Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014

HotCat not functioning?

I have HotCat selected in the gadgets but it's not working on WS but works on the commons. Have I missed something? — Ineuw talk 18:53, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I may not have asked the question properly. Is anyone using HotCat on Wikisource and is it working? — Ineuw talk 11:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

TOC Formatting

I am attempting to create / proofread the Table of Contents page for A History of the Australian Ballot System in the United States. My questions are as follow: 1. Is it appropriate to use the RunningHeader template for the page and chapter headers, as I have done? 2. I do not yet fully understand how transclusion to the final namespace works, and as far as I know, "chapters" have not yet been created for this work. Do the chapter links point to the right place? 3. Where should the individual page numbers link? 4. What would be the best method for including the indented chapter sections? These are numbered, but I'm assuming they shouldn't be considered "chapters." 5. Did I use the RunningHeader template in the footer correctly for the page number? 6. Should this page be called "iii" or "Table of Contents" on the index page? 7. This table of contents spans two pages, but I'm not sure how to use the templates to do this. Can anyone point to information on how to do that? Squideshi (talk) 20:00, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

You made a great start! The details can be confusing. I made edits to show you one way of doing it. The main article page refers to the three page scans: #6 with the cover, and #8 + #9 for the TOC. On scan page 9, we can move the column headings for chapter and page into the no include at the top. The table will appear continuous with the previous page of the TOC, so only one set of headings are needed. For the page numbers on the right column of the TOC, they do not need to link anywhere. Page numbers are less important for the on-line reader. On the pages, I replaced the <references/> with the template {{smallrefs}} template at the bottom of each page. This formats closer to the original scan. Within each chapter, I added sections which can be used from the TOC. See documentation at MediaWiki Labeled section transclusion -- DutchTreat (talk) 12:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Inclusion guidelines for American poems published 1881.

Is more searching needed? -- —unsigned comment by User:Twigs_Vorron (talk) .

Going by as much detail as was given, I'd say they are OK for inclusion here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:55, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Songbook transclusion help

Looking for help properly transcluding a songbook to mainspace. This will supersede the current extract now in mainspace, although it might be best to use a different title. I'm not even sure if I'm not even using the proper series title for these songbooks, they seem to have multiple.

I have a later edition of the songbook already done, that can be compared to, though I'm not sure if this is entirely done properly. I just went the route most obvious to me.

Possible, though minor, issues may include choosing how to name the subpages, as well as whether the little notes spread throughout the book, not directly related to the songs they follow, should simply be transcluded along with the nearest song or given a separate subpage. Some of these notes have titles, EG being little poems themselves, but are not listed in the book's index. I have the songs, at least, prepared with section labels.

And if that's not enough, working through the versions pages for each of these songs will be quite a feat! djr13 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2014 (UTC)

Index page TOC and length

According to Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files, the table of contents field on the index page can either be type manually, or transcluded from the book itself if there is one in the file:

“

A table of contents for the text. Usually this will link to the chapters as they are in the main namespace. The table of contents can be typed in here directly. However, if the text includes its own table of contents, this can be shown instead by "transcluding" the pages from the text (use the name of each page, wrapped in two curly brackets—or braces—at either side).

”

What, however, should be done when the table of contents is too long for transclusion? There apparently is a limit in the MediaWiki software on transcluded length, and if you trip that limit it blanks the page unhelpfully.

See, for example, Index:An introduction to the early history of Christian doctrine to the time of the Council of Chalcedon.djvu. This text has a 10-page table of contents. (The table of contents is also ridiculously detailed, which accounts for the length. It could double as an outline of the work.)

What is the appropriate thing to do in this situation? Would it be better to not include the entire table of contents on the index page? Or perhaps to manually enter a short-form table of contents with just the chapter titles?

Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:08, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

With overly detailed TOC, I just put a cut-down version on the Index page with just the "chapter" names that I'm going to create as sub-pages. e.g. Index:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.djvu and Index:History of England (Froude) Vol 5.djvu, which are two most recent ones I've done this for. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:24, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

A huge part of the "bloat" there is the application of the Greek missing template. Its possible if somebody properly replaced those missing characters and removed the missing template in the process, the overall post-expand template size might come in under the limit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Another option is not to use {{TOC row}} but directly table markup.--Mpaa (talk) 09:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your suggestions. I decided to just hand-craft a shortened form of the table of contents using just the chapter titles. Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:48, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I've inserted the missing Greek. Angr 17:29, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Error

Why does it say "Error: No Such File" on Index:Farewell letter to Soviet Russia.png? --Wylve (talk) 07:07, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Because it’s an image file, I think you have to give the pages in the work as separate links. The <pagelist/> tag won’t work here. I’m not too sure about the technical side of it, though. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 07:18, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. --Wylve (talk) 08:37, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Sidenotes pointer request

Can someone please point me to a work that uses left and right (inset) sidenotes so I can copy the formatting for this work? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks... How will that transclude into the Main? Will inset headers be on one side or both? Seems one side would be preferable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course I realise this is not what you were asking for at all, but recently I made a template for use in Mexico of the Mexicans which I think could be fairly easily "bent" into what your work needs without resorting to actual side-notes. What do you think of the possibilities of this? Yes: the bolding and centering of the note need more work. Viewer2 (talk) 19:45, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

The text of the inset headers are not centered in the original. Ideally, text would be left-aligned (as opposed to centered), and have less padding space. I'm not against using "raw" formatting/markup as opposed to a template (something similar to this—only better still), but I am wiki-markup challenged. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I took you quite literally and converted it to direct mark-up which I think is pretty close. To achieve the mirror effect (a left inset) would require use of <span style="float:left;font-size:smaller;line-height:70%;margin:0.7em 1em 0.7em 0;width:7em;">"The force of heaven-bred poesy."</span> (Note: the only changes are to float:—left or right; and to margin:—the 1em and the 0 swap places.) Viewer2 (talk) 20:24, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Further note: you may need to experiment with width:—try to find the lowest amount which achieves the wrapping you desire (or you could cheat and insert <br/>s wherever you want.) But for consistency throughout the work I would recommend choosing a common value for all (of these) spans. Viewer2 (talk) 20:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

That is much better, thanks! I took the liberty of increasing line height to 100% and making the text bold. Thanks also for the note/tips above. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:37, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Always forget to mention one more thing! Worth remembering (particularly later in transclusion); if you find two notes overlap because your screen is wider than the printed page, adding a {{-}} between the lowest possible paragraph (if there is one or more) between the overlapping notes will space the paragraphs apart automatically and avert the overlap. (I know I did not express that well—if you notice it happening and can't figure out the foregoing please remind me, because I assure you the cure is simpler to show than it is to explain!) Viewer2 (talk) 20:55, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. That happened to me when I tried {{float left}} on the following page; another reason why I went looking for another option. I'll make note of your {{-}} tip, thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

if you are interested, I recently learned about {{float box}}, see Remarks_on_Some_Late_Decisions_Respecting_the_Colonial_Church.--Mpaa (talk) 21:51, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Question: with either option, what is the layout like in the Main? Preferably, the inset headers will only appear on one side. Is there a way to make that happen? Do we want the headers to be on both sides in the Main? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:00, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

If I got your question, I would put all the notes on the same side. Left/right on paper is to have the notes always on the outer margin of the page (depending if it is even or odd). As we do not break pages, might as well put them on the same side. Would be interesting to see how it renders on EPUB or similar.--Mpaa (talk) 22:40, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll place all of the notes on the left then. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:07, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

I did not know about {{float box}} before. Looks very slick, and makes my suggestions look properly clunky. Viewer2 (talk) 22:36, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

This looks very messy; while I don't think {{float box}} would be any better(?) Unfortunately, no paragraphs are handy to make use of {{-}} Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:37, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Whilst obviously not a brilliant solution, how about this? I narrowed the top and bottom margins on the two single-line insets, and probably more controversially, moved the positioning of the lowest one on the previous page a little higher. This happens to work on my settings: hope it does for you too? Viewer2 (talk) 02:39, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

A bit better: Two tiers as opposed to three in the Mainspace (from my viewpoint). I plan on setting the Mainspace pages to Layout 2 (if I can get it to work...see Help request below), which will help output some more. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

How about now? Like a fool I forgot a styling in the original specification. It should have read (for the left-inset case you are using throughout this work): <span style="clear:left;float:left;font-size:smaller;line-height:70%;margin:0.7em 1em 0.7em 0;width:7em;">"The force of heaven-bred poesy."</span>

The addition of "clear:left" instructs HTML to move the floating element down to where it will next fit automatically (literally: "keep my left margin clear".)

This is only worth reworking on problem transclusions, as it will have no effect on most cases. Viewer2 (talk) 03:35, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I applied the change to other problem pages (cases). I'll use the new markup from now on. Seems to be only one hard case now (page 27 [DJVU page 57]). Thanks for all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:58, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't think I can help with 27(57), because it looks correct from my perspective. What is misbehaving for you? Viewer2 (talk) 04:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Page 27 seems to work now. Must have been a lag in my system. All good. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:02, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Sehr gut! Viewer2 (talk) 04:08, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Layout display question

I have The poor Sisters of Nazareth set to view with Layout 2 using {{default layout|Layout 2}}, but it doesn't seem to be working. It used to work. Any thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

The override code currently only affects users who have never selected a layout manually. Users who picked a layout on any page via the sidebar will continue to see that layout on all pages. There has been discussion of adding a gadget or preferences setting to make this adjustable. For now, clearing cookies should reveal the behavior you want to see. --Eliyak T·C 10:22, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:53, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Index:Agreement relating to Malaysia (1963) Malay Texts.djvu

What's the template for a language transfer? - Non english work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:03, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

The ongoing saga of the sidenotes

Template:Sn-paragraph/sandbox and {{sn-note}} where my current efforts on this.

A logic check of these would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

help with formatting table of contents

I tried to do some formatting using template dottec toc page listing, on this page. Is there an experienced editor who can check this, before I continue? Thnx, Dick Bos (talk) 19:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Check it now. Better? If you see the changes, you can get the gist of it.--Mpaa (talk) 20:40, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping. I again made some small changes. Your solution created rather a strange effect on the index-page. I think it will do now. But before I continue, could you please check it again? Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 19:40, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

How to add "as of" date?

Hello, I've found my way here from Wikidata and I'm trying to figure out how you handle amended documents. You have British North America Act, 1867, which is the original 1867 version of the statute, and Constitution Act, 1867, which is the same document with all of the amendments made over the last 147 years (including the name change). However, The latter document is missing the most recent amendment, which came into force in 2011 (the last amendment your page contains came into force in 1999). Until I get a chance to update the page, I want to add "as of 1 April 1999" to the header, but the Template:Header doesn't seem to have an "as of" parameter. What's your standard practice for tagging something like this? Even after I make the updates I want to mark it "as of 2011" in case no one updates it next time a Constitutional amendment is passed. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 00:45, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Information such as that would normally go in the notes section of the header template (currently bloated by a snippet taken directly from Wikipedia - a practice no longer really practiced anymore btw). Technically, we operate under the assumption that hosted works are static and not subject to any future changes so we don't have anything like the field you describe by design - but this instance seems to have been grandfathered in due to its creation preceeding the policy nevertheless. Otherwise, info such as that could/should also go in the "notes" section" of the textinfo template (when one exists) located on the article's talkpage. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

If we prefer stable versions, should I move the existing Constitution Act, 1867 to Constitution Act, 1867 (as amended in 1999) and create a version with the new amendments at Constitution Act, 1867 (as amended in 2011)? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 02:17, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

No there is no point in doing that at this stage of the work's timeline & modifications. The best thing to do is make it current & complete by adding the since ratified amendment(s). -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick and helpful replies. I have one more question. We have Constitution Act, 1867 (annotated) (plus several other annotated Acts). These annotations give important information like the date a given section came into effect. I have two concerns about these pages. The first concern is about copyright. These annotations come from versions of the statutes published by the Canadian Department of Justice (e.g., see here), and I can't tell whether the annotations may be freely distributed like the laws can. The terms of the DoJ website suggest that they can be redistributed, but it's under a different licence than the laws themselves. My second concern is that we don't really have a firm publication date for the annotations. The website has been updated more recently than the date of the last amendment, so it might be necessary to cite the annotations to a print version of the annotated laws. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 18:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Well our policy on annotations isn't set in stone quite yet.

Regardless, I don't see any links to an "annotated" version at the DoJ site you linked - are we sure these are published annotated versions or are they User: created annotated versions based on the published DoJ versions? The latter would be fine for inclusion on en.WS per the previously linked policy but the former would need to have an acceptable license of some sort in order to be able to host them here. If you are thinking of material linked from the "notes" section(s) or similar, which appear to be in footnote/reference form - those are fine to reproduce and are covered by the same license as the rest of the content (afaict).

As far as the publication date goes, again depending on if User: generated or if DoJ published, we try to do the best we can when ascertaining such dates only in the case of formally published works. Whatever the site's "last modified" date is would be what we use in those cases I suppose. For User: created annotations, a review of the article history should help nail down the date of the last edit concerning creation of the annotated content. Hope that helped. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

Newspaper reports

I have a short (35 line) newspaper report from 1920 that I would like to refer to on at least two pages of Wikipedia. The original is microfilm to which I have limited access, in other words I can't easily get it scanned. I'm quite happy to copy type it. Is Wikisource the appropriate repository or if not, where is? Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, we are the appropriate repository. In terms of titling the page, so that it can be linked into any future use of the particular issue, use Newspaper name/Year/Month/Day/Article name. An example is at The New York Times/1915/10/04/Correction by Mr. Tesla. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:52, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, I've done my best, please see The_Chatham_News_1920-12-20. It's my first edit in Wikisource, so please let me know if I've messed up somewhere! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:21, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

I will second Beeswaxcandle's suggestion of using subpages for issue date and title of article. When we have the publisher The Chatham News as the parent article, then it allows for a description of the source with room to easily navigate between multiple issues. If you need help moving the article into subpages, please let me know. -- DutchTreat (talk) 01:06, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

How to mark a duplicate for deletion?

This and this are the same work, same edition. One could even argue it's actually the same file uploaded twice to commons with different names. How does one go about marking one version for deletion as a duplicate? Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:02, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Here (enWS) you can mark one with {{sdelete|G4 "reason"}} and in the reason put a link to the one you want to retain. G4 indicates that the page is redundant. As part of deleting an Index any pages in the Page: namespace need to be deleted as well, so make sure that anything useful has been moved across to the version being kept before request a speedy delete. On Commons, once there are no pages anywhere linking to the redundant version, you can request deletion under their deletion process. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:16, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I found yet a third index for the exact same work, so I tagged two as duplicates. Hopefully there aren't any others lying around. The work itself has a 'ready for match and split' status, which doesn't appear to have started yet, so speedy delete should be OK. Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:22, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Toolbars shift their position in the editor

Everything is working fine with the minor exception that the user defined and the predefined toolbars alternate their positions in the editor. I was wondering if there is a .js solution to keep their loading order consistent? — Ineuw talk 14:07, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw, that happened to me also. I still used it like it was and within 2-3 days it corrected itself except for one item (View History) disappears. Perhaps George was experimenting. —Maury (talk) 15:00, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Maury, this problem has been around for a very long time but since there were other more urgent issues, I never bothered with it. I vaguely remember Inductiveload experimenting with this issue but since he's not here for the time being, I was hoping someone resolved the issue with some "wrapper".— Ineuw talk 15:21, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Not this time fellas. The shifting toolbars thing has been around forever - has something to do with the way or the order resources are being loaded but I couldn't tell you what or how to fix that if my life depended on it; sorry. And there is so much going in Maury's common.js file, that I wouldn't know where to start.

The only thing I can recommend trying is to first see if you can reproduce the "quirk" when you are not logged in. If the problem goes away, its likely the bug has to do with something within (or some combination of) your User: preferences and/or gadgets selected. If its still there when you're not logged in, then its something far more complicated.

Of course, this is over simplified when it comes to troubleshooting and won't apply to something like custom toolbars where you need to be logged in to enable that in the first place. Nevertheless, experimenting with your preferences can only help isolate the cause. Finally - some stuff just goes bad because its obsolete code-wise and is no longer being developed/maintained (hint, hint). -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:44, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I have no problems with my minor change after the initial problem. Even then I just kept going with the flow. All I have to do now it click on "reload" to see "view history". We love ya George, you keep things going so that what we have is due to you. You've helped us a hundred times over. I have no complaints. It works fine as it is. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

This happens to me at other Wikisources too: French, Multilingual, and Welsh. Angr 17:31, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

For me too, it has been like that for a long time here and in other Wikisources as well. --Zyephyrus (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

You folks must be aware that the "old" toolbar scheme has been deprecated for some time now. Just because you can manage to pull something into existence around here doesn't really mean that its truly supported. If you don't like WikiEditor (or its eventual replacement, VisualEditor) then at least dump this toolbar nonsense and move those characters and inserts to CharInsert already. All you need to do is add something like this...

// CharInsert specific
window.charinsertDontMove = false;
window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertCustom = { User: ' Æ  æ  Œ  œ  à  á  â  ä  è  é  ê  ë  î  ï  ñ  ô  ö  û  ü  —  ␥‽  #REDIRECT.[\[+]] ' };
if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();

.... to your common.js file and your done. Those characters can then be found on the User menu of what use to be EditTools (deprecated -- replaced with Char[acter ]Insert).

