Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-06

Interwiki

Is there any suggestion which text in a remote wiki should be chosen for interwiki if there are many editions there? (I have this problem here).

In pl.ws we do not have this problem anymore after implementing a javascript- and Wikidata-based solution. Ankry (talk) 06:35, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Ideally, all wikisources should distinguish between works and their editions. If possible, a version page should be founded on the wikisource which has more editions of the same work and this version page can be linked by interwiki to other translations at other wikisources. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:18, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately, in plwikisource there is no version page. Only disambiguation pages for texts with the same or very similar title. Few years ago community decided that version pages would be unnecessary overload and duplication of information from general disambig pages. Other versions of any such multi-version texts are available in the left pane if they have an edition-like Wikidata entry. Ankry (talk) 14:32, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

At first, some of us of en.WS didn't care for the Wikidata approach either, but Versions pages are now the accepted norm. Wikidata is coping with much broader issues than even Wikisource must deal with. Italian Wikisource went one step further and created a new namespace for "Opera:" (works) for these pages. But since the direction pl.WS chose to solve the same issue is different from the approach taken on Wikidata, you're going to run into more and more difficulties like this as time goes on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:13, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It is not different: it is purely Wikidata based. It is just not duplicating Wikidata content into Wikisource. Recently I have questions like "how to add entries to Wikidata to have correct interwiki in en.ws?" (if not this way).

BTW, I think that the "Add links" link at the bottom of left pane should be disabled in main ns. of Wikisources. Ankry (talk) 08:52, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, it seems I misunderstood the thrust of your question, but the reply still holds. What Wikisource is doing is distinguishing between the work and its editions. Wikidata has one data item for the work, and a data item for each edition. On pl.WS, you have editions, but you have nothing to correspond to the work data item. This is what is creating the mismatch. On en.WS, we have Version pages, which match to the work data item, so we can connect interwikis through the Version and don't have to rely on linking through editions. On pl.WS, because you have no work or version pages, you run u=into a linking dilemma whenever there is more than one Polish edition. Again, it is having Version pages, which match the structure at Wikidata, that has solved this problem for en.WS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Neverless, I still have no idea which vesrsion link to. A random one? Ankry (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

The original (or at least the oldest available) edition would be the best, imo. But it is a pity that the readers cannot choose themselves, which edition they want to read. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

All edits of a text are linked together in pl.ws using info from Wikidata. The list is above interwiki links. So choosing one version, a user gets a list of all others (see eg. here). They just need to know where to look for it... Ankry (talk) 23:16, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I see. Hm, I found them in the left margin only because you had told me they were somewhere and so I was looking for them. If I were not informed in advance, I would not notice. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:00, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Zombie pages...

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LonelyPages&limit=500&offset=1000

Can someone perform a cleanup of Page: namespaces pages that do not seem to be linked with an Index: thanks? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder why these files were not uploaded here locally. The pages would not be orphaned then. Ankry (talk) 15:20, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

files deleted and are not migrated, because the Fairusebot is not a priority there, nor is hand migrating, by the admins. if by "cleanup" you mean fix files to support an index, or link to an IA scan, go for it. if you mean delete pages, to kill zombies… maybe you need to get a consensus for your task flow. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 16:02, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

I started the discussion here so that a consensus about how to handle Zombie pages could emerge. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

In some cases, the problem is that a file was corrected, and the pages resequenced, so there is a mismatch between the page numbers. This would require moving the page to the correct location to match the new source file. In other cases, the source file was deleted because a superior one was uploaded, and the contents transferred to it. The original scan was then deleted but the admin who performed the deletion failed to delete the Page namespace pages along with the Index. A further oddity happens at Index:Armistice Day.djvu, where pages such as Page:Armistice_Day.djvu/149 were created, but the Index has that page set to "empty", and so it does not register as part of the work. (You can go look at the work and see why those pages were tagged "empty", though I'm not sure why someone didn't delete the relevant Page namespace items as well.) --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:14, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Our stated policy (the green box on Help:Index pages#Parameters) is that "empty" or its equivalents must never be used on Index pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

See - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index_talk:Armistice_Day.djvu for the research that was undertaken with respect to works acknowledged in this anthology.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:51, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at the dates on the works suppressed ,it's possible that at least some of the text (and the original scans) could be reinstated in January 2020? given that 1925+95=2020 (and the works appear to be 1924 publications.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:47, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The remaining work cannot be restored until 2022 at the earliest. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:08, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

This needs an experienced contributor to examine/re-redact the scans as needed using the appropriate Djuv tools...ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Given that you redacted some of the pages, you should be able to restore them when the time comes. As to the rest, when the copyright expires and IA make the file available again, it can simply be uploaded over the top of the current file. Because the pagelist is currently done correctly with no "empty" parameter, the replacment will be a simple one-to-one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:36, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I no longer have the djvu tools installed on my current system. Nor did I for obvious reasons retain the original scans (the IA ones are not redacted IIRC.). Another contributor had also patched the files compared to the IA ones ( 2 missing pages), so it's not a straightforward, drop a new scan in from the IA version. This is why it needs someone else to clean it up.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

It may of course just be easier to delete the whole thing and start again with a KNOWN complete file. (The IA scans are not.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The un-redacted version was that uploaded to Commons (07:53, 18 August 2013) by User:George Orwell III, if it still exists.

