/1
  7.24%   16.440      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/1
  6.24%   14.169      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/32
  5.55%   12.595      1 - Template:Smallrefs
  4.01%    9.093      1 - Page:Guidelines_for_Open_Educational_Resources_(OER)_in_Higher_Education.pdf/7
  3.82%    8.676      1 - Template:FI
  3.81%    8.655     16 - Template:DJVU_page_link
-->

Now I'm not all that tech savvy but even simple logic tells us if its taking our built-in "system" that much effort to process a fraction of one of its own [pages], I can only assume 3rd party entities will have just as much issue with that particular aspect if not more (= conversion failure).

That said, some of the other "things" we are at fault for are basically minor formatting "infractions" -- for lack of a better term that is. Your use of the deprecated <center> tag is but one example here.

And as far as "document outline detection" goes; I was right earlier - all our troubles begin with wiki markup's handling of heading elements (H1 thru H5). Never mind the === foo === heading sectionalizing the parser (or Parsoid?) does back n' forth from wikitext to HTML (and back?) confusing the matter, but all that auto id= assignment and mw-headline class assignment nonsense makes most conversion progies suffer a brain-fart and skip over our heading because its not the "norm" its set to look for.

There's more but this is already long winded - I'll stop here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:46, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

[arbitrary outdent]

Well @George Orwell III:, this is some progress indeed! Thank you for taking the time and providing all that detail. I only understand about 70% of what you say -- I'm less tech savvy than you -- but that's OK, it was enough to get me moving forward.

I removed all the ===equalsign=== header syntax, and replaced with h# tags, following your example. And, what do you know -- now the PDF finally renders!

It's a weird rendering, but at least this gets us a good step closer. Here are the oddities:

• It presents the document in two columns. (This is sort of nice for readability, but makes no sense on the early pages, up to the table of contents!)
• The TOC doesn't render -- surely another result of whatever the problem is with the dotted-entry templates.
• The PDF introduces additional, unwanted section numbering.
• The "Footnotes" section header (which I inserted manually on the document's main page) shows up in entirely the wrong place -- some weird column thing, I suppose.

Several sections at the end are there, but shouldn't be (clearly designed for more "encyclopedic" uses of MW):

• the document has no images of any significance (just a couple logos).
• I suspect the license info is only correct by chance -- that this happened to be a CC BY-SA doc.
• No reason at all that I should be listed as a contributor.

So...I am feeling satisfied to make some progress...but also, I am starting to despair that PDF generation might be practical on Wikisource, which seems like a pretty major shortcoming. Your thoughts, as always, would be most welcome. -Pete (talk) 06:00, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Sneak post / Back in a bit... but had to tell you to open book maker(?) after you open the sidebar option to save as PDF to further adjust columns/internal ^&$@*^ ToC etc. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

George Orwell III, good suggestion. That does nicely with the columns. It doesn't really do what's needed for TOC (and I'm guessing you're not surprised). Manually creating a TOC without the templates seems possible, if labor-intensive... But I remain mystified by the placement of the "Footnotes" header, and I think the auto-numbering might be a show-stopper too. At any rate, bedtime approaches...I think that's all for me tonight. Thanks again for all your help! -Pete (talk) 06:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────┘

I'm free; lets re-cap; & don't worry - you'll get to this when you get to it. First thing I'd like to do is thank you & then take a bit of a "victory-lap" here 'cause its so rare that someone else actually follows the bits & pieces in any of my 'nutty observations' (beyond just giving them lip service) to a meaningful end - let alone one that verifies the initial observation. To have a 3rd party come to the same conclusion(s) in the end that I did (or at least hoped for) is just icing on the cake. I am happy to report I too am now able to replicate Pete's successful PDF generation all the way thru (along with the same p.5, dotted ToC / complex image drop outs). Warts and all, the take away here is that PDF generation failure seems to have stopped as a result of applying as many wiki mark-up "free" refinements in the content formatting as possible.

That out of the way; I want make sure its clear what we've hypothesized so far: the crux of this .PDF generation issue, to a large degree, has to do with the way wiki-markup (mw-parser), Parsoid or a combination of both "handle" the H1 thru H6 html heading elements (the whole === foo === sectionalizing thing) by default. For those who haven't quite connected all the dots yet as to why H1 thru H6 are so integral to the issue at hand here, here's the simple reality we should all accept when it comes to matters concerning document structure and a link detailing it further....