At the very least, please consider porting your buttons over to CharInsert - you're just prolonging the agony for everybody else by artificially keeping this 'monobook-love' around for really no good reason anymore. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

I suppose I use the "old" toolbar because I have never changed anything with it. I use Vector which is default. I never add to or remove common.js because you, George, have always adjusted that by adding to or removing portions like you did earlier today. I do have a wonderful java script created by InductiveLoad that allows for color background (I use grey) and text (I use black text) which allows me to work. Otherwise all white background hurts my eyes (eye strain). CNN reported on this subject just a few days ago and I have been asked how can I look at the computer so long by friends who can't. I am not opposed to using WikiEditor but it appears, from statements above, I may as well as wait for VisualEditor. How are we to know when these newer editors come along? I don't spend much time reading in this area. I prefer to work on images and text not set up a new editor which should be done automatically as "default"--or at least alert every individual the option is there and have a screenshot of what it looks like. I do nothing fancy so I haven't had a need to have a different editor. This "old" editor does all I need. I don't bother going to other areas with different languages and this old editor works on WikiPedia. Simplify, Simplify, Semper Fi --Ben Franklin. —Maury (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't use the toolbar to insert characters, I use it to zoom in and out of images and to open and close the noincluded headers and footers. Angr 08:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Useless Toolbar Buttons vs User defined buttons

The following toolbar buttons are on my editor and I never use them. They are a waste of space where preferred buttons could be added. Toolbar buttons should be easily chosen and removed by users. B, I, Ab, image of world for external link, image of frame for Embedded Link, image of a yellow trumpet for "file link", Square root of N, letter W inside red circle for ignore wiki formatting, Your signature with timestamp, horizontal line, Abc for small caps, poem & /poem, Hws, Hwe. —Maury (talk) 01:20, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You can disable these buttons to gain extra space. Copy the code from HERE and let me know which other buttons you wish to disable but not on my list.— Ineuw talk 12:47, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you, Ineuw. It didn't work though. The useless buttons were retained. It removed my ae AE oe OE which I do use and kept the useless buttons. No problem though, I never use those useless buttons previously described. They are just extras that are never used. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:17, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

---

/* Hide unused buttons */
#mw-editbutton-link { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-extlink { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-image { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-media { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-math { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-headline { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-signature { display: none !important; }
#mw-editbutton-hr { display: none !important; }

Did you place the above in User:William Maury Morris II/common.css? — Ineuw talk 18:13, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

I am sure I did. It looks very familiar. I looked it over before placing it at the bottom of the java script. In looking at it now I do recall seeing "math" but I will try again. However, it is just an experiment because those buttons do not bother me in any way as I stated above. The idea was not to just remove them but to replace them with other buttons that could be of some use. I have no idea what any other buttons would be worthy though. I did not use

and do not believe that is to be included. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 21:40, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, identical outcome Ineuw. But it does not matter. I don't use the buttons. They're all worthless. Are there any good ones to be inserted? What buttons do you use? The best script I have is the "eyestrain" color code. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

My tool-bar has 24 buttons totaled and I use none of them. There is no need for them. I can and do type in the codes instead of clicking on buttons. e.g. small caps sc, bold, italics, et cetera can all be done by hand. I have no problem with this, they're just there. —Maury (talk) 22:05, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Please correct me if I am wrong, but from what you wrote I must assume that you placed the code in your .js (javascript) page. That's not the same as the common.css page indicated above, because it was not yet created. The User:William Maury Morris II/common.css needs to be created, the above code pasted and this makes the listed buttons disappear. If this works, I will fish out the other codes for the rest of the buttons, and you just add them to the list. At this point, this is the only way I know how to hide the toolbar - by hiding the individual buttons.

I also noticed that you already have some custom buttons declared in your .js file. Do they show up along the 24 standard buttons? — Ineuw talk 22:26, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Ah! so there is the difference. You are correct as usual, Ineuw. I added what you posted to my common.js which made my custom buttons disappear and left the original old buttons listed above. As you state, I do not have a common.css I thought .css = cascading style sheet. Beeswaxcandle created a couple of custom buttons for me that I asked for but no longer use. The English pound button is important to me and I use that when I encounter it in texts but it is also available elsewhere. There is an old saying my friend, "If it ain't broke don't fix it" and I have nothing on my toolbar that doesn't work. If I tinker I may lose my eyestrain color code which could be retrieved but this situation is a code person's exploration. It serves me no purpose that I am aware of to just remove all buttons. Let them sit there. Our mutual friend, Raul, has returned from a long trip and we have books we want to start working on. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 23:14, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Overfloat image

A fix required here. Thanks in advance. :) —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 17:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I've split the image in two as it should be, but again my HTML is lacking. Perhaps someone can add the proper code to complete my efforts.— Ineuw talk 21:44, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is exactly how I wanted it to be. Thanks a lot, Ineuw, Eliyak and Mukkakukaku... —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 06:11, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone please help with some basic HTML?

Cannot center a <div> caption of an image on a main namespace page. The image originates here Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 87.djvu/208 and is diaplayed HERE.— Ineuw talk 20:09, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the issue using the {{img float}}. Hope that helps. --Xxagile (talk) 20:19, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick response, but unfortunately this is not what I was looking for. The images & captions (some 8,000+ of them) have various standardized formats throughout the PSM project. The images and their captions vary in size independently. I used this page as an example (and a bad one at that because the image and text are both 430px), but there are many images using this independent caption style. What I was looking for, is how to center this specific non-template HTML <div> code.P.S: Just as it formats this response.— Ineuw talk 21:02, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh ok. I think I understand what you mean, but unfortunately I don't know how to solve that problem (easily) either. Good luck. --Xxagile (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw, if you'll forgive me for messing with the format of your reply -- is that what you intended? I added margin:0 auto; and changed the align:center-justify to text-align:justify;. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Mess with it all you want . . . . and thank you. This is exactly what I needed.— Ineuw talk 04:41, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

page break and left margin

Hi there. Can anyone please help me with a paragraph that crosses a page break, and that should have a left margin (it has a fine block as well, by the way; but that runs without a problem). This is the example. Thanks, Dick Bos (talk) 20:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

See if it is OK. I leave to the template experts to see if we need to have a {{left margin/s}}, {{left margin/e}}.--Mpaa (talk) 21:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I've been doing this sort of thing with blockquote tags. They seem to work in the footer of the first page and header of the second page. See Page:A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi and Jonah.djvu/61 and the following to see it in action. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanx, Mpaa and Beeswaxcandle! re Beeswaxcandle: I used the blockquote for testing in your book: Page:A_Critical_and_Exegetical_Commentary_on_Haggai,_Zechariah,_Malachi_and_Jonah.djvu/49 and the following. That works good. But..... When using it halfway the following page in a block the space between lines is not small, but the same as "normal" text. What's going wrong? Dick Bos (talk) 19:03, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

If you mean the list of people on /50, that's a series of paragraphs, so it has paragraph spacing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I think he's commenting on the perceived spaced between the lines, not between paragraphs. (Eg. if this was in a word processor, the property called 'line spacing.') Indeed, on page 50 of the above work, the top blockquote (which, by the way, contains a <p>aragraph) has line-height of 1.2em and the second blockquote has a line-height of 1.5em. The point I believe he is trying to make, that I agree with, is that within a paragraph, the line heights should be the same. The problem is that the {{fine block/s}} template declares class="fslhInherit" on the surrounding <div>, while {{fine block}} does not. This class causes the second set of paragraphs to inherit the line-height from a different declaration. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:14, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A "paragraph" (i.e. the wiki code mark-up variant) normally won't inherit such attributes, being block level elements themselves. The class definition forces any & all of the "paragraphs" wrapped within to inherit the containing div block's values. {{fine block}} is for one block of text (one paragraph, or one div acting like a paragrpah). Multiple paragraphs = multiple block elements so {{fine block}} (singular) is always the wrong template to use in those cases. Use the start & end variation instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

It's still not quite clear to me. See my latest test on this page: Page:A_Critical_and_Exegetical_Commentary_on_Haggai,_Zechariah,_Malachi_and_Jonah.djvu/50. I now used fine block on one paragraph (two times), and the spacing is still different from the paragraphs below that are done with fine block/s and .../e. So even when I apply fine block to one paragraph, the line spacing is not altered.

Apart from that my objection to using the blockquote tag is, that it creates a left margin, and a right margin too. I only want a left margin. - Dick Bos (talk) 13:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

oe or ae?

On this page, toward the bottom, in italics: Is it "cum fœnore" or "cum fænore"? Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikitionary says that fœnore is an alternate spelling to fænore (wikt:foenus). I'd go for æ. In either spelling it means "with interest". Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Much thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I reckon it's an œ because (a) why would a font use the double-storey lower case a, then revert to a single-storey lower case a within a ligature?; and (b) in my experience when a font uses single-story lower case a in the ae ligature, the bottom of a's vertical may be lost but the top of the vertical nearly always presents as a small bump nestled between the letters. There's a good visual example at File:Ligatures.svg. Hesperian 02:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

See page 12 for an æ, which, as expected, uses the double-storey a. Therefore this is an œ. Hesperian 02:46, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In many (most?) serif typefaces, both a and æ use the single-story a in italics but the double-story a in roman. Angr 08:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

A note about Wiktionary. When Wiktionary says "X is an alternate spelling of Y", it does not necessarily imply one or the other is the primary spelling. It is simply indicating that both X and Y are possible spellings found in print. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

There's actually an example of an italic ae (Anima Poetæ) on the page in question as well... I didn't realize it until just now... Definitely a distinction between the two in the original. Noted. Thanks all, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:10, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Missing images?

Using the 'Random transcription' link, I ended up at Index:A Glimpse at Guatemala.pdf. However, it appears that there's something glitching with the file, or perhaps with the software -- none of the pages have images (which makes it rather hard to proofread.) I opened one of the images in a new tab (via 'image' tab at the top of the page) and was greeted with this lovely error message:

“

Error generating thumbnail Error creating thumbnail: convert: no decode delegate for this image format `/tmp/magick-E0sH8bmV' @ error/constitute.c/ReadImage/532. convert: missing an image filename `/tmp/transform_ec0b6ee14dd3-1.jpg' @ error/convert.c/ConvertImageCommand/3011.

”

I even tried going to the File:A Glimpse at Guatemala.pdf page, and that has broken thumbnails too. It's worth noting that the thumbnails are broken on Commons too. I can open the raw PDF file, so the file works. But I'm not sure what's wrong with the software's interpretation of said file -- or how to fix it.

Has anyone seen this happen before, or know of a fix or workaround for the problem?

-- Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

(see File:Cox and box.pdf) According to Commons, that file is "affected by MediaWiki restrictions". What exactly are those restrictions, I have absolutely no idea, but maybe you could upload a Djvu version of the file using another title...? Apart from that, I have no clue as to what could be done.

Of course, someone else might know better... —Clockery Fairfeld [sic] 06:27, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Documentation seems to exist only in the relevant bugzilla bugs. You'll find links to these bugs at the top of Commons:Category:PDF files affected by MediaWiki restrictions. Hesperian 06:41, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the server is running a very old version of ghostscript, but the devs are reluctant to update. Or maybe I read the bugs reports wrong. The official solution appears to be to "fix" the PDF file. Mukkakukaku (talk) 06:55, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

In addition to the PDF "bug" thing, something else is clearly off. The PDF on IA is ~24Mb and the one uploaded to Commons is ~33Mb. Seems corrupt to me - I'd try re uploading the PDF from IA again over the one currently on Commons for kicks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:59, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I re-uploaded the version at IA and while the filesize is now right, the current version has 10 fewer pages. And appears to be still broken. Mukkakukaku (talk) 07:18, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Viewing page links in a sandbox

I am using one of my sandboxes to view the progress of a work. Is there some way I can view page numbers so if I find an error I can link directly to the affected page instead of having to search for the correct page page-by-page in the Index? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Try tacking this on the end of your your common.js:

if ( $.inArray( mw.config.get( "wgAction" ), [ "view", "submit", "purge" ] ) !== -1 ) {
    if ( !self.debug_page_layout
      // don't do anything on DoubleWiki or difference comparison views
      && document.URL.indexOf( "match=" ) === -1
      && document.URL.indexOf( "diff=" ) === -1
      && mw.config.get( "wgNamespaceNumber" ) === 2 ) {
        if ( $( ".pagenum" ).length !== 0 ) {
            if ( ! $.isEmptyObject( self.ws_layouts ) )
                $(document).ready( layout.init );
            $(document).ready( pagenumbers.init );
            $(window).load( pagenumbers.refresh_offsets );
        }
    }
}

It should make pagenumbers and dynamic layout work on userspace pages that are transcluding from the page namespace. Prosody (talk) 03:48, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Unless I applied incorrectly, I'm still not seeing page numbers... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:15, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I didn't really test that through the normal methods. It looks like the user javascript loads before some of the system stuff so it doesn't know about it. Try this one instead. I tested it normally and I got it to work.

$(window).load(function() {
    if ( $.inArray( mw.config.get( "wgAction" ), [ "view", "submit", "purge" ] ) !== -1 ) {
        if ( !self.debug_page_layout
      	    // don't do anything on DoubleWiki or difference comparison views
      	    && document.URL.indexOf( "match=" ) === -1
      	    && document.URL.indexOf( "diff=" ) === -1
      	    && mw.config.get( "wgNamespaceNumber" ) === 2 ) {
            if ( $( ".pagenum" ).length !== 0 ) {
                if ( ! $.isEmptyObject( self.ws_layouts ) )
                    layout.init();
                pagenumbers.init();
                pagenumbers.refresh_offsets();
            }
        }
    }
});

Prosody (talk) 22:17, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Still not appearing. Thank you though, for and while you are making the attempt! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

I believe this feature was pulled from other namespaces in order to have it work in the Translation: namespace a few months ago. Eliyak would be the one to tap to see if User: namespace can be included back again. Otherwise I'd just test in the mainspace for now and request a speedy deletion if the test page can't be recycled for final/finished tranclusion. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:15, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

OK. Thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:39, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

A problematic PSM Volume

This PSM volume has some pages marked problematic because they are too fuzzy to proofread, and now, in edit mode, the original is shrunk to a tiny image. I cleared all caches (WS page, volume & FF) but the problem didn't go away. Do others see the same problem as I do?

Furthermore, with all the pages I marked problematic, in the AI source of the Commons copy, and the two additional copies I found on AI are all clean. This makes me assume that the problem may not be with the originals. Can someone please help? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 16:52, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about the shrinking-image problem, as I don't find it affects me (I use FF 26.0). But maybe the fuzzy-page problem can be fixed by reuploading the file from AI...? Or you can try checking the copy you've downloaded, to see whether there's a problem in that file. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 17:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's causing that. I'm not getting a tiny image but I am getting blurred text (and the zoom function doesn't change that). However, when I click on the "Image" link, I see the page image clear text. Purging locally hasn't helped. I've purged at Commons as well but I think that might take a while to take effect here (if it changes anything at all). Failing that, as I mentioned, the separate "Image" link works, so you could proofread from that for now (even if it is a little awkward). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:03, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. Here is the image of a page with the shrunken scan. Earlier, only a few pages were so, but now the whole volume is like this. I have no problem downloading and uploading other copies from IA. I counted at least two more identical versions, but my concern is that I don't destroy the pages already proofread. Already posted a Help request to my DjVu Guru about how to protect the text layer, and will wait until he replies.— Ineuw talk 20:02, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Randomly checked Vol 18 and the scans are OK, BUT someone changed the text layer width in Read mode. For the past years the text width was always 430px and now it's 520px. I monitor this using a pixel ruler so that inserted images are in proportion to the Page namespace text width. Can someone check on this please? Thank you.— Ineuw talk 20:09, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

While discussing these issues with myself, I suddenly remembered that there may have been new software update. — Ineuw talk 20:13, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Check those problematic pages now. That default ~430px has indeed been changed in one of the recent PR core updates (which more often than not will now "conflict" with any manual scan resolution settings added near the bottom of the Index: page form in edit mode - as was part of the problem here).

The other part always has to do with once such a conflict has been cleared and then trying to get Commons to refresh the entire File: --> Index: --> Page: framework properly. I find that unless you keep hitting purge there until a refresh is "instantaneous", wait up to 45 seconds afterwards and then look for Commons to refresh the File page once again on its own - only then is true Purge & refresh accomplished. Your mileage may vary. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:03, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

May I share a document with Wikisource?

My new manuscript, titled Knowledge For The People, has already been listed in the United Nations Public Administration Network online library. I would like to share it with Wikisource. I am not seeking remuneration, just to share important ideas. I am the sole copyright holder of the document.