A Better scan (un-redacted is) [1] but this would need a 'block move' as it has the cover, the current scans ( a ptached version of https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.59559) don't. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

The commons description is linked to the wrong edition at archive.org, and as I am not editing on Commons currently, it would need another contributor to update, or cleanup ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I've transferred two deleted files from Commons. Can an admin restore index pages? Feel free to notify me if any deleted file needs to be transferred here (unless they are 100+MB). Ankry (talk) 18:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though several images from these volumes had been processed and uploaded to Commons, but were deleted along with the scan file. If those image files can be recovered, it will save someone some editing time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

No problem, but not today. Ankry (talk) 23:07, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-23

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 now write all special letters in all African Wikipedia languages. This works in the desktop version. [2]
• There is now a field called depicts on Commons. This is a way to show what is in a picture with the help of Wikidata. It is still in development. [3]
• Some tools on Toolforge may break on or after 3 June because of database changes. Maintainers should update their tools to use the new schema. [4][5]

Problems

• You will be able to read but not to edit Wikimedia Commons for 30 minutes on 19 June at 05:00 (UTC). This is to fix a hardware problem. [6]

Changes later this week

• Some wikis have one tab for the visual editor and one tab for a wikitext editor. Others wikis just have one tab. If your wiki has two tabs, clicking a link to create a new page has always opened a wikitext editor. It will now open the editor you used the last time you edited. [7]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 4 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 5 May. It will be on all wikis from 6 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 5 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Rendering Morse codes

I've been slowly transcribing Index:Wired Love (Thayer 1880).djvu. On the talk page for the work, I note that transcribing morse code is necessary for full understanding of the text. As there is no universal way of encoding and rendering the text, it seems we're left with, as I see it, three options (more or less).

1. The proposal I wrote at the talk page and have a working example of, which is a relatively convoluted way of rendering dots and dashes (and the longer American Morse long spaces and long dashes) faithfully through characters and various {{bar}} and {{gap}} templates.
2. Simply taking screenshots of the relevant sections and including them as captioned images at the appropriate point in the text
3. Importing the template w:en:Template:Morse from the English wikipedia, which works relatively well and even has American Morse support.

All of these methods have their drawbacks, particularly with regard to screen reader and machine legibility, and the ability to copy/paste the Morse sections.

Thoughts? Ideas? I've just been thinking about it for a while. Mathmitch7 (talk) 20:04, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I quite like your proposed solution, personally, and given that tooltips are generally read by screen readers it might be more accessible than you've suggested there? (Alternatively CSS hacks can be used alongside your proposed style to make the raw Morse code invisible to screen readers and present them a separate transcription block, but I'm not sure what the Wikisource stance on that would be.) —Nizolan (talk) 22:33, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu

Hi all,

I have created the red links on the contents page for this book, however I seem to have a couple of issues that I don't know how to resolve. I have only created the first two section pages for now.

Issue 1 is that a red link appears at the top of each section page, named "Carroll - Three Sunsets" I'm not sure this is correct.

Issue 2 is found in the section page "THE PATH OF ROSES." there are two pages containing italic text which appears as italic on each individual page, but as normal text within the section page.

If anyone could advise or make the required changes to correct these issues, that would be appreciated. Sp1nd01 (talk) 13:45, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: I see ShakespeareFan00 has already found and fixed the problem that led to the missing italics. The red link in the header is due to the section pages being created as subpages of a page that does not exist: Carroll - Three Sunsets/THREE SUNSETS and Carroll - Three Sunsets/THE PATH OF ROSES. That's using the filename of the work's index—Index:Carroll - Three Sunsets.djvu—but the work as such is transcluded as Three Sunsets and Other Poems. There is no page Carroll - Three Sunsets which is why the link in the header is red. The sections or chapters of a work should be in subpages of the main work page, so these should be moved to: Three Sunsets and Other Poems/Three Sunsets and Three Sunsets and Other Poems/The Path of Roses. --Xover (talk) 14:29, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Xover and ShakespeareFan00 for your help and explanation. I think the two new sections are now looking ok. One final question, how do I delete the two incorrect pages I previously created Carroll - Three Sunsets/THREE SUNSETS and Carroll - Three Sunsets/THE PATH OF ROSES ? Sp1nd01 (talk) 17:04, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: I've deleted the pages. For future reference, there should be a "Move" command up in the menu somewhere near the "Read", "Edit", "View history" entries that is preferable to cut&paste of the content to the new page as it preserves the revision history. That will leave an unneeded redirect behind (normal users can't turn the option off iirc) that in this case would still have had to be deleted, but the redirect wouldn't have had any relevant edit history. --Xover (talk) 17:37, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks again, I'd never noticed the move option before, though given my limited level of knowledge of the page layouts I doubt that ill be using it. Sp1nd01 (talk) 18:12, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Page titles of letters of Basil of Caesarea

The page titles of the 350+ letters at Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume VIII/The Letters are a mess and need to be repaired. I've corrected what I can, moving the first and last pages, but I don't think there's any way for a non-admin to do the rest while preserving the current page structure, since it would require overwriting redirects. To summarise what needs to be done: the pages titled Letters 2–317, inclusive, need to be decremented by 1. The pages titled Letters 318–327 need to be incremented by 2. The pages titled Letters 328–349 need to be incremented by 6. I'm hoping there's an admin tool that can do this without going through page by page… —Nizolan (talk) 03:43, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

@Nizolan: I think that you may find someone who can assist with this, if you post the request at Wikisource:Bot requests —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll repost there. —Nizolan (talk) 23:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Image plate in part-work published belatedly

Regarding Page:The British Warblers A History with Problems of Their Lives - 2 of 9.djvu/25, which has a loose slip, stating "The photogravure plate of Female Chiff-chaff will be issued in Part 3."

The image is at Page:The British Warblers A History with Problems of Their Lives - 3 of 9.djvu/75. Is it OK to add it to the former page; and to remove it from the latter, so that it appears in the intended sequence?

I think this is what someone who bound the part-works as a single volume would have done. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:12, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Or to leave the image where it is, but transclude that page on The British Warblers A History with Problems of Their Lives/Chiff-chaff? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:24, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

I would not place the image on page 25, but I think transcluding page 75 into Chiff-chaff would be acceptable. I might also (depending on the structure of the work as a whole) transclude page 75 in the position it appears within the work, and then link to it from Chiff-chaff instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, I've included it in its intended position, with a "contributor note" explaining the situation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

This section was archived on a request by: Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:22, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

ia-upload tool

Is https://tools.wmflabs.org/ia-upload/ working?