Note: There are currently no known implementations of the outline algorithm in graphical browsers or assistive technology user agents, although the algorithm is implemented in other software such as conformance checkers. Therefore the outline algorithm cannot be relied upon to convey document structure to users. Authors are advised to use heading rank (h1-h6) to convey document structure.
source

The next thing to make note of here is all the other fiddling around mediawiki (mw-parser &/or Parsoid) does by design &/or settings beside the mark-up of heading elements (the whole === '3 equal symbols' is the wiki markup of <H3> === thingy) when it comes to the creation of article sections.

During wiki-sectionalizing, the heading elements can be subject to the auto-numbering of said headings, the automated creation of the [edit] link per heading, the detection and accounting of all headings found on a page and subsequent creation of the built-in ToC, double-clicking on a heading to initiate the edit session and I'm sure I'm forgetting some others. All of those seemingly harmless enhancements or add-ons are just great for the typical Wikipedia purposes.... but here on Wikisource, they seem to screw with the expected document outline more than anything else. The earlier content refinements & PDF generation testing afterwards seem to soundly support that theory.

Its not all great of a leap to see how any operation depending upon the presence of a "minimum standard" in heading-level rank -to- outlining document structure can get befuddled by all that default 'auto-crap' being imposed on headings by the wiki mark-up or how that can "choke-off" bits & pieces at any given critical processing moment to ultimately produce failure in the end. Throw on top of that the nuances involved when it comes to the transclusion of content to begin with and its even easier to see why something like this rather straight-forward PDF generation can consistently fail (if heading level rank detection and accounting doesn't begin completely after transclusion is "done", are we likely to get false "re-starts" in the accounting as one Page: to the next is tallied as individual works instead of the pieces of a single work? - sounds plausible to me).

What we need -- not only for this PDF generation issue -- but for countless other possible benefits down the road -- is to prevent most <if not all> of those standard wiki mark-up items that currently screw with those six heading html elements to one degree or the other from running at all. Even if we can manage to secure that kind of environment just for the Page: namespace along with just those instances where transclusion from the Page: namespace is/has taking/taken place, we might finally make some meaningful progress here (it sure would be uplifting on the personal note). And I stress the term prevent; not mask, not cloak, not run-in-the-background, not hooked out/in... none of those sub-satisfactory developer solutions applied at times to meet requests like this one would be. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:09, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you yet again for all the detail. Yes, I'm very glad to follow your suggestions to the extent I'm able to -- I really would like to see this stuff resolved or improved! Without reliable PDF output, IMO the utility of Wikisource is heavily limited. I'm again at about 70% understanding, but again, no problem -- I can tell you have taken the time to document things in a way that will be meaningful to those who understand the technology better than myself. Yes, some way of preventing these "enhancements" before they happen does seem like the right way to go. I am hopeful that what you have written above contains the making of a phabricator ticket that will be useful to developers. It also seems like I could do a worthwhile blog post on this topic, concentrating on the needs of Wikisource and how they are different from other projects. I'll bounce that idea around. -Pete (talk) 17:17, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm of the same mindset, @Peteforsyth: fwiw. Everything one needs to "connect the dots" here can be found at the links in my previous (which should all work now btw), but it sounds like you're almost there on your own already. Still - everything I link in one of these diatribes is for good reason so if you tried before and the link went nowhere; please re-read it from the start and take the time to stop & visit every link when you come across one.

That blog post on 'why everything good-for-Wikipedia is not necessarily good (or even useful) for Wikisource et al.' is a message that really needs to get out there... and soon! All the current development crack (Media Viewer, Flow, Visual Editor to name a few) that folks are getting high on today on are completely useless for our purposes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:07, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

New Texts link

The link to add New Texts on the Main page is gone. I would like to add a new text, but do not remember the direct link to that page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:19, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

See here Is that what you meant? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:32, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

That's the one. Thanks. The link should be made available on the Main page again though... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

It went missing in this recent edit.

I've put the link-line back to where I think it is suppose go under the same recent re-design of the template but @Billinghurst: should re-check that in case I'm wrong. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:54, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

D'oh. That is right. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Template:{{Ollist}}

In doing some spring cleaning, this has become unused as I rewrote the single template which was dependent upon it to use a different approach.

I am therefore opening a discussion here, on what uses this template might still have before I propose it for deletion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:03, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

I am really trying to be kind here as I realise a lot of effort has been expended upon this template; but for goodness sakes, after addressing the remaining dependencies here please, please kill this monstrosity (with fire if necessary!) 120.146.88.143 22:46, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Page:The_Army_and_Navy_Hymnal.djvu/32

In [edit], it was suggested that as the lillypond content already had the lyrical content, there was no need to include them twice.