My email provider sets limits on the size of uploads permitted, so I have placed a copy of the document in Dropbox. The document can be located and uploaded by going to the following link and logging in: https://www.dropbox.com/home/Public?select=KnowledgeForThePeople.pdf

If you accept this offer, please let me know if it works, at williamsheridan@rogers.com

I am not knowledgeable on copyrights but THIS SECTION may be relevant to your posting material here. In fact, the whole article is relevant. — Ineuw talk 15:19, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

I tried to open the link, but it requires sign in or something, in any case Wikisource:What Wikisource includes is also relevant. Based only on the title of the work, I would say it probably does NOT meet our inclusion criteria. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Digraph issue

I'm having issues with a digraph on this page, near the bottom with the word alltud. In Welsh, this is a digraph l with a tilde going through it. I'm having issues getting the tilde to look right. For one, I have no digraph l on my computer, so I used two ls, each with a combining tilde on it, and for two, the tildes are close to the bottom of the letter, even though I used a middle combining tilde. Has anyone else had this issue and found a way around it?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:36, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Just curiosity to know the unknown led me to to this wiki link and found and replaced the missing Unicode character ỻ. Apart from that, I think that the references are {{smallrefs}}— Ineuw talk 15:05, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

If you need any more weird Welsh characters, you might find some ready for cut-n-pasting toward the bottom of User:Angr#Toolbox. Angr 17:52, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

My computer can't view the character. Is there any way to make it visible using the nifty font thingy we've got going on Wikimedia sites?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 03:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

ɬɬ <--- what about now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

That I can see.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:31, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Great, but that's not the character the page is using. What GOIII typed above is two copies of the IPA character ɬ (U+026C) next to each other. What the text is using is ỻ (U+1EFB), which unfortunately has very limited font support, meaning a lot of people can't see it. Nevertheless, I think we ought to be using the correct characters as far as possible, rather than workarounds. Angr 14:43, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Correct of course. It's odd because I thought the DjVu Sans package supported both (among many other eclectic fonts), so if one could see mine, I thought there might be a good chance it's already present. Oh well; when a solution presents itself - please report back so I can see if it can't be added to CharInsert somehow. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:49, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Table transclusion/formatting help

I need an extra set of eyes... Can someone please take a look at the table formatting on DJVU pp. 352-355 and see why it is not transcluding correctly in the Main? Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:47, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

Seems to be okay now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:12, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

Formatting error

In the page The Burglar, where pg. 111 begins, the formatting is broken (appearing as it would on Wikipedia if the line began with a space). I have no idea how to fix this, as I'm not an editor on this project and the interface is different, so I figured I'd mention it here instead. Sven Manguard (talk) 05:00, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed. Hesperian 05:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Can I upload these scans to Wikisource?

Can I upload a copy of a scan that someone else made to Wikisource so that I can make a searchable version of it? Specifically, I'd like to upload scans of some orders-in-council amending the Constitution of Canada, such as this one and make pages for the documents under the Template:Legislation-CAGov licence. --Arctic.gnome (talk) 21:19, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

The last time I tried uploading a Government of Canada document & image, it was rejected by Commons because, while the Canadian Parliament Archives emailed me the permission, it was not in the format demanded by Wikimedia Commons. It's best if you get the proper format from Wikimedia Commons and forward it to GoC archives for permission.— Ineuw talk 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Arctic.gnome, if the underlying material may legally be hosted (it's not clear to me from {{Legislation-CAGov}} that it may, but I'll leave that to you) then the fact that someone else made the scan is of no importance: no copyright arises from "a mere mechanical scan or photocopy". Hesperian 01:17, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

Being able to use another's scan solves one hurdle. The other is where I can upload them. As I understand it, I can't upload them to Commons because they have two additional conditions attached to the licence beyond cc-by-sa--namely the requirement to be accurate and the requirement to state that they aren't official. If these requirements are acceptable to Wikisource but not to Commons, what are my options? Can I transcribe the texts to Wikisource without uploading an image to Commons? Can I upload the image to Wikisource instead of Commons? --Arctic.gnome (talk) 03:20, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

@Arctic.gnome:We work on a priority order. 1) Host them at Commons if at all possible [this makes them available to all wikis, not just ours] 2) if Commons cannot take them, and they are public domain documents (or equivalent) in the US and fit within WS:WWI, then they can be hosted at English Wikisource. That said please ensure as part of the WS:WWI that you look at the licensing and also Help:Copyright tags.

Re the scan type, it is what works well in our side by side system. If we have PDF or DJVU they have text layers that can be scraped and imported. If it is a jpg or something else the system recognises then you have typing or copy and pasting to do. If it is something not recognised, then we a problem, though that doesn't mean that we cannot host the text, it just means that it is unsupported by the image (which is not our preference). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:21, 6 February 2014 (UTC)

File upload help request

Hi

Seasons greetings from Marathi language wikisource(mr). We tried to upload a India public domain book in PDF format. It showed upload completed but PDF document commons:File:Chhandorachanaa.pdf was not readable at all . We want and request some one upload document for us either on mr.wikisource.org or on commons. We need it for a collaborative wikisource writing project.

• Reffered and requested upload book is Chandorachana (Marathi:छन्दोरचना)
• Is writtern by : W:en:Madhav Julian (Marathi: माधव जुलियन) (January 21, 1894 – November 29, 1939)
• It is Public Domain copyright free due to expiry of copyright period in India Please refer licence commons:Template:PD-India {{PD-India}}
• The Book is available online at https://archive.org/details/Chandorachana

Earliest help will be apreciated.

Thanks and Regards Mahitgar (talk) 14:17, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

Does this work for you: Commons:File:छन्दोरचना.djvu? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 7 February 2014 (UTC)

This has worked. Lot of thanks Thanks and warm greeting. For some technical reasons i have not been able to use djvu on PC. This has been very valuable support from your side. Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Request for help with TOC page listing

Can anyone pls help me with this little nasty problem on Page:The_Economic_Journal_Volume_1.djvu/7. The problem is at the lower part of the page, just above “NOTES AND MEMORANDA”. There is a link to four pages there. I can't get them in one row. This is how far I got. Thnx. - Dick Bos (talk) 12:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

The secret is parameter col3-width of {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The default width is only 2em, which is just about full with 3 digits, let alone four references + ancillary spaces and commas (which is why they formatted vertically.) I gave it 12em for the sake of this trial, but feel free (of course) to tweak that as you want. AuFCL (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'll soon try it in another spot. Dick Bos (talk) 13:50, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I forgot to mention: to make the page-numbers column completely "set-and-forget", try setting parameter |col3-width=auto. The price you pay is ragged ends to the dot leaders, but you might find it the simplest option. AuFCL (talk) 00:09, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

Last suggestion retracted, as it does not appear to work well in some browsers. AuFCL (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Non english charecters...

Can someone that's familiar with the relevant languages look over this and insert the appropriate characters?

Index:Adapting and Writing Language Lessons.pdf

I've tried to make intelligent guesses in places, but would appreciate someone else taking over.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:31, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I've looked a few random pages and can't see any non-Latin characters. Could you give some pointers as to what the problems are (page numbers, particular language, &c.)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Adapting_and_Writing_Language_Lessons.pdf/185 - Thai. For starters.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

First, that's not Thai, or else I would suggest you don't touch it. Hehe. However, as far as I can tell, it is IPA for Thai words, so you can just use that alphabet for it. For example, using text from the page:

nîi ʔaray
nîi mîitkoon
pàakkhîip
sǎmlii
ʔɛɛlkɔɔhɔɔ

OK It looks like IPA, but in places it's accented, and the accented versions are not in the Charcters box, I stil think it requires a specialist. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:18, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Weird typesetting issue

I just worked on this page, and it has an unusual versification in it. Does anyone have any idea how to transcribe it? Would it be best just to use an image in its place?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes.. Given its an inscription marking? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:13, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

I took a shot at transcribing it in Unicode. Given that it's not like an etching or something I think it might be more appropriate to render it that way rather than with an image, even though I think most/all Ogham fonts are going to have that center line which isn't present in the text's typeface. Prosody (talk) 22:00, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Erm, what font did you use? All I see are little boxes... Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:15, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Oh, damn, that hadn't occurred to me. It's Segoi UI Symbol on Firefox on Windows 7. Default Windows 7 font, but it's not going to be available everywhere. Chrome on the same machine doesn't even use it. I don't think there's any support in Universal Language Selector even if that gets turned back on. I guess we'll have to fall back to using images. Prosody (talk) 03:29, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Wait, the DejaVu family has Ogham. Anyone know what the list of fonts on the Universal Language Selector is? Prosody (talk) 03:50, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

Integrating plate images into mainspace

I just finished proofreading The Indian Dispossessed (index), but before announcing its completion (however that's done), the book has a few plate images which don't have any obvious location within the chapters and text. How might these be best included in mainspace? djr13 (talk) 00:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

They should be included in the text as I did one formatted sample Page:The Indian Dispossessed.pdf/112, Main mnamespace = The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces. Please look at the changes in the "File" image wrapper and caption centering. For some reason, when wrapped as before, the caption becomes noticeably offset. I also reduced the image size to 430px. My reasons for this are complicated, but primarily it's because the text width of the Main namespace Option #2 is about ~450-460px. An oversized image may lack esthetics.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I had thus far avoided doing it that way, as breaking paragraphs (usually unrelated to the image) for full-page plate images seems sub-optimal. And what to do with the frontispiece image? Sure there isn't another way? (Hmm, it looks like I was possibly supposed to name each mainspace subpage a generic "Chapter 1" etc....) djr13 (talk) 07:37, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Just picking up on a couple of your questions:

For the chapter numbering, the generic version is only when the chapters are numbered either in the TOC or in the chapter headers. If the chapters don't have this, then the way you've named them is fine. It's really about linking to them from other works.

In re your other concern, have a look at Picturesque Nepal where we put the images in wherever they came in the book. The alternative is more complex, but can be seen in the earlier chapters of The Conquest of Mount Cook. The proofreader here chose to move the images to the end of paragraphs in the mainspace but left them where they are in the Page: namespace. This was done by using includeonly and noinclude tags. Both of these books have frontispieces that have been done slightly differently. Nepal has the frontispiece as the opening page before the title. Mount Cook transcludes them the other way around, so that the title page is up-front. If the cover image is a good one, then that can go in first. A recent example of this is On to Pekin. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:38, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle is correct and I should have been more specific in regard to images. In the main namespace, one has the latitude to place images, especially full page images, at the beginning of a chapter. It's your choice. Already moved the image in The Indian Dispossessed/The Nez Perces to the beginning since it's the only image in that chapter. — Ineuw talk 17:24, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I've gone with including the images at the beginning of each chapter, and including the frontispiece where it otherwise would be plus including the half-title before it where otherwise I excluded this as redundant. It's still a bit cludgy but seems workable. It seems like there's no good way to include such large, text-breaking images in mainspace due to format limitations. The most obvious alternative to me would be either folding them into thumbnails or offsetting them into the side-area in a similar way to what annotations are heading. I'll look into announcing the completion now. Thanks both. djr13 (talk) 21:07, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I think it looks great. — Ineuw talk 21:46, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Oversized mathematical operators in print

I've been looking for oversized mathematical operators used in 19th century printed matter: like double length = signs, double size + signs etc., but have not found in any UTF-8 reference tables. Do they exist? — Ineuw talk 02:49, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't think they exist as unique symbols per se, but perhaps try wrapping them in {{larger}} or {{x-larger}}? Eg. to get an affect like so: 7 ÷ 2 ≈ π .

Alternatively -- does the wikisource software support LaTeX? If it does, there are some commands to support resizing of portions of equations that may be possible to use. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. I believe WS does support LaTeX.— Ineuw talk 05:12, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Would you please be so kind as to supply context/examples? I expect these are not quite what you are looking for, but there do exist UNICODE for (say) double- and triple-equals (&#10869;:⩵ and &#10870;:⩶ respectively), and so-called "heavy" plus (&#10133;:➕), minus (&#10134;:➖) and division signs (&#10135;:➗); and the dual-purposed "cross mark" (&#10060;:❌) paired with "heavy large circle" (&#11093;:⭕).

Thanks for your help. The start of this page is a perfect example of the hundreds of times it's used. Unfortunately, the above symbols are not the ones I was looking for, but the LaTeX symbols are.

 

---

 

WS does not support all of Latex, only the texvc subset (see mw:Extension:Math, but that gives you $=+-\times \div$ at least. AuFCL (talk) 14:22, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

These are the very symbols I was looking for since 1872 - when PSM started publication. . As for the LaTeX support I was only aware of {some] math, but didn't know that they can be used for just the symbols. My thanks to you both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

The first line of that page might be produced by something like:

<math>\scriptstyle{+,~-,~\sqrt{}}</math>. In the same century Vieta…
—with result:
$\scriptstyle {+,~-,~{\sqrt {}}}$. In the same century Vieta…

Notes and hints:

1. Make sure that is a "normal" minus sign; dashes or mdashes send <math> into (lexing error) sulks!
2. Tildes (~) may be used to add spaces inside the <math> string. Normally spaces are stripped out as if they were never there.
3. Although <math> doesn't seem to analyse the command string too closely, thinks like \sqrt are considered to be functions and won't work (syntax error)) without at least empty {}s following.
4. I routinely enclose <math> strings in \scriptstyle{}, mainly because I find the text is too large to match surrounding text. Of course your aesthetics and the situation may differ.
5. Be aware that <math> produces its output as an image, with the side-effect it will not "split" when line-wrapping occurs. It is often wise to make several short <math> blocks (say between commas) rather than one long one and risk later disappointment.

Hope this is useful, and I am not merely repeating stuff you already know. AuFCL (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Could {{FI}} be of any use here?

{{FI
 | type  = math
 | width = 25%
 | file  = <math>sin x = {e^{ix} - e^{-ix} \over 2i} </math>
}}

$sinx={e^{ix}-e^{-ix} \over 2i}$

Just wondering...... -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL, thanks for those very important points, of which I was only aware of \scriptstyle. If you haven't done so, please consider including your instructions on the Math help page. Otherwise these will be buried in the Archive.

Wonder no longer GO3. I will be using {{FI}}. There are hundreds of formulas need to proofread/updated in PSM.

Many thanks to all for the above info.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Point of Order - please use math instead of user for FI's type= parameter. Both should produce the same output but one day User might be needed for a 4rth application or something. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Note that the {{FI}} above produces quite blurry results, and evidently doesn't even work outside PNG mode. (I don't think it will show up at all in PDF output, for example.) —SamB (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images

Can someone please restore the quick link icon to the Commons image source. In one of the recent mw software updates, it disappeared. Thanks in advance. — Ineuw talk 03:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

Odd. I still see the icon linked to Commons on my File: pages (inline with header text to the top-right). Can anyone else replicate? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I can confirm the Commons icon is visible on for example, say, here. AuFCL (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

OK then - back to basics....

Ineuw, can you see the icon on

• MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here; and on
• Template:Commons top icon

at all? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:52, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I can see both.— Ineuw talk 17:01, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

To further clarify, I can see the two icons GO3 has included, but there is no icon on the smiley image, nor on any other image from the commons.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

I inverted the order in MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here; see if that made any difference on any File: namespace page for you & report back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the effort but no go. Here is a screen image File:No icon link to the Commons.jpg I've taken earlier. This issue is an old one. Haven't had a commons link for many weeks. Would this be controlled in Preferences? — Ineuw talk 01:32, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: GOT IT - Apparently (& Sadly) you are always going to be "less than whole" when it comes to certain defaults because you are in Canada but use [American?] English in your settings. Without your own Canadian MediaWiki message base, your "setup" surps from the US set when it can but fails unless a proper subset(?) is created in certain instances (or at least that is how I've come to observe this behavior to date).

Added MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here/en-ca and that should "rectify" your missing icon issue. I guess it comes at the expense of what amounts to a "redundant" MediaWiki message.

Anyone have the same problem but is a "closer" subject of the Crown than Canada? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

O.K. Now you point that out, en-gb (which would normally be my preferred choice; my earlier "working" observation was made as Preferences/Language/en—now [temporarily?] retracted) exhibits the same issue (i.e. missing Commons icon). Regards, AuFCL (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL - can you verify both of your prior observations still hold now? I just discovered [:MediaWiki:Sharedupload] (created 2005 & made a redirect in 2012) might be involved in this & just deleted our local copy of it to see what happens (if anything). It would be great if that restored everything but I'll add the gb if it didn't. TIA --- George Orwell III (talk) 02:46, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

No, only MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here shows Commons icon (which should not be a shock, because that is what it really does) here. The others, all nada, since changing Preferences from 'en'→'en-GB'. AuFCL (talk)

Thanks. IMO - It's a bit crazy to add something like the Commons top icon to a MW message that isn't working across the board in the first place. I'm going to try finding a better MW message to host the icon so the crippled message [in theory] really is separate from the icon. Back in a bit. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:13, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

OK @AuFCL: - {{Commons top icon}} is now hosted via [:MediaWiki:Filehist-help]. Please check any File: page to see if the icon appears (& works!) like it should no matter the language setting in use. Only difference, now, should be one has a FMbox (for the blind?) for a default message while the other(s) use the system standard default, plain-text message w/ link to shared file description info back on Commons found just below the file-size/mime type, etc. info (The icon should appear in the top right corner regardless!) -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:27, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Scratch all that attempted 'moving around', en-ca & en-gb created but all 3 call Template:Sharedupload-desc-here instead of hosting the same stuff 3x in the MW namespace. Please report in now that this seems like the "final" solution moving forward. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:10, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Many pardons for delayed response (Real Life™ interfered.) All O.K. re: Commons icon again this side now. Thank you. AuFCL (talk) 04:15, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

My hero. Just another heartfelt thank you GO3. It works! — Ineuw talk 05:36, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

PROOFREADPAGE - Both the default and auto edit-summary texts based on status no longer being populated

originally titled: On Page creation, "Not proofread" is not showing up in the Summary

Since I've been on a roll of success today, would it possible to display the default "Not proofread" in the Summary field when the page is created? This used to be so several software updates ago. I request this because most pages need proofreading.— Ineuw talk 09:56, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

• Verified (XpPro, IE8).