I have a job (aircraftinwarfa00lancgoog -> Aircraft in Warfare- The Dawn of the Fourth Arm - Frederick William Lanchester - 1916.djvu) which has been showing as "in progress" for the last ~17 hours.

However, the log is showing:

[2019-06-06 16:10:25] LOG.INFO: Creating DjVu for aircraftinwarfa00lancgoog from Pdf [] []
[2019-06-06 16:10:25] LOG.INFO: Requesting start of conversion of aircraftinwarfa00lancgoog [] []
[2019-06-06 16:10:26] LOG.CRITICAL: Client error: `GET http://tools.wmflabs.org/phetools/pdf_to_djvu_cgi.py?cmd=convert&ia_id=aircraftinwarfa00lancgoog` resulted in a `400 Bad Request` response: {"text": "invalid ia identifier, I can't locate needed files", "error": 2}  [] []

and every other entry in the job queue shows as "Possibly failed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:19, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

The coversion that this tool is supposed to do from other file formats when there is no djvu has never worked for me personally. Jpez (talk) 11:44, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

yes, the dejavu conversion is hit or miss. the old dejavu from IA worked consistently. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 00:30, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Best I can suggest is to log a phabricator ticket, so that its inside logs can be perused. It has missed a file somewhere is the best that we can tell form the outside. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

The log is now showing the upload as "possibly failed". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:04, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

maybe we need to go back to landlines, with old uploader after download from IA. it seems faster and less opaque.

Index:Aircraft in Warfare.pdf (you will need to use crop tool at commons and rotate bot for all the aircraft photos.) Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:09, 11 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-24

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

• When you create a PDF from a page on the wiki this is now done by Proton. Before this we used Electron. It should look the same but work better. Both use Chromium. This is a different system from when you collect several articles into a book and make a PDF from them. [8][9]
• The Flagged Revisions extension now uses the standard OOUI icons. There will be additional minor fixes for positioning in the next deployment. [10]
• Bots and other scripts that do not set an identifiable User-Agent may find their requests strictly rate-limited until they identify themselves properly. [11]

Problems

• Please check if the Flagged Revisions configuration on your wiki is as you expect (or as it was a few weeks ago). If not, please report it. [12]

Changes later this week

• There is no new MediaWiki version this week.

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 12 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Requesting import of "Links count" gadget

Please can someone (an admin, or whoever has the necessary permissions) import the very useful gadget "Links count" (counts total number of pages linked to a specific page on Special:WhatLinksHere (and transclusion, for templates)), as used on Wikidata Wikispecies and Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Missing plate in 'The South Staffordshire Coalfield'

The plate at Page:The South Staffordshire Coalfield - Joseph Beete Jukes - 1859.djvu/42 is incomplete. Can anyone suggest how we might source a better scan? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: that looks about as good as it gets, as the alternative that I can find is little different. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

user:MartinPoulter, Wikimedian in Residence at the Bodleian Library, Oxford University, has kindly scanned their copy and inserted it into the transcription. Thank you, Martin! Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:42, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Errata template error

Template:Errata invoked on Page:Guy Mannering Vol 1.djvu/282 refuses to display correctly in transclusion on Guy Mannering/Volume 1/Chapter 17. Am I missing something here, or is it an issue with the template itself? Thanks for any assistance, Kges1901 (talk) 00:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Fixed. Grouped references don't automatically show in the Main: space, so there has to be an explicit call. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:43, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Will do in the future. Kges1901 (talk) 10:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks deployment to Wikisource

Hello Wikisource contributors,

Wikimedia Foundation Anti-Harassment Tools team is continuing to make improvements to Special:Block with the addition of the ability to set a partial block

While no functionality will change for sitewide blocks, Special:Block will change to allow for the ability to block a named user account or ip address from:

• Editing one or more specific page(s)
• Editing all pages within one or more namespace(s)

Additionally, changes are being made to the design of the user interface for Special:Block to enable admins to set partial blocks.

Until now partial block has only been deployed on Wikipedias. Since Wikipedia administrators found partial blocks useful and there are no serious known issues or bugs, our team is planning to introduce partial blocks into more Foundation wikis. We think it is important to find any bugs that might exist for Wikisource, Wiktionary, Commons, Wikidata, etc. and not Wikipedias so we are going to deploy to a few of these wikis next week with our software developers ready to respond to any issues that may arise.

Currently it is scheduled to SWAT deploy to English Wikisource on Monday, June 17, 2019.

Let me know if you have any questions or thoughts about introducing partial blocks on Wikisource. For the Anti-Harassment Tools team. SPoore (WMF) (talk) 21:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Partial blocks is now deployed. Let us know if you notice any issues or have questions.

Here is a description of the use of partial blocks Also here is a page that the Italian Wikipedia created about partial blocks. This wiki might want to update there policies according with something similar. SPoore (WMF) (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-25

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

Problems

• You will be able to read but not to edit Wikimedia Commons for 30 minutes on 19 June at 05:00 (UTC). This is to fix a hardware problem. [13]

Changes later this week

• MIDI files can soon be played without the Score extension. You can then add them with [[File:Filename.midi]]. Later override_midi and override_audio will stop working. Instead you will need to add the MIDI file below the music score. [14]
• A new video player will soon replace the old one. You will be able to enable it as a beta feature in your preferences. It will later be enabled for everyone if there are no big problems. [15]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 18 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 19 June. It will be on all wikis from 20 June (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 19 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Some gadgets and user scripts still use the old wgEnableAPI and wgEnableWriteAPI values. These values are always true. They will soon be removed. This might break the gadgets and scripts. You should fix your gadgets to not use these values. [16]

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

20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Marking authors as dead

Using petscan, we can do a search for PD-1923 living authors, turning up 650 pages. If they published a work at the age of 20 in 1923, that would make them 115; w:List of the oldest living people gives us the complete list of four known people that old. It might be possible if they were a little younger, but if they published in 1918 at 15, or 1913 at 10, they're in the same group, and many of the people in that list published works in the 19th century. Besides simple correctness, there's also errors and questionable entries there.