This was reverted, but I'd like a second opinion.

The verses here were originally transcribed as text because at the time the relevant extension for doing scores didn't exist. As the relevant extension now exists, and the titles could be picked up from header information I'd like views on whether there should be a "style" guide recomendation to:

i) Retain lyrics as a duplicate text version when they are present in scores.. or ii) Remove duplicate text lyrics when they are already present in scores. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I added the text to the LilyPond markup, because this is how it is written in the source. I didn't remove the {{hymn/verses}} because I am not familiar with that particular template. I believe that it is wise for the text to be available, for machine-readability and accessibility purposes (esp. since LilyPond renders as an image), BUT I also think that the extra text should NOT be visible since we are trying to replicate the original source, and this text is not displayed thus in the source. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

(e/c) I see this as a work-specific issue. The conversation should be had on the Index talk page with the editors who are involved with the work. If from that discussion there is a proposal that could be generalised to other music-heavy works, then a RfC can be created here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:16, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Let's move this discussion to here then; I've already started it off. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:35, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Resolved as (for now) Index- specific. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:09, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

May I submit my own illustrations?

I'm an illustrator. As a personal project, I illustrate texts from the public domain. I'm currently illustrating Hans Christian Andersen's The Elf of the Rose (alt. title: The Rose Elf). Here's the blog entry about my Rose Elf artwork: http://vdyej.me/eating-the-filling-first/

@IllustratorVDyeJ: I think that would fit the criteria for upload at Commons: it could definitely be of educational value to have illustrations to accompany classic literature. Thanks so much for sharing! —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:49, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, that sounds like a really cool project. Uploading to Commons would almost certainly be a good fit -- but that would be best for individual illustrations. If you want to create books, you might look at Wikibooks. I'm not terribly familiar with Wikibooks, so don't take my word for it, but I think it would be a good fit for what you're proposing. -Pete (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you both for your quick and helpful feedback. I will look into Commons. IllustratorVDyeJ (talk) 21:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)VdyeJ

section edit options are missing

The [edit] option to edit sections in Mainspace (the [edit] option that follows a section title) are not present. Same issue in Chrome and IE, and whether logged in or out. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, probably me again. I'm betting I found the problem ( a single mis-placed comma believe it or not) and now I'm hoping its just a matter of some nodes still caching the old 'environment' -- [sooner or later] everybody should get 'caught up' cache-wise and this "drop out" of the section heading [edit] links thing should soon be over at that point. Sorry for the inconvenience folks (and boy is scrolling all the way down to the bottom of this page the epitome of inconvenience !!!!).

Let's move up that archive BOT's schedule a bit shall we? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:09, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

The [edit] links are back for me here on the east-coast of the U.S.

Drop me a line if a crazy long amount of time passes from now and they still haven't 'come back for you'. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:24, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Back for me :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-05

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

Recent software changes

• You can now translate articles with the new ContentTranslation tool on several wikis. [16]

This week

• There are no software changes this week due to annual meetings. [17]

Future changes

• You can join a project to improve WikiProjects. [18]
• The Compact Personal Bar will be removed for now. It has a bug that breaks the tool to choose your language. It will come back when the bug is fixed. [19]

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

16:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Navigation of sub-subpages

I know there probably isn't a policy or best-practices for this, but I have a number of works with sub-subpages and I am not sure what to do with the previous/next links on the intermediate pages. Example: The Army and Navy Hymnal/Catholic is the best I have come up with for these types of pages. Does anyone have a system that they find works for this? Is there a better way that people use? Should I just link to the subsections that immediately preceed and follow in the source? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:26, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW I had a similar, though simpler, situation here which another editor recommended that I follow the page order in the book for subsections, rather than the table of contents. But I don't know. djr13 (talk) 16:23, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I agree with that decision, and I have also followed the page order rather than the alphabetical order in the TOC. (This is especially important in this work, since some sections have multiple indices: alphabetical, by author, by subject, etc.) However, my question is about the header of the section page, and whether the "next" field should point to the next section, the next page, or both; and if both, then how to best format it? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:03, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I've seen, putting both links in the header is perfectly valid, even as much as it feels like a crude hack. I could be wrong... You could also consider doing fancy things with how you sequence these hierarchies of pages, but I'm not sure how to describe what I mean by that unless I find a way to create a mockup. djr13 (talk) 03:31, 29 January 2015 (UTC)