  In addition, when opening edit mode on existing pages already given a PR status, the corresponding edit-summary text matching that current status once was pre-populated in the summary field upon entering edit-mode by default & remained that way until/unless the Editor manually 'ticked' a change in status prior to adding additional comments and saving. That "function" has also stopped working (under edit or preview; no difference) and a blank field is now the default instead (of course, until/unless a ststus is manually ticked &/or edited before the final save). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:03, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Unpublished works of unknown authorship

I found in some family documents a carbon copy of a poem or song from c. 1918. Based on the POV of the narrator, it pretty clearly wasn't written by the family member who kept it, but rather by an enlisted man stationed at the same air field. I googled some of the lines in case it was published, including more generic lines in case it was just a local take on a more widespread song, but if so it's certainly not on the Internet yet. (And honestly, I don't think it was terribly well constructed.) I'm really not sure whether to use {{PD-anon-1923}}, which says it's for published works, or {{PD-US-unpublished}}, which requires knowing when the creator died, or whether it's just not kosher at all. It seems like something that would be of some interest historically, so it'd be nice to make it available. Laurascudder (talk) 18:29, 14 February 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those will work, you don’t know it was published and you don’t know when the author died. Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

And that's why I'm here. Any solutions? Laurascudder (talk) 03:24, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

It's a copyright issue. Unpublished works aren't subject to the 1923 thing as you might otherwise expect. See here: Help:Public domain#Unpublished works See if you can find if the author died in 1943 or earlier. djr13 (talk) 03:45, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

According to this table, unpublished works with no known year of death are under copyright for 120 years from the date of creation. Assuming 1918 is correct, it won't be in the public domain until January 2039. There seems to be some clause involving certification by the Copyright Office but, otherwise, legally it cannot be hosted here. Sorry. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

How to prepare this text from archive.org for proofreading

I'm thinking about trying to prepare https://archive.org/details/federalregister53lunit/ for upload (it should be obvious why), which was scanned from microfilm and has two pages on each "page", and looks not to be very thoroughly OCR'd. What approach would be simplest? Tell @Inductiveload I might be willing to let him tackle it? (It's quite huge! On the other hand, the scans are neatly bundled in a PDF, from which they can presumably be losslessly extracted quite trivially.)

See also w:Federal Register for bibliographic information, including the usual citation convention. —SamB (talk) 02:58, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me, but the 'obvious-ness' escapes me. What exactly is it that a partial FR volume "gets us"? -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:54, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Showing thumbnails of pages

Hi wikisorcerers,

Can you check this template: {{PageFile}}. It is used to show thumbnails from the pages in the Index Talk page (example here), so we can locate more easily and quickly a page. Is everything correct? I have imported and translated it from French Wikisource (history here). Please don't hesitate to improve it! --Zyephyrus (talk) 21:35, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Very neat, ty.— Ineuw talk 22:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, though I'd much rather have Book2Scroll (2nd Icon at the top-right of every Index: Page) "refined" a bit further so it loads/renders properly under our current code environment. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:33, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Category for materials under CC0

I am wondering why CC0 is not mentioned in Wikisource:Copyright policy, nor in some category similar to Category:Works by license. Any pointers? -- Daniel Mietchen - WiR/OS (talk) 22:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Commons has a template and category. I suppose we should follow their lead if there's any works we have which it's applicable to. Prosody (talk) 23:02, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks - I created Template:CC-Zero and Category:CC-Zero. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2014 (UTC)

text formatting help

Forgot to ask for formatting help here, if anyone has a good idea how to best format the text in caps. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

A possible hint in the first paragraph.--Mpaa (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I tried to understand the markup, but with little success. I think the text should be recreated exactly as in the original (breaks where there are breaks, etc.), for I think it was transcribed as found "scratched upon the walls" (if I read correctly). Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:40, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go. See what you think. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Permit my 2 Canadian cents' worth of input but tables are superior - and never fail. I won't revert the most recent edit by Beeswaxcandle, but pasted my enhancements of Mpaa below

1.	NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA
		1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE-TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO DA MANZAR A UN MORTO IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.

IneuwPublic (talk) 23:44, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

I agree about the stability of tables, but I think BWC's rendering is most faithful to the original, and what I was looking for. My first thought was tables too; I didn't at first consider gaps, but unless one can recreate BWC's rendering with a table, I think I'll keep things as is. Thanks all for your input! Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:53, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Sure, it can be done as a table. But you still need gaps to match the alignment of the inscriptions.

1.	NON TI FIDAR AD ALCUNO PENSA e TACI SE FUGIR VUOI DE SPIONI INSIDIE e LACCI IL PENTIRTI PENTIRTI NULLA GIOVA MA BEN DI VALOR TUO LA VERA PROVA
		1607. ADI 2. GENARO. FUI RE- TENTO P' LA BESTIEMMA P' AVER DATO DA MANZAR A UN MORTO IACOMO . GRITTI . SCRISSE.

Alternative methods would be to nest a table with the indented lines within the larger table or to set each line of the inscriptions as a line in the table with 8 or 9 columns and lots of colspans. But why complicate things? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:31, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Looks good as well. I would not be able to complete the page with my 'skill set', however. I'll leave that to those familiar with the markup, or I am happy to keep things as is. Thank you all for taking the time to help; and BWC, thanks again for checking/amending my Greek. There are two more pages that I forgot to add the Greek missing tag (now added), and then the text can be marked as proofread! Thanks again for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Couple minor works pending help

I have a couple works I have proofread which are pending some assistance. One of these I had posted about last month, a songbook, thus needing relatively heavy transclusion work (I've done this with another edition, but could use review on if I'm doing it right such as choice of page names). The other is Evolution of American Agriculture (index), for which I have three things I am hindered by: tables (full pages 62, 63, 64, and 65; smaller tables pages 47 and 48), what to do with the heavy illustrations which mix with text, and whether I should interpret the last listed chapter (see index) as "Chapter 11" despite it not being listed as such in the TOC. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 16:45, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

I got the smaller tables on pp 47-48 working by (ab)using {{dotted TOC page listing}}. The images that are the chapter headers should be done by carefully splitting the images into parts and then using floats. (See, this as an example of what I mean by that.) As for the full-page tables, or the mysterious "Chapter 11", I have no idea. Mukkakukaku (talk) 05:24, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is it possible to use either the split or "flow under" method without breaking the drop caps, eg, alt text? djr13 (talk) 06:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

I've had a go at the table on p62 for you. If it's OK, then copy that formatting onto the other 3 pages and drop the text into the appropriate spots. AuFCL is currently working on the flow under technique, so he'll be the best to answer that. In re "Chapter 11", there are no particular guidelines on how to deal with this situation. We just need to be able to link to it should another work refer to it. The way I personally would do it would be to name it (i.e. Evolution of American Agriculture/Development of the Agricultural Workers Union No. 400). This maintains the authorial intent (or the publisher's intent) as I'm guessing it's really an appendix to the main work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:11, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Regarding use of {{flow under}}, I would be inclined to set the image alternate text (i.e. File:...alt=) to reflect the drop capital which the chapter image effectively represents. Apologies for not doing this on the first edit (hope this is a bit more to your liking?) Actually clicking on the image still works and takes you to the background image as before (and may be controlled at need by resort to the native File:...link= parameter.)

All of these remarks should apply equally to the "split" image method if you choose to go that way.

Specifically regarding "breaking the drop caps," what exactly would you like to happen? Certainly wrapping {{drop initial}} around the chapter header image will fail using either image approach, but would you really need or want to do so?

Oh, and please don't give me credit for the technique: the more I look into the idea, the more previously existing instances keep turning up. I am, however guilty of trying to shoehorn it into a template (set) [hat tips to GOIII Beeswaxcandle & Eliyak for valuable advice], which of course I hope you may find usable/useful. AuFCL (talk) 09:49, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

After you made the first edit (which I'm still pretty damn impressed by as is) I did dig into it to try learning how it was done...it's obviously still rather experimental, for better or worse. I'm still at the point of being intimidated by the simplest wiki tables. :-) By "breaking drop caps," I mean, to put it in the most easily testable terms, ensuring that given degradation of images (whether by technical limitations or nonvisual reading devices), the text will still render clearly. For example, you can check this by seeing if the text otherwise represented in images displays as would be expected when you copy/paste into a plain text editor. I appreciate all the help, I am trying to learn from all of it. djr13 (talk) 10:38, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

A perfectly valid point, and that last edit of mine fails; as the alt-text on the image "cuts" before the "Development of A.W.I.U. 400" title, even though ideally it should come afterwards. Some (more) things to check for! AuFCL (talk) 12:25, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Poems and page breaks

I'm trying to transcribe a poem that has stanzas (or whatever the "paragraph" equivalent is called in poetry), and I'm having a problem with their transclusion into the main namespace. Namely, there's a stanza break at the end of one page, and the next page starts with a new stanza, but when transcluded into the main namespace it's all clumped together into one long double-stanza.

The pages in question are pages 5 and 6 of Index:Morning-Glories and Other Stories.djvu. Their transclusion is here.

I tried using {{nop}} like I would use if it were a paragraph that ended at the page break, but that didn't work. Nor did using a second {{nop}} at the top of the second page. I also tried inserting an extra few lines of whitespace within the <poem> tag, since those tags are whitespace-sensitive, but that didn't work either.

What is the appropriate template, tag, or structure to use to get this stanza-break to show up in the main namespace transclusion? Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried using an {{nop}} inside the <poem> tags at the bottom of the first page and the top of the second page; for some reason, it seems to have worked. Could you please check whether it works now? —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 16:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Yep, works now! Thanks, Clockery. I'd like to say that I would have figured it out eventually, but I'd never have thought to put the {{nop}} inside of the <poem> tags themselves. It seems like a very convoluted solution to what appears to be a rather imple problem. Thanks! Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I seem to have inadvertently avoided this in my poems-across-breaks endeavors. I've been adding little passive-aggressive hidden comments onto poem tags that should ideally wrap gracefully, the presence of these extra tags being that which may or may not be related to the joining behavior. For example, see the page breaks between 22, 23 and 24. Might be another option in your arsenal, especially if you want to blow off steam while at it. :-) djr13 (talk) 21:46, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I rather like Djr13's approach. Almost psychotherapy: "How does young madam Poem feel about behaving today?"

Please pardon my mucking about thrown into the mix. Apart from the centring I don't think I've added anything much useful.

I am aware of editors who avoid the use of <poem> entirely. Enclosing the whole passage inside (say) {{block center/s}}/{{block center/e}} pairs (which cross pages O.K.) and then using <br/>s at every line-break is much more robust, but of course the raw source is then quite ugly. AuFCL (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break not visible

On this page A break between two paragraphs is not visible in read mode and they appear as one continuous paragraph. The text is enclosed by {{fs90/s}} — with {{fs90/e}} embedded in the footer. Since I am using the Modern skin, I also checked if the problem was skin related by switching back to Vectra, but the result is the same. Can someone please point out what's wrong? Thanks. — Ineuw talk 18:37, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The first sentence of the {{fs90/s}} template page says "This template renders the text of a single paragraph at 90% of normal size." (emphasis mine) Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:13, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

The text was copied from {{fs90}} which I created. {{fs90/s}} was created for multiple paragraphs. (I should correct that). Also, the paragraph break has nothing to do with the font. There is something wrong with that page. If you look at subsequent pages, the paragraph breaks work fine.— Ineuw talk 19:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: Thanks for pointing this out. Two different templates share the same documentation which technically shouldn't happen. I posted a request on GO3's talk page, to help me sort it out.— Ineuw talk 19:55, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

I kicked it, and it seems to work now. djr13 (talk) 20:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, a good kick. — by Ineuw earlier this afternoon.

I cannot necessarily give a lucid explanation, but {{fs90/s}} only works for a single paragraph unless:

1. You separate the last "}" of the template from the text you want it to affect by a new line; or
2. You enclose the following paragraphs in <p>/</p>s (or some template (like {{p}} which generates them.)

Mediawiki appear to "shoehorn" <div>s (upon which the operation of e.g. {{fs90}} relies) correctly in only at certain points. This is not the problem; the real problem is that if it cannot find a suitable "spot" (<p>s being one, there may be others..?) it silently refuses to process "double-new-lines" into proper paragraphs up to the end of the enclosing </div>. I can only assume this is a still-extant parser limitation of some antiquity. AuFCL (talk)

To be clear, in the above example I used {{fs90/s}} and not {{fs90}}, which was my own rudimentary & elementary contribution - functioning on single paragraphs and I no longer use, having switched to GO3's version of {{fs90/s}} & {{fs90/e}} hundreds of times, but never came across this problem beforehand.— Ineuw talk 00:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

<generic expletive>I mistyped. The earlier discussion was meant to refer to {{fs90/s}}, not to {{fs90}} as originally stated. The rest of the discussion, however clumsy, still stands. AuFCL (talk) 01:54, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Understood both the correction and your explanation. I just wanted to clarify the history for those who still use {{fs90}} to span multiple paragraphs. In any case, I replace them when I come across them, whether they are used on single or multiple paragraphs.— Ineuw talk 02:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Google page removal

Could someone remove the initial "Google" page for Index:A Hundred and Seventy Chinese Poems (1919).djvu? This transcription project seems to have gone fallow, and I'd like to take it on, but not until the pagination is corrected from removal of the Google notice. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Done— Ineuw talk 20:19, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to do that? I usually just mark the page 'without text' when I find them. Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes we should, because it appears on the Commons. Others can give you other and better reasons as well. It's not a big deal and several people here can do it for you, or tell you how it's done before uploading.

The fundamental issue is that we should look on IA for other copies NOT donated by Google because they tend to damage the works deliberately to their advantage, a topic sometimes discussed in the past.

Another downside of using Google copies with the disclaimer page, is that we can't use the direct IA to Commons transfer tool because it must be downloaded to remove their disclaimer. — Ineuw talk 21:05, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Another issue with leaving the Google page in is that it often displaces pagination by one so that left hand pages become odd-numbered and right hand pages even-numbered. This messes up automatic heading creation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:58, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Beeswaxcandle, in such a case just remove a page at the end of the book which is often a back cover or library card - some useless page for our purpose. I believe that brings the book back to the correct pagination. Cheers friends, —Maury (talk) 04:15, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

Quick poll on Unicode use

Greetings all. I have come across a number of pages (e.g. here and here) where the authors make use of an upside-down Greek iota. Whilst I have found Unicode &#8489; (℩), I am not confident it will work in all cases (i.e. does the dreaded blank box appear here →℩← for anyone? Microsoft browsers?) and would appreciate any feedback.

Alternatively has anybody got any ideas as to how to express this more universally? (I've temporarily given up on finding a <math> solution, but one would be really nice bearing in mind the nature of this particular work…) I note that even a related Wikipedia article seems to have given up on this, and simply uses the normal (unturned) Greek iota. AuFCL (talk) 01:39, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, all I see is the dreaded null-box (though i'm still @ IE8 fwiw). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:51, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I was afraid of that. Please consider every single other syllable I am thinking or uttering currently to be swearing. AuFCL (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Right. This makes me feel quite nauseous, but does this →$\scriptstyle {\iota }$← work everywhere, please? AuFCL (talk) 04:23, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Both work for me (FF 27.0.1, Vista). —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 04:55, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Both also work with (FF 27.0.1, Mac OS X Mavericks)--kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:22, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

P.S also works with Mac Safari --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:27, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I see both of them (FF 24.3.0, Debian GNU/Linux sid). I think it probably better to use the right character and assume that it will be supported in the future then to stress about every system today, especially for a work that will take forever to process and has a limited but continuing appeal.--Prosfilaes (talk) 09:34, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

• I "see" the second example (IE8, XP-Pro) but its not being rotated 180 degrees in the rendering, leaving me with the expected greek small letter iota (U+03B9) instead of the faux desired turned greek small letter iota (U+2129). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Update...

<i>{{Unicode|&#x2129;}}</i>

℩

Any help? The {{Unicode}} template was in the Symbols set of CharInsert all this time btw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely it helps!

O.K. Once more for the dummies (me.):

• Does this mean →℩← works for everybody?

• It should but only another survey would verify that. I'll start - works for (IE8, XP Pro) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• Works here as well (FF 27.0.1, Vista Basic). —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 08:30, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
• (Responding to my own poll feels weird, but) I had an unexpected opportunity in my "other life" to have a quick look at these pages using bog-standard Internet Explorer 11. No problems with anything (symbols or rotations.) In fact it rendered more cleanly than it did under Firefox. Almost embarrassing! 10:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

• If I go back and enclose any "raw" character entity inside a {{Unicode}} invocation Internet Explorer will finally get into line with the other browsers and actually make use of the correct fonts?