Unfortunately, putting ? in the deathyear spot doesn't seem to take authors out of Category:Living author, and is not encouraged with wikidata. Is there any way to take clearly dead authors out of this category?--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:03, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

I expect that if you add a death year to Wikidata (including "unknown value") it will have the desired effect. Birth year before currentyear-110 also works. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:30, 14 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, filling death year to Wikidata works. However, there are still some unsolved issues, e.g. when only work period start and work period end are filled at Wikidata. So, e. g. Author:Mansur II is still categorized as living. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I fixed that one, thus. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for solving this one, but I am afraid making up some "latest date" of death individually at every page is not a solution. Some general solution would be much better. E. g. the author template could react to "work period end" in a similar way as it does to "death date". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:54, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting "making up" anything; I'm suggesting the value be estimated from the available facts. Changing the template here, far from being a "general solution", does not help other users of Wikidata's data. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you mean. However, coincidental individual estimation of every single person with unknown date is imo not a good idea. If we do not want to appear cases like Mansur II before you individually fixed it, we should modify our author template, which would result in immediate correction of all existing and also future author pages ot this kind.

This does not mean that Wikidata cannot be edited as well, but are we sure they want it this way?

• They distribute data to more wikiprojects than to Wikisource and even outside Wikimedia projects. I am not sure if you made your estimation based on some Wikidata consensus. If not, we may have a discussion here and decide that a person is most probably dead e. g. after work period end + 90, but for consistency reasons we should not insert Wikisource conception to Wikidata until we know that this is widely acceptable for them (and not e. g. +100). I failed to find any discussion of this kind at Wikidata.
• Wikidata definitely have better tools how to add +90, +100 or whatever to the work period end to show that the person has most probably died, than relying on individual and coincidental manual edits which may (unlike automatic addition) insert numerical mistakes or add different numbers than has been decided. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:03, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

Nobody's suggesting automatically entering last work+X death dates on Wikidata, as far as I can tell. WD does specifically have tools to add estimates, such as the qualifier Andy used, or the "sourcing circumstances" qualifier which can take the value possibly (among others). Those are there, to my understanding, precisely so that they can be used in cases like this. If there aren't death dates available on other Wikimedia projects then case-by-case manual editing seems like the only solution to me, and certainly the only reliable one. —Nizolan (talk) 23:46, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

OK, but the main problem is that manual editing is too coincidental, while modifying the author template solves it much better and forever. Andy edited Mansur II at Wikidata only because I mentioned this author here. Others stay unsolved and even more other unsolved authors are to appear in the future. This does not mean that people cannot edit Wikidata at the same time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

"modifying the author template solves it much better and forever" for some value of "it". What you're describing is simply a local hack, which would leave the two projects containing divergent data, instead of in sync with each other. That's neither better, nor sustainable in the long-term. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

"Are we sure they want it this way?" Yes. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 07:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Author mispelt

Author:Robert Beverly is misspelt and should be Author:Robert Beverley or as the wikipedia article, Author:Robert Beverly Jr. Could this be redirected, please? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Done -Einstein95 (talk) 11:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Image only material out of scope?

Material that has no text is out of scope isn't it?

Page:Meeting in the Oval Office between Nixonand President Mobutu Sese Seku of Zaire - NARA - 194548.tif ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, that clearly is redundant to the commons image. Kges1901 (talk) 16:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

I've deleted it as out of scope. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Page:February 1916 QST.djvu/21

LintErrors is being pedantic, It says there is a "fostered content" - There isn't, the sole issue seems to be an LST style section tag marking the portion that is the end of the table. It's a shame that despite the fact that I have mentioned issues like this REPEATEDLY, there is no-one seemingly able to finally resolve this once and for all by actually fixing LintErrors and the backend so contributors like me don't have to run=around playing "hunt the pendatic interaction minutiae'. Table syntax also needs updating so it can ACTUALLY be done neatly across multiple pages, rather than having to use the various "bodge" and "kludge" approaches currently needed. When I also say this needs to be fixed, I am seemingly ignored (sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:15, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Files in Category:Extracts from Mueller Report

As per Commons:Deletion requests/Files in Category:Extracts from Mueller Report, these images should be moved to here:

• File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election-p100.png
• File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election-page39.jpg
• File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election-page42.jpg
• File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election-page99.jpg

I am unaware of any easy way of doing this, so any assistance for this matter is greatly appreciated. -Einstein95 (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

these were kept as de minimus. c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Report On The Investigation Into Russian Interference In The 2016 Presidential Election.pdf they can transfer them, if they choose to.

we also lack a consensus for "fair use" here; see also Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2016-10#Exemption_Doctrine_Policy_(EDP), and Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-05#Dealing_with_non-free_images_in_transcriptions_of_freely_licensed_works Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 11:32, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Lovely. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

yeah, i was proven wrong about that deletion close, but not about the consensus. as we see, they will continue to nominate until they get the result they want. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 15:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Fair use is explicitly prohibited on Wikisource. With no consensus to amend the policy, fair use remains unacceptable here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:52, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

It is correctly stated there that "reproducing whole works is not fair use" and because we reproduce whole works, it is quite logical that fair use is not allowed here. However, imo we could accept some exceptions for works which are in public domain but contain minor parts (e. g. a couple of photographs), which are not. Of course a clear consensus about it would be needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:39, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

so, you are still prepared to veto a reasonable compromise, despite the harm it would cause the dissimination of knowledge? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 15:41, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