• Don't know / Can't say for sure. I had hoped folks would pitch in to make CharInsert's "sets of characters" the best possible just for cross-browser issues like this. It was one of my better failures and here we are today. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

• Just for my own curiosity, I wonder if Internet Explorer correctly rotates this: →$\scriptstyle {\iota }$←—if so: time to consider updating {{rotate}}…

• Not here (IE8, XP Pro). The version on WP explains why IE8 needs a LUA version for that to work. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

(Aside/Rant—please feel free to generally ignore.) So the fonts were there all along? And not pulled in when needed? Why do we bother? Who writes sensible software any more? Pardon the sarcasm; but this seems to have been unnecessarily painful for such an apparently trivial issue. AuFCL (talk) 01:56, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Not quite. A "patch" for Unicode & IPA was added some time ago to common.js in order to get the {{Unicode}} template to at least do that under XP. And, again compare our outdated version to what WP uses - still not the latest & greatest if we go by them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:29, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided instead to change my IE8's 'webpage font' selection in IE's settings to "Lucida Sans Unicode" and, lo-&-behold, even &#8489; (℩) renders properly now - no {{Unicode}} template or class definition needed, PLUS "sans-serif" (the wiki-code, load.php defined, default font) resumes being the "fall-back" core font being rendered just like it always has for me. This is OK by me until somebody comes up with a way to reproduce the same behavior I just did without altering IE's settings since this station is almost dedicated just to accessing wiki-whatever domains anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:49, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Das ist gut, ja! AuFCL (talk) 05:07, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Proofreading alignment issue

Is anyone else having problems proofreading texts? When I click on a red link, the page loads but the image and text box are not aligned as normal. The text box stretches the entire length of the page and the image is underneath it. I'm using the vector skin.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:45, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Nevermind. I figured it out. The column editing size in Preferences somehow got blown up to 80 columns for the text editor.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:47, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It only worked for one image. Now the problem is back. Is anyone else having this issue on Chrome?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:56, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

Does hard-refreshing work? —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t·c] 14:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

I am going to really, really regret pointing this out, but you seem to have accurately described the behaviour resulting from checking Preferences/Editing option "Use horizontal layout when editing in the Page namespace." AuFCL (talk) 17:11, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

It's unchecked for me. I tried checking it, and I got a different layout, but one which was still possible to do proofreading. The behavior I'm having issues with is that the text box extends the entire width of the page, which pushes the image to be all the way below the text box, meaning I have to scroll down below the text box in order to see the picture, but then I can read the text unless I scroll all the way up. I wonder if there's a CSS issue on one of my pages that's messing with it...—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 01:38, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

I looks like it's a Chrome issue. FireFox doesn't have the problem.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 01:44, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

Oh well. Unfortunately I'm using F/F so my (lack of) observations can't help any further. Good luck and please let us know if you find the answer! AuFCL (talk) 04:11, 14 March 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaladshar: Could you please add here the work / page that you were having problems with? I am exploring various browsers (with the exception of IE), and have Chrome as well. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 17:34, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

This page exemplifies my problem. However, I've noticed if I'm signed out, the proofreading extension displays just fine. I'm led to think there's either a preference or a CSS/JS issue with my account.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:16, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

Pardon this thought: I can get a similar effect to that which you describe by fooling around with the "width" style within class "prp-page-content" (e.g. by setting it to pretty much anything larger than the default of 50%.) Now as you point out the issue goes away when you are logged out, have you considered (carefully) disabling, say, your Special:Mypage/vector.css or (less likely) Special:Mypage/vector.js and seeing if something in either of these affects the problem? (Obviously please restore configurations after the trial.) AuFCL (talk) 13:52, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

If the above didn't correct the problem, then the settings may be stored in the cookies . . . as I have learned some time ago. Delete the cookies and create a fresh login.— Ineuw talk 19:02, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────┘
@Zhaladshar:Is this still happening in Chrome? For about an hour or so around midnight (my local time) precisely the same behaviour as you originally described was happening to me in Firefox... and then the problem went away all by itself. Was there another software upgrade? Right now it is [1.23wmf19 (bbbc0b8)] however I have no idea how to check how long this has been activated. AuFCL (talk) 00:55, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

See the deployment Roadmap for that info. Although "we" weren't directly scheduled for "enhancements", changes elsewhere still can creep in and mess with us - especially cookie/caching wise. This has been going on for as long as I can remember but has become worse in the past couple of months. I managed to rectify some of this "weirdness" by localizing & tweaking the rest of the .js scripts previously loading from old.wikisource. That cut down on the amount of unneccessary cookie "refreshing" going on with anything related to the navigation sidebar (primarily under vector; stuff like Dynamic layouts' Display options, EPUB, BookMaker and similar gadgets that "build" additional menu choices in the sidebar).

It (MediaWiki:Base.js is still not perfect when it comes to "loading" & cookies -- and it might not have anything to do with the alignment issue at all -- but its the most obvious issue at the moment. The obvious test is to try loging in using some other 'puter but your own. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:16, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I was aware of the Roadmap (and in fact checked it and the "mediawiki/core" list.) However I still don't know how to determine when (say) version bbbc0b8—which I assume is a git submission id?—was made active upon enWS. This may not even be a pertinent issue, and should be considered a most casual enquiry.

At the time the system malfunctioned for me I checked at least a subset of modifications (incidentally including Base.js; since you had mentioned it recently) and found no relevant changes whatsoever. This only confirms whatever did in fact change was outside of my normal "view" and in no way should be considered comprehensive. AuFCL (talk) 02:39, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

AuFCL - Not too long ago, the "roll-out" of a new version was clearly marked in the log/tree with a small graphic banner like "Head" & "Master" currently are. For some reason that stopped working so the only thing I can point to is the switch in the naming of static bits normally changed during an upgrade & stored in your browser's cache. You'd look for the first instance of something like....

bits.wikimedia.org/static-1.23'wmf20/extensions/blah blah bah

...for the "next" release. If we go by that (not proven), the bump up happened around 6 pm Eastern standard time (-4 hours behind UTC ?) on the 27th.

Here's an oddity- anyone have a cached cookie from the wikidata domain last-modified two months in the future from now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:12, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Nice technique. Obviously I hadn't thought of that before. My browser here first "sighted" 1.23wmf19 about 3½ days ago; and has not "seen" 1.23wmf20 at all yet; so on the strength of this those upgrades seem unrelated to this matter. (No apparent future dating; I won't install the "prescient" extension here until it pre-emptively passes the Turing test.) AuFCL (talk) 11:00, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL:, I restored my vector.js and vector.css and it seems the issue is now working. I am not sure why but I no longer have any problems. Thanks for the help.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:31, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Tables broken in MULTIPLE works

I went to continue proofreading on a work and discovered that lines from a table were not transcluding.

The discovery was made at A History of Japanese Literature. The header for "BOOK THE FOURTH" is not transcluding in the table of contents, and neither is chapter VI. of BOOK THE SIXTH. These items used to appear in the transcluded table, but no longer do so.

I found the same problem at Chapter 3 of An Introduction to the Study of Fishes, where line item "67,68" does not transclude either.

In both instances, the problem is that the first table row from a page is not transcluding when a table spans multiple pages. Neither instance of this problem existed when I first set up the pages.

Has a change been made in the way tables must be formetted for transclusion when they span multiple pages? And does this mean we'll have to search our entire library for other instances in order to fix them? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

I've just had a look at the first of these. The {{nop}} was missing from the beginning of the page body on the second page. I've fixed that one. See Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:14, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Ah, so it has changed. The {{nop}} wasn't required before when I was setting up those pages. We may have to go back and correct a large number of works proofread before March 2013.

The {{nop}} creates an additional transclusion problem, however, as now the page number is not displayed to the left of the text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:04, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: There is nothing new about needing a starting {{nop}}, it has been that way for many years to get MediaWiki to see the table component as a new line and table formatting. I am not sure how you have avoided that previously. I know that some used to avoid it by putting the new column starter on the end of the preceding page. If there are multiple works, you may find it more relates to your works, those that I have/seen edited should be okay, and I would think that for numbers of others it will be the same. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

If you are having issues with nop which I haven't seen before, you can always try

<noinclude>{|
</noinclude>
|-
|text text text ...

at the top of the body part, which is a workable solution and what I used to use before nop. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:11, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Um, if it's been that way for "many years", then why wasn't that information mentioned in Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks before last March? That's when an edit was made to insert the information. Either way, it doesn't solve the current problem of the missing page number links. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:53, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The information to use nop has been there since InductiveLoad wrote the page in 2011. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:07, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

It cannot be "fixed" as long as wiki-markup for tables is in use. Even with straight HTML, the proofreading page extension with transclusion won't allow an embedded page number to be inserted at the correct point (the begining of a new Page: rather than the end of the previous Page:). This behavior has been that way since I can remember. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:45, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Two pages per image

I uploaded from the Internet Archive a DjVu file which has two pages per image: Index:Casement Report.djvu. Does anybody know of an easy way to split each image into two so that there would be only one page per image? Thanks. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:28, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help

Can I bug someone to format the first page of this TOC for me using a "simple" table as opposed to templates? and then I can copy the formatting for the remaining pages myself. I'm just not sure how to format the titles with Roman Numerals (indentation). The text has already been proofread. Sorry if the pre-wikilinking makes things messier and more complicated. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Formatted the TOC but couldn't finish it because I ran out of steam. I can continue tomorrow if it's OK with you.

For anchors, I ALWAYS use the DjVu page number because they are unique! This is the most logical way (to me) and I don't need to think of what I did, and where. My anchors are always use this format: anchor=D32-1 The "D" is necessary because anchors must start with an alphabetic character, the number following indicates that it's on DjVu page number 32, and -1 indicates that it's the first anchor on the page. If there is more than one anchor on a page, as there are in this case, I number them sequentially as . . . D32-2, D32-3, . . . etc. The Roman numbers mentioned above are only for display, but the only true reference in the Page namespace are the DjVu numbers, in the main namespace the webpage names. — Ineuw talk 06:52, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for helping! I will be away from the computer for a bit as well. When I return, I have a couple comments/questions about your adjustments to formatting of the poetry. Till then, thanks much again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:18, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Wow! You have done the whole TOC... Thank you! With regard to adding {{Dhr}}, however, between stanzas... I use a double carriage instead. I don't plan on using Dhr with the rest of the work, for that is not how I have formatted the remaining 200+ pages so far, and I don't plan on changing every page/instance. For formatting uniformity's sake, I am considering removing the ones you have added, but I am hesitant thinking you might take it wrong... Also, I have been noincluding the rules, but I noticed you have re-included some of them. Again, for uniformity, I don't plan on including them for the remainder of the text (formatting decision since the separation between poems is not necessary for our page layouts like it perhaps was in the original), so I believe I will undo what you have done there as well. Hoping you won't mind, and thanks again for your help with the TOC; you have done more than I expected/asked, and it is much appreciated! I hadn't considered linking the page numbers to anchors; it seems more work than is necessary, since the poems are already linked to by their titles. So I'll have to add anchors from now on when proofreading then, right? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:03, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Can I actually undo the anchoring system? I just don't feel it is necessary since sectioning is already used in the titles, and it is more (complicated) work (for me) than I would like to take on. Would you be offended since you already put in the work you had done? I won't ask you to make the changes... I can do it myself. Would you be too disappointed? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:16, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. First, you're most welcome and I apologize for the implemented, but unasked for changes. Please feel free to make any and all changes. Even I wasn't sure about all the anchors, with the possible exception of a few. The {{Dhr}} was used because I wasn't sure that you were aware of the template. It would be proper if I reverted the changes to save you from doing the extra work. — Ineuw talk 20:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I just feel bad with all the work you have done (which I do appreciate). I would carry on with anchors, etc. where you left off if I was feeling more ambitious, but alas!... I was aware of {{Dhr}} and have used it on certain occasions, just not between stanzas. I feel a double-carriage is sufficient (and easier!). But thank you! Don't worry about reverting anything for me; I don't mind going through the pages, as I have already taken note of which pages you have adjusted. No problems there! Again, thanks for the TOC formatting, and thanks for being gracious about any reversions/adjustments I might make with your work. I am always open to suggestions, however, even though I may be stubborn and set in my ways on occasion! Sincerely, Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:39, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

I removed all the Dhr and reverted the noincludes. I feel about my work in the same way, and appreciate your sense of consistency. When making the changes, I was also ready to revert them for that very reason.. Just as a qualification, I designed the {{Dhr}} because over a year ago, my work was edited and double rows were reverted to single rows. Having some knowledge of database storage, I assumed that they were removed because empty lines may contribute to data corruption. (To be certain, someone in the know would have to clarify this.) The anchors need only to be removed in the TOC, but they can stay in the text. This really depends on how you visualize the transcluded material - in case you want to place more than one poem on a page. Again, sorry for the unnecessary extra work.— Ineuw talk 21:00, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

You need not apologize. You made things easier for me, and I have learned some things to boot! All is appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:19, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: made it easy for me by establishing the basic indent structure, however I have just added a simple span to each of the (relevant, i.e. not all) Roman numerals to pull them into alignment more closely mirroring the book. I was a little surprised that an explicit width styling does not appear to be required when applied inside a table cell, but it most certainly is for standalone use. In case it is needed here is the (fuller) version:

<span style="display:inline-block;text-align:right;width:2em;">XVI</span>

N.B. Adjust "2em" above to be just wider than the longest number in the whole sequence; vary XVI as appropriate. Eggs. AuFCL (talk) 23:56, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that, AuFCL. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:10, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Noticed this too late but I am ready to add a third column with right aligned text if you so desire. That's the only way I know how to resolve this issue.— Ineuw talk 02:15, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

The Public General Statutes (1896)/Table VI

I have an unusal problem with this.

It previews Ok, but then doesn't render OK once saved.

Can someone please sanity check the transcluded pages and templates, to make sure I haven't overlooked something obvious? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I've done some work on the 1st table on top of the page, but I am not familiar with your coding style for the rest and it's best that I don't touch it.— Ineuw talk 17:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

What titles to use?

I'm probably going to transcribe (eventually) Medical Inquiries and Observations, by Benjamin Rush. The problem is, the work is in 5 volumes, with each one having a different title. Should I create a separate page for each volume, or should I create one "master" page?--Frglz (talk) 05:00, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Because they are volumes of the same work, the preference would be have them under one main page with a sub-page for each volume. (See History of England (Froude) for an example of how this works.) By the way, I note that the links on the author page are to different editions. Best practice is to have all the volumes from the same edition. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

A couple of questions from a new person.

A) When a document has stamps on it, how are those to be transcribed?

B) When a page is missing an image, is it okay to crop a copy of the scan and remove the background?A480641 (talk) 22:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

I checked through your contributions and the following reply is based on the pages you worked on:

By stamps, if you mean the library stamps, etc. - The answer is no. We don't copy them.

By missing image, if you are referring to the main page of the 1931 "The Highway code", (or any other image) - we try our best to use high resolution images because the .djvu image is very low resolution. If you can find a higher resolution image on the web and need help, send me the link and I will explain what can be done. FYI - most, but not all, of our documents & projects come from Internet Archive and they also have high resolution .JP2 versions of the same .djvu files. That's where we get our images from. In your case, the document comes from elsewhere, and that's why I recommend that you look for a higher resolution image. I hope this helps.— Ineuw talk 23:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

"Transclusion limits", etc.

Looking for advice on what to do about the TOC's (there are two sets) for the PotM. In the second set, to quote ShakespeareFan00, "The original format is in the early revision, but I went back to a simpler template formatting because the transclusion broke, due to the use of a lot of templates. Feel free to put the formatting back, but the transclusion limits will need to be looked into."

Question. Should the template formatting for all the TOC pages be simplified (that would mean changing 5 pages of TOC formatting), or can something be done about the "transclusion limits" for the two 'problematic' pages instead? This is beyond my ability. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Reply.

The only way to come in under the limit is to reduce the overall amount of templates and/or per-template parameters being applied. I know the root of the problem there is most likely the "resource expensive" {{Dotted TOC page listing}} template but Shakes has embedded it in some custom cascading template scheme that I just cannot follow.

I did try to make a less "intensive" dot-leader template based on some previous testing done with the help & input of fellow contributors - its in Template:Td/dot/sandbox if that helps him any. Other than that, and if reducing the amount of overall template-mass at play does not solve the problem, it looks like you'll need to split Pt 1 and Pt 2 into separate sub-pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

@GO3: Would it not just be 'simpler' to simplify the formatting? It might take me a while, but I could manage (tackle) it. It doesn't seem desirable at this point to split the Parts up (if I understand what you mean). @ShakespeareFan00: Do you have any objections to my simplifying the TOC pages, or do you want to follow some other course suggested by GO3? My opinion is to keep it simple, but that is because I am simple minded. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:06, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

No objections here & of course "simplifying it" is the easiest way to go. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

{{td/dot}} is where the problem arises... Simplify that template and thigns become easier. No objections to simplifications. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:32, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

1936 posthumous British text might still be copyright in the United States - please check

I am confused about the US copyright status of the English translation of the poem L'après-midi d'un faune by Bloomsbury Group artist Roger Fry. Would someone with clearer understanding of US law please review the tags I posted there, and come up with a suitable US tag? Although it became public domain in 1984, I think the URAA might have put it back in copyright in the US, and it may have to be taken down from Wikisource. --Hroðulf (talk) 09:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

This is complicated but British law might be the main problem rather than American. In 1995 UK statutory instrument SI 1995/3297 harmonised British copyright with Europe, which both extended the copyright period to 70 years pma and retroactively revived copyrights that had entered the public domain. So Fry's work The Poems of Mallarmé would have been in the public domain in 1985 but back under copyright from 1995 to 2005 in the UK and the rest of Europe. That's when the URAA becomes an issue. The URAA would only have brought the translation back into copyright if it was in copyright in its home country in 1996 (the URAA was the US response to the international community pressuring them to get into line on international copyright law, similar to the British SI). If it had been in the public domain in the UK in 1996, it would not have been affected by the URAA. However, as it had been brought back into copyright in the UK one year earlier, the URAA also brought it back into copyright in the US. Then a completely separate US law extended the copyright term to 95 years from publication, so it is probably still under copyright in the United States. The posthumous publication would have probably only affected the copyright if it had been published after 2004 (70 years pma). I'm not sure if I've got all of that right, so Im going to attach a {{copyvio}} and copy this thread to Wikisource:Possible copyright violations. Please note that the original French version is in the public domain so, if your French is up to it, a Wikisource translation is still possible. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Things have changed... need some help

Hi all! Things seem to have changed a lot since I was here last, and I'm having a bit of trouble. Perhaps I'm being a bit dense, but I am attempting to follow the instructions on Help:Adding_texts and other pages linked, and am having major issues. The Help pages lead me to believe that after having created Index:Address as the ABA president.pdf, I should be able to start entering text by going to, for example, Page:Address as the ABA president.pdf/3. All I'm getting is errors. I can't enter any text (only the edit summary box is coming up), and if I click on "Image", some background process seems to die. There's also no button. Any help would be appreciated, thanks. Storkk (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Everything you've done looks right. I'm afraid I can't tell what the problem is at the moment. There is a known problem with PDFs that affects Commons' thumbnail generator but the file appears to be working on Commons itself, so I don't think that's it (besides, that bug still generated the page image only without the words, which was weird). I also get an "Error generating thumbnail" message from the "Image" link:

Error creating thumbnail: /bin/bash: line 1: 24798 Done 'gs' '-sDEVICE=jpeg' '-sOutputFile=-' '-dFirstPage=3' '-dLastPage=3' '-r150' '-dBATCH' '-dNOPAUSE' '-q' '/tmp/localcopy_222d13c1788b-1.pdf'
24799 Killed | 'convert' '-depth' '8' '-resize' '3743' '-' '/tmp/transform_ee2e1b9e46a5-1.jpg'

The problem may lie with the Proofread Page extension. Someone with more knowledge of the software might be able to give you a better answer. It might even be worth a bug report.

I'm not sure about the OCR button; I never used it and it might have been removed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

I've fixed the problem with the thumbnails—for some reason the scan resolution had been set to 0. WRT the OCR button, the default is disabled. You can enable this through the gadgets in your Preferences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:08, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much, AdamBMorgan and Beeswaxcandle... it is working now. Wrapping my head around the "new" (ha!) way of doing this here is proving a little challenge, but the changes over the last seven years seem on the whole to be extremely positive. Thanks again, Storkk (talk) 19:40, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

On the use of long s

When a page uses a long s (ſ) (e.g. Page:Selected Orations Swedish Academy 1792.djvu/82 should I use the long s symbol or a normal s? A480641 (talk) 14:36, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

The {{long s}} (shortcut: {{ls}}) template will switch between them (displaying the long s in the page namespace and a normal s in the main namespace). The original idea was to provide a switch, so that the reader could choose between long or normal, but the code didn't work properly and it hasn't been implemented yet. In theory, in the future, someone will make that work and the template will be used as part of that. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2014 (UTC)

Historical scientific papers and monographs?

I'm a contributor to Wikiproject Paleontology on Wikipedia and I thought it would be cool if Wikisource could archive historical scientific papers and monographs about prehistoric life. However, while the introduction for new users refers to popular science articles, mention of the peer-reviewed literature is conspicuously absent. Does this reflect policy? Are technical works outside the scope of Wikisource or under a special copyright situtation that prevents their inclusion? Abyssal (talk) 02:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Definitely in scope. We have examples, though not very many. For one example see Character and description of Kingia, wherein is articulated for the first time the fundamental division between angiosperms and gymnosperms. Hesperian 03:50, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Glad to hear it! Nice to see a familiar face around here, too. Abyssal (talk) 14:29, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

An Index move/renaming help is asked for

This file Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu needs to be moved and renamed as Index:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1.djvu because it's made up of two volumes. For this, the commons source file Commons:File:Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican.djvu also needs to be moved/renamed. How this affects the WS Index is unknown to me, especially the order of renaming is my concern. I am also no clue as to how the move on WS affect the pages. The book is validated.

I would like to do it but need knowledgeable direction. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 03:06, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

You can move the Commons file and everything here will continue to work via the redirect. When you move the Index file, all the pages will break until they are moved too. You can post a Wikisource:Bot requests for someone to move all the pages. Hesperian 09:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the information.— Ineuw talk 15:19, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Transcluded page is not linking to moved Index pages.

Cleared all caches that are user accessible, but this page still doesn't recognize the source index. Could someone please help? Mexico, Aztec, Spanish and Republican, Vol 1/Book I/Chapter 1 For my own knowledge, is this a cache issue, and if so, do users can manage this? Thanks.— Ineuw talk 23:11, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

Typo in the Pages command line - its volume 1 (the number one) not volume I (capital letter i). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks GO3.— Ineuw talk 01:41, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Revalidate Page:A Plea for the Middle Classes.djvu/22

Anyone? Nice quick task. Can't self validate for obvious reasons. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:13, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Done. —Clockery Fairfeld ^[t] 13:46, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

{{bar|1}}

Way back before i got to know about m-dashes I used {{bar|1}} a lot. Ideally these should be replaced. with m-dasheses, i.e "—" Any ideas on how to do this?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:39, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

A replace bot can run; it should be about 600 pages (test edit).--Mpaa (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Done.--Mpaa (talk) 20:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

{{td}},{{tr}},{{te}}

I'm in the process of slowly depreceating these over concerns about parser load.

The assistance of the regulars in re-engineering the tables using them would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:25, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

Re validation request

Page:A Basic Guide to Open Educational Resources.pdf/109 Had a stubborn URL that was making trouble. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:48, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Costly templatws

Found this one - Template:Table row 1dot-1 which needs to be replaced. 19:10, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

And now deprecated and tagged for speedy deletion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:44, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

Page:Bradshaw's Monthly (XVI).djvu/32 ‎

Table rowspans won't format as intended. Can someone beat mediawiki into submission please?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:04, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Title

Edna W. Underwood has a collection of translations entitled Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan. Should the Wikisource page be Moons of Nippon, or Moons of Nippon, translations from poets of old Japan?--Frglz (talk) 22:00, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

I usually just use the main title and only add the subtitle if needed for disambiguation. So, I suggest Moons of Nippon would be fine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:56, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

OK, thank you.--Frglz (talk) 09:15, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

Robert Fortune page

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Robert_Fortune

It would appear that a couple of the dates on this page could be suffering from a typo. The list appears to be in chronological order but from date of 1820 or so there is a jump to the 1850s or so. Can this be correct?

Anne

Good catch, Anne. Indeed the dates were incorrect. Fixed by @Clockery: -- DutchTreat (talk) 18:47, 18 April 2014 (UTC)

@Anne Mac: Next time, you can try fixing typos like that yourself Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 04:38, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Need help with a TOC design problem.

In the process of adding wiki links to the TOC design OF THIS PAGE I found that the text often runs into the page number. Changing the font size and/or the column width fixes one paragraph but another gets messed up. I copied the first entry to THIS SANDBOX and ask if someone can suggest how to prevent this from happening.— Ineuw talk 03:22, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

One possible solution in two halves:

1. Note you have used {{float right}} for page numbers. This is O.K. but may I suggest adding suitable margin-offset (parameters 2,3,4 are respectively: offest, top+bottom(combined) and left.) Recommend setting left margins to (say) 1em?
2. Above half solution can itself cause vertical line collision effects. To counter this may I suggest separating each "paragraph"/sub-block with some variant of {{-}} to ensure proper clearing completes before next block begins?

I have added one possible layout method to your sandbox. If you find the paragraph marker usage too confusing then try substituting with {{clear}}s per above? AuFCL (talk) 08:20, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added a different solution to your sandbox without an explicit table. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Interesting use of negative-right-offsets. Good idea! AuFCL (talk) 10:54, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

A belated thanks to all for the examples.— Ineuw talk 03:37, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Copyright status of scientific paper

This archive.org work seems to be a public domain government document. Is it?--Frglz (talk) 20:39, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Also, this PDF contains Google watermarks. Do the watermarks make the work non-PD, and so have to be removed, or can the PDF be used for transcribing even with the watermarks?--Frglz (talk) 20:56, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

For the first one, it is hard to tell. I expect the Montana State Library would have checked before uploading it but I can't see anything to explain why or in what way it has been released. If you want to do so, you could contact the Montana State Library or the Montana Natural Heritage Program (the publisher) directly and ask if, and how, it has been released; there is a process over on Commons for getting that documented by e-mail. (The author's e-mail address is actually on the title page but it's from 1997 so it may no longer be valid.) That might be the only way to now for sure.

For the second one, the watermarks do not affect the PD status (and they are not transcribed into our version). Google adds watermarks to everything regardless of whether the text is in the public domain or not. I think they can be removed but I have never tried to do so myself. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• AdamBMorgan, User:Frglz is going to have problems with that "second one" shown as a PDF file because the page images did not come into the right side and some have scattered text on the left side to edit. He should have used a .djvu file, as you know. There are both Google watermarks and a University marks on the pages when one looks at "image" at the top and as I have encountered in the past there will be many times he will never see any image that should have come in either as a thumbnail image or the full image we sometimes view. George Orwell III once corrected an identical situation for me. I think he used a purge tool. —Maury (talk) 20:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

• • I believe the following is User: Frglz's source consisting of 2 volumes from HathiTrust —Maury (talk) 20:12, 29 April 2014 (UTC) http://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/001499602

mistake in validated page

I am a newbie, have just done 2 pages, and I noticed an obvious spelling mistake in a page that is already validated. Is it possible to correct this mistake? I can't see how to get the page into edit mode. Thanks

@Pixelwarrior: I think you can get back to correct the pages now. If not - post here and please sign your post with ~~~~ — Ineuw talk 02:58, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

Pixelwarrior (talk) 02:55, 4 May 2014 (UTC) — Ineuw talk I did not see the "edit" tab at the top ... Fixed now! Thank you!

Does this project have a highlight / hilite function?

Hello! My text document has highlighted text. How is highlighting done in this project? English Wikipedia has wikipedia:template:hilite. This project does not have that in place at Template:Hilite. How is highlighting managed here? Thanks. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Use html tags (your sig is a clue). <mark> produces this or this. Moondyne (talk) 14:54, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Getting texts validated

Noob question: once you have proofread a submitted text is there any way to speed up the validation process? I've had a few proofread texts waiting around for a couple of weeks without being validated and I want to make sure I wasn't supposed to do something else afterwards to keep the submission process going. Abyssal (talk) 17:42, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Not really. There's nothing institutionalised but some people engage in social contracts i.e. make deals with other users to validate each others' works. You'll find that most of the long-term contributors here have a long list of years-old proofread works awaiting validation. Most of us have learned to accept that — to see 'proofread and awaiting validation' as the goal, rather than aim for 'validated', which is out of our control. Hesperian 23:52, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

Abyssal, I with many others here help each other in both proofreading as well as validating. I have done this for many years now and with no one specific person until recently where three of us work together on books about Mexico. Hesperian (above) posted a list of pages he needed validation here on his talk page. I helped him by validating those pages and he thanked me. Good manners help a lot. We all try to help each other and especially after we get to know others for awhile. For now, if you know someone that is working on the same project, or different projects, ask him or her if you two can swap helping each other with proofreading or validating. Expand this as time passes into years. Make yourself well-known to others and that can be done also by posting information about yourself on your personal page and your talk page. That way you become less of a stranger to others. Oh, also when asking a question like you have, please post the location of your project so people can see it. Kind regards, —Maury (talk) 03:30, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

On a note related to Hesperian's comment has the Wikisource community ever actually considered formally creating a place for active editors to validate each others' work in a quid pro quo fashion? We could start a page or community portal subpage where active members can list their current projects in need of validation and then we could go about validating each others' work. The current system of lumping all unvalidated works together in one category isn't too helpful because even if you start validating random works you have no idea of the user who submitted it is even around any more much less going to validate some of your pages in return. But if we had some kind of centralized exchange I think it would accelerate the process of getting works validated and transcluded into the main space, and I believe that acceleration would do a lot for community morale, because let's face it, substantial waits between submission and transclusions are rather discouraging and drain contributor motivation. Abyssal (talk) 23:43, 5 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea but some editors just exchange favors as suggested above and move forward while the book remains unvalidated (4-ever) and just transclude the projects. What should be "validated" thus becomes? - Ignored and it continues. Therefore probably some of the older non-validated works are like orphans. We do have a list of older works that need proofreading / validating - and that grows. I think for the most part they get no present activity. I and others worked on some one when the list idea was new. In the not so distant past, I myself would ask openly "is validation important?" Basically the answer was absolutely but as you point out and most of us know, it does not always happen. Some just skip validations or validate a few pages and then go straight to transclusions leaving behind unvalidated books as they go straight to another book. For me, unvalidated means incomplete due to my asking about it and getting a confirmation on how necessary validations are. But what can be done with everyone as volunteer workers? Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:34, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Few clarifications and doubts on Wikisource

Hi I am from Telugu community. I am writing here, so as that I can have some more clarity on how Wikisource works. We have been facing some internal friction among members on few issues pertaining to copyright status of the books that are being uploaded to Wikisource.

1. The first concern is regarding books that are on DLI (http://dli.gov.in). The website claims that the books are out of copyright and that the authors have been consulted about it. There are many books that are public domain by definition of Indian copyright law, which assumes a book is in public domain 60 years after the death of its author, if the author doesn't specifically release it into public domain. Also, there are some state owned works which the author has "sold" to the Government ,(though their count is too less) where the Government is supposed to release them in a publicly open free license (which the Government doesn't actively look at). So, the assumption is that every book on DLI is copyright free. Thats what one of the member from the community strongly feels. Upon closer examination, DLI has never sent individual requests for releasing books into public domain. It made a public announcement in print media and inviting objections on any works that may be under copyright but could have mistakenly made into the listings on the website. Now, that the internet penetration is too low in India, most of the authors are not aware that their works, which may be selling in market under copyright, might be put up into public domain without their concern. This came to light when one book was being put up, and I, who knew the author and the book being published first in 1994, got a smell of something fishy happening. The author expired on February this year. So, I wanted to know how DLI works, and I found that out of thousands of books available there which are published in current times, only 6 thousand something are having a fool proof declaration on Copyright status. There is no such data avialble for rest of the books. Reference : http://www.dli.gov.in/UDL-Talks-May2004/Venkamma%20%20CCL.pdf slide number 21.
   Now if the community works on such doubtful books, which do not have a clear copyright information and tomorrow if the author claims the copyright and asks the community remove the book, the efforts put up by the community are wasted. Also, there are hundreds of other books that are essential to be put up on wikisource. Could any of the knowledged people here guide our community in the right path?
2. The second concern is about using public domain books which are hosted on sources like Google. Can we upload such books? Because they contain a google watermark and some of them are being sold by google, does it have any problem?
3. The third concern is about how to work on multilanguage books? For instance there are trilingual dictionaries, of which one language is Telugu. should we reproduce the book as it is? Or can we have translation of the other language?

Thank you for reading and engaging with above questions. --Rahmanuddin (talk) 11:28, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

1. Hmm. I can't think of anything which can be done except to remove the books which are clear copyvios, and discuss the doubtful ones. Following the rule of life+60 years might be the best course to follow for now. If it's possible, you could also contact the DLI to obtain evidence of PD. Any other ideas, anyone?
2. There is absolutely no problem if books digitized by Google are uploaded (that watermark is misleading), provided the books themselves are in the public domain.
3. I believe the book can be transcribed as it is, with all languages as they originally were. At the same time, transcribing the book on each language Wikisource (or mulws if there isn't a specific language subdomain for any language) the book has definitions in might be a good idea (see Index:A Malayalam and English dictionary 1871.djvu and ml:സൂചിക:A Malayalam and English dictionary 1871.djvu for an example).

I'd appreciate it if anyone else could expand on my reply. Best regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 14:37, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Asking for help in correcting a template

This PSM project template was intended to be used inline but I am unable to make it so. Can anyone please help in resolving the issue (if possible)? Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 17:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

And now? -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Perfect, just like everything touched by your hands and mind. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 20:51, 9 May 2014 (UTC)

Multiple documents in one source file

I have a procedural question regarding what to do when a file is actually two separate documents collated. In this case, where I am transcribing the first part, the second part is an extract of an unidentified volume of the Northwestern Reporter discussing the same case. Obviously, the ideal solution would be to split the PDF, and upload the second part separately - however I can't find enough information on the second part to upload it to Commons (a few volumes have been digitized by Google and the Internet Archive, but this doesn't seem to be one of them). Should I just ignore the second part here on Wikisource, assuming the original uploader doesn't respond? Storkk (talk) 10:11, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

Missing Colours

In Index:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_30.djvu I can't see the validate/proofread colours anymore. When you open a page of the book, everything is fine, but on the Index page the colours are missing. Can someone help? WeeJeeVee (talk) 10:21, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Purging the page generally fixes that. Easiest way is to add the clock gadget (preferences, gadgets, interface, clock and purge) and click on the time. Moondyne (talk) 10:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, the clock/page purge gadget is the best way to go.— Ineuw talk 17:36, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks SO much for that advice; the repeatedly disappearing colours was driving me batty. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:47, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

References to Wikisource from Wikisource

When one work on Wikisource cites another that is also available here, is there a way to mark that connection between the two? I found Wikisource:References to Wikisource but this and all the citation templates I saw seem to be solely about external references to Wikisource. Is there an equivalent for "internal" references? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

See WS:LINKSTYLE. Is that what you mean? Moondyne (talk) 23:38, 18 May 2014 (UTC)

That's not what I had in mind, but largely equivalent. Just haven't seen many wikilinks in texts around here yet. Thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 01:47, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

This work has multiple internal links to Wikisource. The volume is higher than other works, as the original work lists multiple authors and works that are in, or are appropriate for Wikisource. It is probably the most extreme use of Wikisource internal referencing that would be in scope here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:00, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

That's an instructive example - thanks! -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

@Daniel Mietchen: just not looking in the right works. We have Category:Internal link templates and there are some good base templates there for which you are encourage to use for nesting. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Table formatting

Hello! I need some help with formatting this beast. My two main problems: 1) right floating price and 2) vertical alignment when template:hi is used. Thanks a lot in advance! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 02:53, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Hi. The table is done and if you have any questions, please contact. - aka "Table man". — Ineuw talk 03:24, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot, the table man:)! Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:37, 28 May 2014 (UTC).