Beleg Tâl is not attempting to "veto a reasonable compromise", just pointing out that, as it currently stands, that compromise is not permissible per policy. Pppery (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

on the contrary, when a proposal is on the table, and the comments are "IANAL" and "fair use not allowed", that is stonewalling and vetoing, not collaborating. rest assured commons and wikisource will get a black eye if these pages get deleted. [17] Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene_Fathers

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:LintErrors/html5-misnesting?namespace=0

Seeing lint errors all over the place, Is there a scan of this, so the import can be replaced? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

There are scans available at IA but transcription work so far has been at Ante-Nicene Christian Library instead—basically "Library" is the original UK edition, "Fathers" is a later pirated American edition with a different structure. The imports of Ante-Nicene Fathers and Nicene Fathers seem to have quite a lot of errors in general. —Nizolan (talk) 23:59, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

The ANCL is one of my on-going projects. As I create each work in the ANCL, I am repointing any links to ANF to the proofread ANCL version. Once that's done, I'm then collapsing the ANF work down from lots of tiny pages to a single page. Because these are separately published editions with ANF having additional apparatus and commentary, they do both need to be kept. The import of ANF was via a bot and, as far as I can tell, there was minimal human proofreading or checking of layout etc. Hopefully, the collapsed works don't have the errors you are pointing at. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Ante-Nicene Fathers/Volume III/Anti-Marcion/Against Praxeas/I is somewhere where a mainspace version of the OCR clean-up script would help. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

NYPL on renewals

NYPL has a blog on the state of copyright renewals, and their work to wrangle a database [18] -- Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 15:57, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Template Name collision...

Module:WikidataIB/doc

This wronlgy assumes that {{P}} is the same as it was on Wikipedia at the time the documentation was imported, which it isn't, {{P}} locally is a different template used for marking up paragraph styles, which means this documentation page breaks. Can someone experienced resolve this issuse, perhaps by importing the updated {{Q}} and {{q}} from Wikipedia and updating this documentation appropriately? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:53, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: Done I've imported {{wikidata entity link}} from enwp and redirected {{q}} to it. Note that {{Q}} and {{q}} are the same template (the first letter is case insensitive in MediaWiki, even when linking or invoking templates). {{wikidata entity link}} handles both entities (William Shakespeare (Q692)) and properties (given name (P735)) so there is no need for separate Q/P templates. Let me know if there are other issues. --Xover (talk) 05:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Committee to Defend the United States Constitution v. Moon

Should I just inline the footnotes without leaving the [FN] style markers? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

In my opinion: yes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Can you look over my recent Lint removal efforts like this ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

No, I don't care about this lint stuff —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Oxon link template broken

There is something wrong with {{Oxon link}}... Levana Taylor (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

User:Billinghurst was working on it recently; perhaps they can help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I haven't touched the cover template, or the underlying template in over a year. It looks to be working fine on the template/doc page, so can you please extrapolate on "something wrong" in terms of diffs, or explanation. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

First question usually is: are the instructions being followed? Two parameters {{Oxon link|name of article page|year of matriculation or B.A.}} — billinghurst sDrewth 21:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It works fine on author pages, so I don't know why the documentation page is displaying an expression error. Levana Taylor (talk) 23:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

It just needs a default value for the matric parameter; since it doesn't have a value on that page it reads #ifexpr: < 1715 expecting a number where "<" is and throws an "unexpected <" error. —Nizolan (talk) 23:28, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Dynamic layout problems and proposed fixes

Coming across some problems with Layouts (see here). I've tested these with several different browsers. Firstly, the position of the header in Layout 3 seems to be off—I assume it is supposed to be above the sidenotes and not off the edge of the screen.

Sidenotes are also broken in Layout 4 (they overlap with the text) and Proposed Layout (they go past edge of screen).

Fixes:

• Layout 3: headerContainer has the right width (21em to fit in the 23em margin of the layout) but should be at right: 0 not right: -23em which currently hides it off the edge of the screen.
• Layout 4 sidenotes: I guess this was modelled on Layout 2 since they use the same numbers but the body in Layout 2 is 36em wide whereas Layout 4 has a fixed width of 540px. The style applies left: 37em; this should instead be measured from the right e.g. right: -17em (since the width of the box is 16em).
• Proposed Layout sidenotes: The style applies right: -10em. This should be adjusted to e.g. right: -4em. —Nizolan (talk) 16:30, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Wanted: User script for missing images

Where an image is missing, the template {{missing image}} renders with text like:

To use the entire page scan as a placeholder, edit this page and replace "{{missing image}}" with "{{raw image|The British Warblers A History with Problems of Their Lives - 5 of 9.djvu/6}}".

Is there (or could someone make) a user script that would, say, add a button to automatically make the suggested replacement? Maybe User:Samwilson, whose other scripts are fab, can help? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:21, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The Prince (Marriott)

What to do about seemingly abandoned transcriptions of non-scan backed efforts?

An agressive removal campaign would seem rash, but I am sorely tempted to do this for some works like this that have too much 'junk' from an interdetminate third party source (which isn't given.)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:32, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

here you go https://archive.org/details/princethe00machuoft/page/n8 Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 19:43, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but for various reasons, it would need someone else to set up the index here, I am not editing at Commons until 2021 owing to a "misunderstanding". ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:29, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

ok, if by aggressive removal campaign, you mean getting others to upload to commons and do indexes here, i agree. we decreased non-scan backed by 1958 pages last year.[19] you realize that if you delete them, then all progress would be lost? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 21:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

See File:The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott).djvu.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:44, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

i see we have Wikisource:Requested_texts#Works_exist_at_Wikisource_—_candidates_for_addition_of_pagescans. if you put work w/o scans, we can bury you in indexes. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:22, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

I would love to see more scanless works buried in indexes. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

(Smile) Always ways to create more work for the unpaid minions hard-working contributors , LOL ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Authorship concerns

And I've found an anomaly - The Prince (Marriott)/Introduction credits Herbert Butterfield, the problem is that according to w:Herbert Butterfield he would have only been 8 in 1908, assuming the introduction is from the 1908 edition, (and in 1925 (the date reprint would still have been doing his MA, Not implausible for an MA student to write a book introduction though.) , hmmm. Who actually wrote the introduction and when? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:54, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

@MartinPoulter:, Time to ask an expert. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:14, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Author:Niccolò Machiavelli also claims the introduction is by Butterfield, however I've only found him mentioned on post-war editions, NOT on the 1908 original ( or reprints.) So did someone when building the Author page and the works, essentially misread the bibliographic data? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay someone really needs to sort things out - The Annotated Prince has a potential misattribution as well, in that it claims the translation is Marriots, but The_Annotated_Prince/Chapter_I Claims to be the Thomson translation, which is DIFFERENT translation entirely (which is also not scan backed.)

Any experienced contributors here want to make things UNAMBIGUOUS before I have a screaming fit and re-instate the deletion for ALL the editions currently on Wikisource, So we can start again with a KNOWN "clean" and scan backed edition.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Also A description of the methods adopted by the Duke Valentino when murdering Vitellozzo Vitelli, Oliverotto da Fermo, the Signor Pagolo, and the Duke di Gravina Orsini Credited as Marriot, but based on the lack of clarity noted above, I've marked it as unsourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

i suspect that "introduction by Butterfield" is a later edition, given the lack of credit on the scan we have. i would adjust the guttenberg to reflect the front matter we have. hard to prove without some bibliography from subject matter expert. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:54, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

That's why I put in a request to User:MartinPoulter, who has access to relevant library sources ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:04, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The edition scanned is in parts post 1920, given a comment in an editorial by series editor Author:Ernest_Rhys (d. 1946) Page:The_Prince_(translated_by_William_K._Marriott).djvu/322)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:18, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Another non scan backed work

• Work: Essays in Persuasion
• Scan: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.89977 ,
• Edition : 1933 ( Popular Edition)

Copyright check is suggested as the work is after 1924, and this URAA may be aplicable. Keynes died in 1946 so it is PD in the UK (original publication location.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

You might be right; 1946 is one year too late for copyright to have expired in 1996. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The UK went life+70 on 1996, apparently specifically timed to grab that extra 20 years from the URAA. --Prosfilaes (talk) 17:56, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Biographical enquiry Author:Aaron Thompson

Anyone else got more information on this person, ( It's not the Basbeball player), but so far I've only been able to find an uncertain birth date around 1681..  ? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Fellow of Queen's College, Oxon; born 1681 or 1682; translated Monmouth's The British History into English —Beleg Tâl (talk) 10:46, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thence: Echard, Siân "Remembering Brutus: Aaron Thompson's British History of 1718", Arthurian Literature 30, 2013. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Bio query

Author:Gladys Thomas & Author:Mary F. Guillemard associated with the translation of Rostand's Cyrano de Bergerac ?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Think I've identified the second because there's only one Mary F. Guillemard in UK census records from the period: Mary Frances Guillemard, born Dublin 1856, apparently lived in Kent for most of her life, died 1930. Probably the same Mary Guillemard who wrote a jingoist poem, "Fill Up the Ranks", published in the UK Cambridge Magazine in 1914. I've got nothing for Gladys Thomas; the name's too non-specific to check government records. —Nizolan (talk) 20:33, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Do we know that either or both were in the UK? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:05, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

"Gladys Thomas and Mary F. Guillemard, who we understand are London women..." here —Nizolan (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thomas has a VIAF ID: 315182819 and Library of Congress ID: no2015031802. Guillemard is VIAF: 51467264; LoC: no2007059400. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 22:52, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Did page validation process changed?

Could and would someone enlighten me what process validated this page, but there is no validation history.Ineuw (talk) 22:03, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ineuw: it was created as proofread (Special:Permalink/8825300) and validated in Special:Diff/8910736 - is that what you were looking for? --DannyS712 (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, and yes (said he sheepishly) Ineuw (talk) 22:21, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ineuw: no problem. I took a look at your user page, and see your an admin - any chance you can take a look at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#Request for autopatrol? Its been sitting there for a couple days. See Index:Alabama v. North Carolina, 560 U.S. (2010) slip opinion.pdf and Index:Fisher v. University of Texas at Austin, 579 U.S. (2016) (slip opinion).pdf for my recent project. Thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 22:25, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Thanks, I just didn't want to be a burden with new pages - if there are any issues with my pages so far please let me know --DannyS712 (talk) 22:40, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

Glad to help. All I did was to increase the font size and the space above the title pages for better legibility, . . . . according to my ideas, which varies with every editor. The important part of editing is consistency in a project.

Also, page footnotes are converted into one unified endnote in the main namespace page. To keep them separate, one needs a separate main namespace page for each chapter or heading, and footnotes would still end up as a single endnote, but for the chapter. Ineuw (talk) 00:14, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Okay, thanks --DannyS712 (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

Mathilde Leiris

Hello from the French language wikisource; we have worked on a book published in New Orleans in 1835. Does anyone (for instance in Louisiana) have bibliographical details about its translator, Mathilde Leiris in order to enrich her wikidata record ? Thanks a lot for your help. Hektor (talk) 11:35, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-26

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

Problems

• The new version of MediaWiki for last week was not fully released due to issues. It was removed from most wikis on Tuesday and from test wikis on Thursday. [20]
• Most wikis were slow and then briefly read-only last week due to one of the database servers having a problem. It is now replaced. [21]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 25 June. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 26 June. It will be on all wikis from 27 June (calendar).

Meetings

• You can watch or join the next Wikimedia Language showcase. It will be about the usage of Machine Translation in Wikimedia projects. The showcase will be on 26 June at 13:00 (UTC). A recording will be kept for later viewing
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 26 June at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

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

17:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Use of HTML element IDs

I'm trying to clean up some warnings currently being issued by epubcheck for epubs generated by wsexport, and would like to make this change: Template_talk:License#Why_have_element_IDs? Sam Wilson 05:10, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

 Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Done And the epub test suite is improved another couple of points. :-) I'll keep digging through it (~45 to go). Sam Wilson 02:28, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Sidenote mess

Does anyone have any tips for how to deal with this sort of thing? My current solution looks OK in Page: but it'll probably play havoc with dynamic layouts, and my sense is that as currently set up {{sidenote}} is mostly intended for the more usual section-heading sidenotes than for side-references like this. —Nizolan (talk) 19:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

After seeing that it also breaks the page on mobile I had the thought that it might be better to just convert all of the textual references to standard footnotes and leave only the page numbering as sidenotes, per the "page layout" advice at WS:MOS. —Nizolan (talk) 21:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

that is the way side footnotes appear. it is a roadblock for works with side footnotes. there has been some discussion at other transcription projects, about transcribing without the side footnotes (as adding little value), but there has not been a consensus to adopt that style. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 11:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

@Slowking4: In this particular case the sidenotes are important, because the work is a medieval Bible commentary and the sidenotes point to the particular Bible verses, as well as allusions to other works. Unfortunately when there are about 50 of them on one page there's no way to present them as sidenotes without breaking things, so I think changing them into an ordinary <ref> group is the only way to go if we want to retain them in this specific instance. (My example attempt is here.) I'm not opposed to ignoring them in some cases though. —Nizolan (talk) 19:50, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

that is a good compromise, go for it. (sometimes i think our verisimilitude of marginalia gets in the way). Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:16, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

If you are using {{Outside L}} , {{Outside LR}} etc. you can use the experimental clearfix=yes parameter, this should work on transclusion, but doesn't quite work in page namespace yet. It was written as a style so could be tweaked for mobile if needed.

(Aside:) {{fine block}} is DIV based, the sidenote template families are SPAN, you can't put a DIV in a SPAN per HTML document structuring conventions, so you might want to rethink the formatting. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Biogaphical checks...

I made a table of the figures mentioned in the title page of a work here - Index talk:Memorials of Affairs of State in the Reigns of Queen Elizabeth and King James Volume One.pdf

but would appreciate a second view, before I create the red-linked author pages, to be sure I've identified the correct historical indviduals.

Additionally, the Cornwallis referenced in an earlier indvidual than the one English Wikisource has an Author page for, I was not sure how to do the disambig for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:36, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Reducing unlinked pages...

I've been attempting to resolve some of the lower hanging fruit here. I'm hitting the limits of research skill with more than a few of the remainin entries, and it would be appreciated if some more experienced contributors here would be able to link some of the Index: pages with "corporate" authors, to appropriate Author: or Portal: pages.

Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Issues with Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence

Hi,

I have had a go at creating the Chapters for Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence but have noticed a couple of issues that I am unable to resolve.

Issue 1. I created the Front Matter page listings, but I see that the Illustrations listings from page (25) display as if they were on page 26 with red links showing instead of the blue links from the actual page view.

Issue 2. In the Chapter Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence/The Revolt of Robert de Brus the table crossing between pages 121 and 122 is not displaying correctly.

I'd appreciate if someone has time to help in correcting these issues.

Thanks Sp1nd01 (talk) 14:49, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

{{TOC link}} links to the page number parameter when displayed in Page: namespace and to the chapter name parameter when displayed in the Main namespace. Since you've specified (e.g.) {{TOC link|31|SILVER PENNY OF JOHN DE BALLIOL |1}}, this will link to Page:Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence - 1909.djvu/31 in Page:, and Robert the Bruce and the struggle for Scottish independence/SILVER PENNY OF JOHN DE BALLIOL#1 in Main. The second parameter should be corrected to the name of the chapter under which the illustrations appear.

I have fixed the table. —Nizolan (talk) 14:55, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for your help and fix.

I'd not come across the ToC links previously, I was simply copying what someone did in the Chapter listings for consistency. I'll correct all those ToC Links parameters to the name of the associated chapter. Sp1nd01 (talk) 15:25, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Prince (translated by William K. Marriott).djvu text complete...

Text complete. If someone wants to assemble and figure out formatting for the notes and Index. ThanksShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:44, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

I wonder which header style is preferred, if any: used here vs. automatic? (And, if the firs one is preferred, why the automatic is different?) Ankry (talk) 06:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Duplicate transclusions...

An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness (Part 2) with Blackwood's Magazine/Volume 43/Issue 270/An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness (Part 2).

Retain, Redirect, ignore? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Redirect the first to the second (for the volume structure) I think… —Nizolan (talk) 15:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I would actually delete the former entirely; there should be a redirect for An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness but I see no reason to have redirects for its subparts. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:04, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Also, the work structure for Blackwood's Magazine is a disaster, I'll see if I can straighten it out when I have a chance —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:06, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Done, redundant link speedily deleted; misplaced articles relocated; headers updated, all good now —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Placing replacement scans at the end of a work? Shouldn't they ultimately be integrated in the djvu?

Index:Miscellaneous Writings.djvu

In this work, the original scan contained some absent pages, which were provided as additional JPG's and appended at the end of the pagelist.

Prior to some concerns on the talk page for {{integrate pages}}, it was my understanding that previous practice here at English Wikisource had been to repair the djvu by inserting the respective JPEG's back into the Djvu file so that there was a complete file. (This has been done a few other works.)

A while back I'd created {{Integrate pages}} to mark the Index: pages I'd identified as having this issue, and a tracking category (which hopefully should remain empty most of the time.

Some concerns were expressed on the talk page for the template concerned (which I've downgraded to being a 'tracking category' insertion only), pending a wider request for views here.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:42, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the pages should be integrated, though I think it would make more sense to post to #Repairs (and moves) above, rather than simply tagging them into a tracking category that no one but you is monitoring. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:16, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Scans which need page images integrating into the djvu/pdf etc.

I some time ago created a template which categorised a small number of works into a category here Category:Scans with pages to be integrated into source file. These works are those currently marked as needing a Source file repair, but where scans of missing pages have been added subsequently at the end of the page list. Currently the category contains 3 entries, and it would be nice if at some later date, those technically able were able to repair the files and Index pages concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Also in relation to Category:Index_-_File_to_fix , I seem to have also made some 'reason' templates to supplement the categorisation of Index: pages into that status/category. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:42, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Templates that generate external links inside works (Template:Ussclinker)

I just came across {{Ussclinker}}. It appears to be intended for use in works that refer to US Supreme Court decisions, and generates output like this:

• {{ussc|372|726}} → 372 U.S. 726
• {{Ussclinker|5|103|1803|Cranch|1|name=Marbury v. Madison}} → Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 103 (1803)

Note that the case number (726 and 103) is linked to an external website that is configurable, enwp being one option, but defaults to findlaw.com. The link targets are themselves works that could, should, and sometimes already are hosted here on enWS. The template is transcluded on the order of 150–200 times.

Is this in keeping with our practices for linking inside works? Do we want to permit such external links (some of which are commercial, some directly antithetical to our mission, one domain has been usurped and now appears to serve ads for German credit cards or something)?

The other functionality of the template appears to be good and useful; but I am, personally, quite sceptical of the external links portion and would like the community's input on this. --Xover (talk) 14:46, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

And now that I look at it, there seems to be a whole suite of similar templates, many of whom link to external sites. They appear to have been cut&paste imported from enwp where their purpose is to be used for citations, where such external links would be not just ok but actively desirable, and not made specifically for enWS. Which may explain why they function the way they do. --Xover (talk) 16:48, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

Agree, we should definitely not make external links to non-Wikimedia projects from inside the works. Even links to Wikimedia projects like Wikipedia or Commons are controversial and should be used quite rarely. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2019 (UTC)

I can foresee cases where we should do that; for example, modern open-licence works where the text has URLs written inline. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:50, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Sure, but that would be a set of pretty clearly delineated special cases, so I don't think we need to worry overmuch about that in this context. If it ever becomes an issue in practice we can have a general discussion about those at [[WS:Wikilinks]. --Xover (talk) 12:22, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment @Xover: If the links are sitting on portal or author pages they are perfectly within scope. If they are sitting on main ns pages, if they are in the notes section, they would be acceptable, if they are sitting in the body of the work, then they are less acceptable per WS:wikilinks — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: My apologies, I should have specified. Yes, they are indeed being used—and appear to be intended to be used—in the body of works. See e.g. Roe v. Wade. --Xover (talk) 07:36, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:The Female-Impersonators 1922 book scan.djvu

The book gives a number of names for the Author, What name should be on the Author: page taking into account the appropriate sensitivities? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

That would be https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q5325981 ; I'd go with the English Wikipedia and use Jennie June. The Swedish and Wikidata use Earl Lind as the page name, but the Arabic goes for a transliteration of Jennie June.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:24, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Looking at Wikisource:Author names it seems that if the person uses multiple names/pseudonyms then the full name should be used. It is not specified there what exactly is meant by the full name, but the given examples show that it should be the original or "real" name of the person. If all three given names and pseudonyms are used to denote the person in bibliographical records, then Earl Lind should be the choice. What is more, bibliographical databases like LOC or VIAF prefer Earl Lind as well (both mentioning also the pseudonym Ralph Werther and only LOC mentioning also Jennie June). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:32, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Full names are preferred over abbreviated names, but there is no consensus with regards to people with multiple names. I am inclined to go with Lind for the sole reason that it seems to be preferred by other bibliographical databases. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

 Comment Personally I believe that all author pages belong at the real names. Trying to play chase the pseudonym and resolve that battle, especially where users wrote under their real name, and maybe under one or two pseudonyms, some equally famous. We have had this argument before and there is no perfect answer, and there are complex discussions around disambiguation, etc. In the end, their real name is their real name, it is usually the name by which the biographies are published, and it is the perfect thing to disambiguate to as a final result, and it is definitive. We have redirects, we have lookups, that will allow us to resolve those other matters. It is also much easier in which to give instruction of author pages at real names, fully expanded; create redirects for the alternatives. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Pseudonymns are not the only use case; marital surnames, religious names, and (like this one) deliberate name changes are all common and both their old and new names can be considered their "real" names. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:38, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

Documentation?

Erm where is the header param for the pages tag documented?

Its used here: The Life of the Spider/The Garden Spiders: The Telegraph-Wire?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:44, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: "Documentation" may be giving it more credit than it merits, but there's something at oldwikisource:Wikisource:ProofreadPage#Headers_and_Navigation. --Xover (talk) 15:31, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

notes at MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Biography and family record of Lorenzo Snow

This is from an unknown source, but there seem to be two sets of scans on Wikisource -

• Index:Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow.djvu
• Index:Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow monochrome.djvu

Can someone decide on ONE set of scans, match and split (and eventually ditch the unsourced version), so I am not wasting my time, doing Lint-removal on stuff that will eventually be replaced? Thanks.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:19, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Index:Biography and Family Record of Lorenzo Snow monochrome.djvu has more progress. Discuss with the proofreaders and come to a consensus? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

Requesting import of "Links count" gadget

Please can someone (an admin, or whoever has the necessary permissions) import the very useful gadget "Links count" (counts total number of pages linked to a specific page on Special:WhatLinksHere (and transclusion, for templates)), as used on Wikidata Wikispecies and Commons? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Can anyone help with this, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I am not certain that we need the gadget as it isn't likely that it will be widely utilised, suggest that you add it to your special:mypage/common.js or better yet add to your m:special:mypage/global.js so you have it everywhere you go. If you are unsure what that would look like then please look at my global js page at meta. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

Or I can add it to either of those two places for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:31, 10 August 2019 (UTC)