Extra headings

I want to add some extra headings to a text for better organization and for finding my place in general. Adding section tags does not seem to help because it does not automatically add any ID attributes for anchoring, and I have no text to exclude anyway. I could just put in ID's manually, for bookmarking, but I also need some way of distinguishing extra headings from the text in the printed edition. Do I add headers right in the Page namespace? Is there a common way of doing it? Heyzeuss (talk) 11:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Is {{anchor}} what you're looking for? I use them when multiple small sections will be transcluded to the same page, but there still be reference to those smaller sections. An example of their use is at Ante-Nicene Christian Library/Volume I/Epistle to Diognetus where each chapter has an anchor (inserted in the Page: namespace). By the way, the page numbers in the Mainspace also act as anchors. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. ː) Heyzeuss (talk) 08:02, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

A linking and transclusion problem to server caching?

I had to move the subpages of Nye's History of the USA to correct the main ns page structure, and aside from the first Contents entry to Chapter I, none of the subsequent links work. I checked the spelling, cleared local caches, but still no luck. I suspect it's a server cache, but still would be nice if someone could check if and what I did wrong. Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 01:34, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Fixed - the entries used "smart" (or "rich text") apostrophe in Nye's instead of plain (keyboard) ones. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:07, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

It's fixed. You're my Tlatoani of Wikisource. Feel free to sacrifice anyone you want.— Ineuw talk 02:19, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

(You gave permission...to...are you insane? We shall all be murthered in one another's beds! AuFCL (talk) 02:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC))

tsk... sacrifices don't work - you're all back the next day no matter how many I perform.

Still looking for answers...

• Shouldn't we have used Template:Center block over Template:Block center to actually center a block of text all this time?
• Template:Dotted TOC page listing/sandbox has a far smaller resource footprint than the current version but how to translate "# of spaces" values into "letter-spacing: #" parameter for existing template usage?
• Template:Aligned table; is this the beginning of the end for the old parsed Table-style template approach?

... <sigh> George Orwell III (talk) 02:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Ineuw's discussion just got mugged; however:

(Re: tsk: then you are not following through adequately. Not my place to teach you your business.)

• {{center block}} and {{block center}} are not quite the same beasts; but more could be done to amalgamate them.
• dotted TOC... spaces is not and never will be fillsp. Don't break your brain trying to fit $\bigcirc \rightarrow \square$: Why not implement two nested calls to #invoke:String|rep|, the innermost adds spaces number of &nbsp;s to symbol; then feed the result of that into another #invoke:String|rep|((that))|244?
• {{aligned table}} interesting... still looking for an actual consumer of its services though...

Mugging completed. Back to your usual scheduled program? AuFCL (talk) 05:16, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Template:Sn-paragraph

Can someone do a syntax check on the sandbox version of this?

It was an attempt to generalise the cl-* series of templates into something that was usable for any sidenoted work. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:05, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Re-indexing of djvu-file necessary?

Hi,

I am a newbie and currently working on a small project of my own, Index:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu. Everything seemed fine up to now and I already finished a larger amount of work until I found out, that I missed to scan one of the 23 pages, page 7 ... *blush* - I fixed the djvu ([3]) and hoped everything else would work automagically, but of course it didn't. As you can see in the Index the missing file is not shown. Will I have to create a new index? And how do I? And will I lose any of the already done work? Please help, any hint is much appreciated ..... Thank you, Denis Barthel (talk) 12:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

@Denis Barthel: Please place a request for page moves (start and finish pages, and by the required increment and direction) to Wikisource:Bot requests and sks will take pity on you (as they have done with us previously). :-) On the index page, you will also see a link to the top right that will purge the File at Commons, and that should clean up the file images, and we may have to change any page numbering, though please start with the request. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:03, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

It was a short doc with only a few pages to realign. Please, check my corrections - but I don't think there are any remaining issues. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both for your help, everything is working fine now. Your help was very encouraging. Denis Barthel (talk) 07:27, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Formatting trouble on Page:The English hymnal (1906).djvu/5 and Page:The English hymnal (1906).djvu/6

On the above pages small squares show up in various places which are not visible in edit mode and only appear in Firefox 29.0.1 AFAIK. They don't appear in Safari 7.0.4, but I can't test with Internet Explorer because I'm using Mac OS X 10.9 Mavericks. Could someone please test the above with Internet Explorer and if possible get rid of this formatting problem. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:29, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Also there are two duplicate pages scanned, (I noted on the Index talk page). Kathleen, you probably do not want to proofread this until the source file is repaired. I think the work may be lost when all the numbers move.--BirgitteSB 01:00, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Oops. I hope I haven't just made somebody's life harder. I validated Kathleen's problem pages before realising Birgitte's warning. FWIW I am using FF 29.0.1 on Linux, and can see the "boxes" both in edit and normal mode so can remove them. Looks like OCR-gone-mad and nothing more, as there does not seem to be rhyme or reason as to their occurrence. AuFCL (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Braces spanning two rows in a table?

Hello, I am having only four more pages to transcribe in my project, but I can't go on, as all of them cause the same problem: these pages contain tables wherein there are braces ("{") spanning over two rows

(Upload an image to replace this placeholder.)

. And as I can place the symbol only in one row, I don't know how to solve this. I'd be so glad for your help, as I would love to finish the project. Greets, Denis Barthel (talk) 23:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Which table? What page?— Ineuw talk 23:50, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

I found the table and can help you later in a few hours if you wish. — Ineuw talk 23:54, 9 June 2014 (UTC)

Hi folks. I proofread Page:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu/19 as a sample. Feel free to tweak/improve as you see fit. AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: Another Canadian job gone to Australia. Well, at least it's still in the Commonwealth. BTW, good job. We of the north, salute you.— Ineuw talk 03:42, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't so much think of you guys as being in the "north", so much as being on the wrong side of the date-line! AuFCL (talk) 03:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

However, it is nice to have a night crew to look after things while we take our well-deserved rests. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:01, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

A minor correction of your perceptions. First, we happen to be the "day crew," and not the "night crew." . . . and from where we sit (upright) you guys are upside down, and on the wrong side of the dateline. — Ineuw talk 05:09, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Yawn. That remark was so yesterday. (Poor Denis is going to be wondering what on earth is going on. Please ignore us.) AuFCL (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: and @Ineuw:: Thank you very much for your help, and I appreciate a nice derailing of a thread :) - I have tried my very best to solve the problems and could help myself twice, but my attempts shipwrecked twice too. I allow myself to ask for your help in these two cases and marked them as Problematic such, especially as I am finished else with the proofreading of the project: Index:Savagetribesofformosa1926.djvu. I hope this is not to unreasonable? Greets, Denis Barthel (talk) 20:39, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Denis Barthel: The only thing I can do for the missing three pages is to insert high quality images. Again, this will take some 24 hours. — Ineuw talk 21:12, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw:, sorry, this is unclear to me, it's only two pages we are talking about and it only relates to the tables in the text, which are much to complex for me to cope with. If inserting high-quality images of these tables would be good enough, I'd make it by myself; but I admit, I'd be surprised ... :) Denis Barthel (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@Denis Barthel: It's not at all unusual. I've done hundreds of tables but when pressed by time, I do turn to images. The choice is yours. In any case, I uploaded the booklet to IA for generating JP2 images, and this takes some time, depending on the queue in which there are 225 documents ahead of us.— Ineuw talk 21:33, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: - ah, now I understand. As I uploaded the brochures pages as single jpgs to the commons in higher quality (File:SavageTribesOfFormosa1926 12.jpg, File:SavageTribesOfFormosa1926 14.jpg), would it be sufficient to integrate these images or the excerpts, respectively? Denis Barthel (talk) 21:38, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely. I also recommend (if possible) that you convert it to .png format which seems to be somewhat clearer for line graphics and drwaings. Also, in case you don't like the results, we'll have the IA version latest by tomorrow.— Ineuw talk 23:40, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

After the last faux pas I should not dare to take bread out of the mouths of hard-drinkingworking Canucks. Just let me know if there is anything I can do to help once the dust settles again. AuFCL (talk) 07:14, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

lead words

It's ages since I edited WS and I've forgotten the recommended treatment of lead (link?) words at the end of pages; example. Are they simply left out or is there a template that records their presence? Can't find it in the help pages. Chris55 (talk) 09:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Hello Chris55.

I believe the inclusion of these words is strictly a personal choice; however if you chose to do so I consider including them in the footer exactly as you have done is definitely the nicest way to go about this. To the best of my knowledge there are neither tracking templates or indeed "official" guidelines.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 11:43, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Floating page link page breaks incorrect

I created a main page from these pages to preview what it will look like, but I noticed that the floating page links on the left-hand side of the text are incorrect for the Autobiography and Contents. If you hover over the links on the main page, notice that the page break between the two pages is incorrect (i.e. the Contents is starting mid-way down the Autobiography page). Is this something I did wrong or is this a bug? Looking at the generated HTML, I'm noticing that the second paragraph from Autobiography is not inside of <p>...</p> tags. Perhaps this is causing it? Still not sure what the root cause is though. Ryanbrainard (talk) 07:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

This is by no means a complete answer; more what I suspect might be going wrong.

If you look on the left-hand side of your screen whilst viewing the misbehaving page, you ought to see a menu heading (beneath "Help", "Donate") reading "Display options". Immediately beneath this again ought to be a clickable link which in your case I expect reads "test layout".

Please click this item, which should cause it to change to "Layout 1" and the main text will redraw. I now think you will find your "floating page links" will be working correctly?

For what it is worth, "test layout" behaves like this for me as well, but "Layout 1"/"Layout 2"/"Layout 3" and "Proposed Layout" are all fine. AuFCL (talk) 09:06, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

I tried toggling the layout, but no luck -- they are all broken for me. I did some experimenting, and it only happens on the last paragraph of that page (i.e. adding a third paragraph makes the second one ok), so I was able to workaround the issue by adding a trailing &nbsp; in a new paragraph. Its not ideal, but it fixes the issue for me. Ryanbrainard (talk) 15:50, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

O.K. It looks like I was barking up the wrong tree. Apologies for misleading you. I hope somebody else has an answer because I'm out of ideas at present. AuFCL (talk) 23:25, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

What about now? I added a line-return at content start and nop at content end for the first few pages. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:40, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

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

Can someone look over this, and convert the old-style {{sidenotes begin}}{{sidenotes end}} over to the new style {{sn-paragraph}} as I've done later in the work? The latter gives a much cleaner layout (albiet at the expense of slightly higher complexity.)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:45, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Table help - how do I do it?

I am an experienced Wikisource user, but I cannot seem to format this table in a way that works. Page:Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2002.djvu/82

Can someone look at this and correct the format for me? I would very much appreciate it!

- Tannertsf (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I formatted the headers and the 1st two rows. When you complete the data we'll know if space is needed between columns. If so, send me a message and I will insert spacing columns instead of padding each cell.— Ineuw talk 03:14, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Extra sub-headings

Do we have a special way of adding extra sub-headings in long chapters, or otherwise breaking them up into smaller sections? Heyzeuss (talk) 09:03, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Which particular work are you thinking about? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:11, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828). Heyzeuss (talk) 10:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Responded on your Talk page where I've suggested a different way of subpaging. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:54, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu

What is the div class being used for the introduction?

Tagged some pages as problematic per the proofreading instructions, but prepared to mark them as proofread if someone can explain the use of a div over a template here. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the old style of doing things from before the ProofreadPage Extension and Dynamic Layouts. You can get rid of those divs now. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:30, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:John Wycliff, last of the schoolmen and first of the English reformers.djvu

Simple issue , found some duplicate page scans. Anyone want to fix this up? (Found it when doing the inital pagelist setup on the index page! Precisly the reason you set that sort of thing up!)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:27, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Having found the problem, please set the Status to "Source file requires fixing" and put the details of exactly what needs fixing on the Talk page. Then one of the wonderful volunteers who work with DjVu files will sort it out in the course of the next couple of months. In the meantime, move on to something else. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:53, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Issue with char insert

I've been having a long-standing issue with inserting special characters on the edit screens. Every time I click on the character I want to insert, it inserts in the header section (where {{rh}} goes) rather than where I want it. I've had this issue for many months and it makes proofreading really difficult--to the point I just have to take a break for a few weeks because it's so irksome.

I've tried everything to fix it. I've cleared my cache, tried FireFox and Waterfox (I use Chrome as my main browser), deleted my vector.js/vector.css files (I am currently using the vector skin, although I prefer the monobook), etc. All that I can find, is if I do all these things, I get one page edited like I desire; then it's back to the problem as usual. Has anyone else had this issue and know how to fix it?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:53, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

I added some CharInsert lines at the end of your vector.js file - is it still losing focus? -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:23, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images - redux

Unfortunately, this issue has raised its head again Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Quick access icon link to the Commons is gone from WS images. Truth be told, I lost the link some mw updates ago, but only now this issue has re-gained its importance to access the commons. I tried to reactivate it by changing the language in preferences but it's to no avail. — Ineuw talk 19:30, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That aside, do you have tab along the top (amongst Read, Edit, More) that links back to commons just like the icon does (did)? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, this is something new, or didn't notice this before. Please consider this resolved and accept my apologies.— Ineuw talk 22:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Just for laughs, try disabling Media Viewer [if currently enabled] in your user Preferences, Appearance tab, Files section and see if the icon comes back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:58, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Disabling the viewer did not bring back the old icon.— Ineuw talk 23:45, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

PDF->Djvu conversion request

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:To_the_Victor_Belongs_the_Spoils%28v.1%29.pdf

This appears to be a Creative Commons released Thesis.

In line with the apparent plan to import scholarly papers and articles, I was wondering if someone would consider converting it over to djvu with a view to it being OCR'ed for Wikisource. (It was transfered over to Commons, but seemingly generated blank thumbnails.) Hence it should really be (down) converted to DJVU if within scope. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:02, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Done Index:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu.— Ineuw talk 19:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

And having made that request someone from Commons has raised concerns about some of the images. A number would seem to be pre-1955, but it might be worth having someone like jayvdb take a careful look? The text can still be worked on though, and the images can be blacked if a problem is found? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:13, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I've done the conversion & upload based on the CC license, assuming that its content, met the license requirements. I am not qualified to comment on Australian copyright laws. It's you who has to clear up the issue. Also, please request the deletion of the .pdf copy on the commons as it's a duplicate. — Ineuw talk 20:23, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Index talk:To the Victor Belongs the Spoils.djvu - OK Folks, I need someone familar with Australian copyright, to check the images. I've set up a table on the talk page. Any that can be definitively proved as pre 1955, will need to be redacted. ( found 2 already :( )ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Index:The music of Bohemia.djvu

Can I politely ask that someone takes another look at this, in the interests of formatting consistency? and the fact it's missing the scores.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:25, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Image extraction

Index:Bench and bar of Colorado - 1917.djvu, Anyone want extract images? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Under copyright or not?

The first edition of Gilbert Murray's Euripides and his Age was published in 1913, simultaneously in both London and New York. Murray died in 1957. By normal US rules, this does not appear to be under copyright, but the rule in the UK is 70 years after death of the author. So, is this work still under copyright or not? Recommendations? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:28, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

The work is PD in the U.S. (1st published in U.S. prior to 1923) - period.

The UK rule is also valid, but only in the U.K. We can host the work as long as the "source" file is locally uploaded to en.WS and tagged 'Do not move to Commons' (which automatically explains the nuances) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, but the question may be moot. I started work on Index:Euripides and his age.djvu only to find that the first edition I found is missing pages 67 & 68. I found only one other scan of this book at the Internet Archive, but it is a different edition (possibly a later American reprint), in which the content of the pages differs significantly from the first edition, and even the typography and orthography of the text differs from the original.

If there is someone who can find another copy of the same edition that I have uploaded, and has the technical expertise to interpolate the two missing pages, do please let me know. Otherwise, I'll have to abandon hope of working on this volume. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:20, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I found three copies of the works on IA, but it's up to you to determine which is a good copy. Replace the old with the new upload and then we'll delete/replace the pages.Euripides and his age — Ineuw talk 05:07, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Of the three copies, the only possibility is the one that's different. this copy but you still need to check the pages.— Ineuw talk 05:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, there are 3 copies on IA. That's what I said. One is the copy that I uploaded, one has no scan, and the other is the bastardized copy. We can't use that last one; it's the only good scan, but whoever published it made changes to the pagination, major changes to orthography, etc. It's no longer a first edition; it's a highly modified edited version. It's not useable. That's why I posted this request for help finding another copy, or at least getting a scan of the missing two pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Done -- Missing pages inserted (even tan-i-fied). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:02, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks so much! --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:12, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It's incumbent upon me to apologize for not being to insert the missing pages, as well as to thank our caped crusader GOIII, for coming to our rescue. :-) — Ineuw talk 23:18, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Text files

Wikisource offers a user the chance to download a book in PDF or EPUB format, but not as a plain text file. Why is this so? Text files are more convenient for some readers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.139.1.19 (talk) at 00:20, 1 July 2014‎ (UTC)

Mediawiki bug?

There seems to be a bug when trying to load a page (any page). Getting messages of endless running of load scripts. I am using Firefox v30.0. Copied the following messages but there are more and will add them later. Also, the latest message contained "fr.wikisource".

Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=mediawiki.inspect&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z&*:2
Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=jquery%2Cmediawiki%2CSpinner%7Cjquery.triggerQueueCallback%2CloadingSpinner%2CmwEmbedUtil%7Cmw.MwEmbedSupport&only=scripts&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z:4
Script: https://bits.wikimedia.org/en.wikisource.org/load.php?debug=false&lang=en&modules=mediawiki.inspect&skin=modern&version=20140701T181553Z&*:2

— Ineuw talk 21:30, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I am also using Firefox, but I am not having any difficulties. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:53, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I noticed in the above messages the reference to the modern skin, which I am using. If this persists, I will change back to Vector and see if this helps. :-( — Ineuw talk 22:03, 1 July 2014 (UTC)

I doubt its the skin. I've been seeing script errors ever since the jQuery upgrade that later turned out to be OOJS version related (That's all Greek to me). In short, the errors I've been seeing are enough to be reported but not enough to crash or hang anything - once in awhile the Page: view reverts to side by side when I have it set to horizontal though. Otherwise, the script errors are just annoying while neverending. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes. That's exactly what's happening. No crashes just long delays. I am reporting it.— Ineuw talk 01:18, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Bug id: 67404— Ineuw talk

@George Orwell III: I feel vindicated. This bug is being reported by others as well.— Ineuw talk 07:32, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

Oh believe me you are not alone. I've been swearing over random F/F freezes (Linux/Vector) over much the same period as well. AuFCL (talk) 09:17, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

I get "script errors" here asking me if I want to continue with the script or not. I have Firefox 30.0 - but then again, not long ago before the automatic Firefox upgrade, I lost 1/2 of my editing bar - the part I never used anyhow except enlarge, reduce image &c. which I can do another way. —Maury (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
@William Maury Morris II:I received notice that this has been fixed. If you still having a problem, please post here and I will notify Bugzilla.IneuwPublic (talk) 22:03, 3 July 2014 (UTC)

US Senator reposts his own article from Wired Magazine

1. Wired Magazine, op-ed article by U.S. Senator Ron Wyden and U.S. Congresswoman Zoe Lofgren = http://www.wired.com/2013/06/aarons-law-is-finally-here/
2. Reposted by Senator Wyden at wyden.senate.gov = http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa

• Is this text document now public domain?
• It was written by two United States federal government employees.
• Can I add it here to Wikisource ?

Thank you for your time,

-- Cirt (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but I don't believe that politicians are exactly considered "federal government employees" for the purposes of copyright laws. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Well, they are for speeches in Congress itself, obviously, but this is sort of a confusing one for me, but he did repost it on a U.S. Federal Government website. -- Cirt (talk) 20:59, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

An author usually has rights to distribute or post copies of their own work. I've known academics whose papers were published in journals, who then also provided a free copy to fellow academics electronically through their website. This is not an act of releasing the work into the public domain, it is merely the modern method of distributing free reprints, which have long been part of academia. I would hazard to guess that, unless the article was written as part of their government duties, the magazine and/or authors retain copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:18, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

Okay, sounds good, no worries. -- Cirt (talk) 21:29, 4 July 2014 (UTC)

The relevant concept is en:wp:open access, as user:EncycloPetey suggests. Almost certainly the original article is written in capacity of official government duties, which by default would make this a public domain work. However, we do not have the original work, we only have the version edited by Sonal Chokshi @smc90 of Wired which Wired then published. This is a derivative of a public domain work. The appropriate thing to do would be to ask Choshi if they or Wired are asserting copyright. By default, they would. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Copyright is automatic unless a valid release is provided. Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

• The correct venue for discussing copyright issues is Wikisource:Possible copyright violations, is this a question of copyright? Jeepday (talk) 13:45, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  The Copyright Violations forum is for discussing works already hosted here that we suspect violate copyright, and may therefore need to be removed. In this case, the work is not hosted here, and the question is preemptive. Is is thus not a violation and should be discussed here rather than in the other forum. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:49, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  If we are discussing copyright in anticipation of hosting the work, the Copyright Violations forum is a valid venue. Several works have been discussed prior to being hosted (or not). Jeepday (talk) 22:06, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  Then that forum is not "the correct venue" (as you stated earlier), but rather "a possible venue", provided that a {{copyvio}} tag is placed on the work being discussed, as stated on the copyright violations page header. However, the Copyright Violations forum is a subset of the Deletions forum; we can't delete what we aren't hosting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:27, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

  A recent discussion as an example of copyright discussion prior to hosting. You are correct that the header does not display this an option, I have started a discussion Wikisource_talk:Possible_copyright_violations#Pre-hosting_copyright_review. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm not asking about the Wired version, but about posting this version: http://www.wyden.senate.gov/news/blog/post/wyden-and-logren-introduce-aarons-law-to-reform-the-cfaa -- a blog post at www.wyden.senate.gov as posted by U.S. Senator Wyden. Author = Communications Office for the U.S. Senator, as given in the credit for that blog post. -- Cirt (talk) 23:26, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

@Cirt This conversation is getting rather confused, would you care to post a fresh question at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations? Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

Done, now at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#US_Senator_reposts_his_own_article_from_Wired_Magazine. -- Cirt (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

History of Ancient Greek Literature

The Internet Archive has the 3rd edition of Murray's A History of Ancient Greek Literature, but I'm not sure whether it's actually in the public domain. The 1st ed. was published in 1887, the 3rd in 1911. So far so good. Murray died in 1957, so the work is still under copyright in the UK. The complication is that the work appears to have been published only in the UK (London: William Heinemann). I'm not sure what happens in the case of a work that was published prior to 1923, but was not published in the US.

It's an important and wonderful work. Could someone help me determine whether this work can be hosted here? --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:20, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't know what gave you the impression Murray's take wasn't published in the U.S. - WorldCat shows otherwise.

And the 1911 impression doesn't seem to be the true 3rd edition, the 1917 release is (according to WorldCat that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:11, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

The edition I've linked clearly has MCMXI (1911) on the title page, and it also includes a preface to the third edition. It would be very weird for a publisher to backdate on the title page, so the 3rd edition must have been printed by 1911. WorldCat concurs with a 1911 edition labeled as "3rd", although there seem to be 3rd editions printed in 1907 and 1902 as well. Based on what I've found, the "3rd impression" mentioned in the volume may refer to the text being the 3rd impression of the 3rd edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Whatever - the issue was 'locations published' so you're free to start it after you pick one or the other. Fwiw...I find a 1917 dated version that also has all 3 Prefaces. After that I can't find any more free full-view copies so that's probably the 'last one' free of copyright available online. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:09, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I'll probably go with the 1911 copy I linked to, as it's about the cleanest I've found (although I haven't looked through the entire volume yet). With a work like this, a later revised edition is preferable to the 1st. Also, with as many impressions as this work went through, finding a particular one also isn't of consequence. The deciding point then becomes the quality of the scan. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:22, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Problematic three page poem layout fail

Can anyone please check what I am doing wrong with this poem's layout? Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_23/June_1883/Evolution 20:49, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

It's been a while since I've used the poem tag, so I'll keep watch for someone's solution... but I think the poem tags need to be in the body of the poem (start as well as end) and not in the header/footer; otherwise, you can always use breaks along with block center and skip the poem tag... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I tried my hand at it (using poem tag), but reverted myself... It came closer, but still no cigar. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: My hat's off to you. It is as you said. Much thanks. — Ineuw talk 21:32, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Glad it worked out after all! Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:34, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw:: Hoping you don't mind; I adjusted the spacing between stanzas a bit. The last stanza had too much space between the Roman numerals and the text, and the rest of the Roman numerals were spaced too close (in my opinion) to the prev. stanza's text. It looked funny. Ideally, there "should" be less space between the Roman numerals and their corresponding text, but the poem tag is not flexible that way, unfortunately... Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:55, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Don't mind at all and much obliged for any improvement. I knew that the spacing was wrong, but had no instant solution. My purpose in PSM is to keep consistency of the looks throughout the project and I am grateful to any and all help.— Ineuw talk 22:11, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Indent/text-indent and page breaks

So I'm working on some US Supreme Court cases, and I've run into an issue with the {{indent}} and {{text-indent}} templates. Right now I'm working on Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, Inc., just the syllabus part. (Syllabus = summary, basically.) Anyway, if you look at one of the pages of the source document, eg. Page:Burwell v Hobby Lobby.pdf/3, you can see that sub-sections are indented in increasing amounts in a hierarchical fashion. Eg:

Initial section

1

2

3

1

And so on.

I've been using the {{indent}} template for the most part to deal with these sections, but I've run into the issue that this particular document has a tendency to wrap words and paragraphs across page breaks. When I try to wrap an indented paragraph across the page break, the transclusion in main namespace has a hard-line return that I just can't get to go away. You can see the behavior on the transcluded page (look between pages 2/3 or 3/4 or 4/5 or 5/6).

I've tried:

• Putting the }} for the first page in the footer and a new {{indent| or {{text-indent| in the header of the next page.
• Combinations of both templates -- {{indent}} and {{text-indent}}
• Bypassing the templates entirely and attempting to do the styling manually via HTML. Eg. on the first page preceeding the paragraph with <div style="text-align: 2em;">, putting a </div> in the footer of the first page, and putting a </div> after the end of the paragraph on the second page.

Unfortunately none of those things have worked. The end result is that the first part of the paragraph is indented properly, but the software appears to be forcing a </div> after the end of the first transcluded page, which causes the continuation of the paragraph on the next page to be treated like a new paragraph almost. I'm not sure if this is due to the {{hws}}/{{hwe}} templates or the actual page break itself.

I'm hoping to retain this formatting since it's not just decorative or typographical, but serves a purpose, namely hierarchical organization. Does anyone have any ideas? — Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:49, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

This isn't a particularly clever or friendly solution, but is the effect on page 2/3 now what you want? If so cooking up a new template might be the way to go (You are right about the template inserting a </div> right where you don't want it to appear. I simply replaced the cross-page {{indent}}s with <span style="display:inline-block;text-indent:…"> equivalents.) AuFCL (talk) 06:09, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

I have thrown together a quick version of an alternate template which should suffice: {{indent/s}}. Please feel free to fix any bugs or clarify the documentation as you see fit (i.e. if it breaks I shall donate you the pieces. Not really: if you find anything too horrible let me know and I'll do my best to fix it.) AuFCL (talk) 07:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

Excellent! That works like a charm. Thank you very much -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: I see you picked up my oversight regarding the header of continuation pages requiring use of {{indent/s|0}}. I have introduced a new {{indent/c}} (which is only {{indent/s}} with default indent set to 0) and changed the documentation to indicate this. No need (I hope!) for you to change anything already working for you; this is just for future uses. AuFCL (talk) 05:56, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

A problematic result when using {{Hanging_indent#Spanning_multiple_pages}}

I discovered that when placing {{hanging indent}} in a header, to span multiple pages of indented paragraphs for the main namespace, it doesn't work on the first paragraph of the main body in the Page namespace unless it is succeeded by <p> in the header. (<br> or <br /> doesn't seem to do it).

Because of this, I also assume that the <p> should be present only if the first line needs to be hanging, otherwise it's only indented (without hanging). I was testing THIS PAGE 254 and looking at the result in Preview before Save and in the main namespace after Save.

Also wonder how {{nop}} affects this template when used within a multiple page enclosure.— Ineuw talk 02:19, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

I've not had problems with this. Are you using the /m version in the header rather than the /s version? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:46, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Might also be worth referring to Billinghurst's comments to Londonjackbooks in another thread on apparently similar issue in the same work? AuFCL (talk) 03:37, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@AuFCL: I was aware of Billinghurst's suggestion, but someone already placed the hanging indent/s and /e template, and I was testing it when I found the issue of no hanging, just indent. If correct, then the template documentation should be amended to mention it when the template is used in the header and the first line needs to be a hanging.

As for the page in question, the indentation can easily be resolved for proper display. The real problem is that the Index entry "Crewe House" should have appeared grouped under "C", but was missed by the original type setter, and was amended alongside the page number at the bottom which for us is the footer. If there is a tag which hides text in the Page namespace BUT reveals it in the Main namespace, then the problem would be solved. Unfortunately, my knowledge on tags is too limited to know if there is such a tag.— Ineuw talk 03:59, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

1. If the top of a new page needs to be "hanging" then perhaps carrying the indenting logic across from the prior page was a mistake? Terminate it at the end of the prior page (in the content section) and restart it on the new page (also as content.)
2. <includeonly>? AuFCL (talk) 04:18, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Just checked your edit history. Perhaps that is where I ought to have started? Guess what? We are talking about the exact same pages which I happen to have edited more recently than you. Your turn: if there is anything wrong now I probably need the lessons. AuFCL (talk) 04:30, 11 July 2014 (UTC)

Poem in a table across a page break

I'm at a loss for understanding why the second section of a poem will not transcluse. Everything looks fine in the Page namespace, but the second section of the poem does not transclude. The poem is part of a translated Greek tragedy found at Page:Euripides and his age.djvu/165 and Page:Euripides and his age.djvu/166; the transclusion should appear near the bottom of Euripides and His Age/Chapter 6.

It's a page-break-spanning-table, and I've checked it several times against the recommendations at Help:Page breaks#Tables across page breaks—nothing seems to be amiss there—and I've tried some experimental changes, all to no avail. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:30, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Please take a look now.Ineuw (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks very much! It does seem now to be displaying correctly in both namespaces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:45, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Offences Against the Person Act 1861

Murder/manslaughter Can anyone help me with a proviso to this act which makes provocation a mitigation. I am researching a case heard in 1881.—unsigned comment by Barbaraphipps (talk) .

I doubt whether anyone here particularly would know. Only thing that I see as a defence against murder is the section discussing excusable/justifiable homicide, which may give a little leeway, though that would only be through a precedent, as the Act does not mention provocation as a reason, just ... or in his own Defence, or in any other Manner without Felony. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. That is very helpful. In this particular case the charge was reduced to manslaughter, and the accused was immediately released on the grounds of provocation.—unsigned comment by 79.64.48.38 (talk) .

@Barbaraphipps: It is my understanding is that manslaughter (is/was) Common Law, ie. court precedence from waaaaay back, not legislated in the UK, and some other Commonwealth nations like Australia. Such that a defences against that charge will also be by precedent, unless there is specific legislation that separately defines provocation/excusable/... — billinghurst sDrewth 23:57, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Missing pages from IA scan

Here and here. Alt. scan is at [4] which has the pages. To be inserted into File:Life of John Boyle O'Reilly.djvu. Assistance appreciated. Moondyne (talk) 00:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Best way to draw attention to this kind of problem is to amend the Index: status and put a note about what needs to happen on the Index Talk: page. I've done this for you. George is the main one who deals with these and he regularly checks the relevant category for Indexes that need fixing. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Advice noted and thanks. Moondyne (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:The New Latin Primer (Postgate).djvu

Been slowly working away at this but would appreciate some other eyes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:Ségur Old French Fairy Tales.djvu

Proofread- Now if someone would like to get the images from the original :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:01, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: If no one is working on this, I would like to do it. Please let me know.--Ineuw (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Feel free, I've not seen a response from others yet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:02, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: All images were inserted --Ineuw (talk) 05:28, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Guidance transcribing my first book

Links I'm transcribing The Autobiography of a Catholic Anarchist by Author:Ammon Hennacy now and I've inserted links into the text essentially to serve as explanatory notes without interfering with the flow of text itself. I realize that proper annotations belong on Wikibooks but is it generally considered a good idea to make internal links in documents here? E.g. when someone who is an author here is mentioned, I'll add an Author: link; the same goes for a work that is hosted here. But if there is an event, I'll link to a Wikipedia article or a possibly confusing term, I'll link to Wiktionary. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:37, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Author links and work links (red or blue) are (nearly) always acceptable here. However, we try to link only once in a chapter rather than multiple times. Links to WP and Wiktionary are considered to be annotations and while some are acceptable, we tend to err on the conservative side. Pages full of links tend to be looked on with severity. The rough guideline is to enable understanding by the modern reader without spoonfeeding them. If the meaning or event is evident by the context, then don't link. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: If you think I have too many, I'll just make a parallel text at Wikibooks. Are there good templates for interlinking texts here with annotations there? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:56, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Empty category for Author pages not connected to Wikidata?

Hi all,

I'm new here but working to improve and update documentation for Wikisource and other sister projects on Wikidata. I've just come across the very useful Maintenance of the Month page for Wikidata but the Category:Author_pages_not_connected_to_Wikidata does not seem to be generating any authors (and as much I would like to think this is because all authors have now been added to Wikidata, I know this is not the case). Is there a reason this category is empty and/or was removed from author pages? I'd love to link to the resource if possible.

Thanks in advance. -Thepwnco (talk) 18:47, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing that out. Long story short, the default message for when entities aren't connected to wikidata was changed in the base Module:Wikibase over on Wikipedia, I mirrored that change in our Module:Wikibase here on Wikisource but I didn't realize the old message in our Author template would also need to be updated in order to "work" as before. Sorry about that; the Category should be fully populated now given the short-time needed to fully refresh itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: Thanks for your help! -Thepwnco (talk) 19:42, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

how do I add combine 4 individual PDFs into one "source"?

Hi. I'm new to Wikisource and am familiar with Wikipedia and Commons, but even the beginner's introduction here is over my head. I am trying to upload 4 PDFs (each a single page) of an essay published in 1911, and want to make sure that I do it in such a way that all files are properly indexed (if that's the right term) as pages of one original text. The source documents are, or will soon be, on Commons here (the 4 pages are already posted as .pngs but apparently PDFs are preferred). Should I create an index for the first image (e.g. "Index:W. H. Chamberlin 1911 1of4.pdf"), save that, and then add subsequent PDFs? If so, I'm not sure how to link them and not create 4 incomplete documents. Or, can I somehow add or denote all the files at once, e.g. in the page field. I'd like to do it right the first time rather than clutter the internet or Wikisource with multiple copies of trial and error productions. Thanks in advance for any guidance. Animalparty (talk) 04:34, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Animalparty: The best thing to do would be to combine the separate PDFs into one document. If you can't do this, I can probably help you. Once you have done it, you can follow the instructions on new texts (upload to Commons, create an index, transcribe, etc.) And if that is too difficult, I'd be happy to help as well. If you want, you can e-mail me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:09, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

The entire publication was 21 pages long (4 of which is the article in question) Why not host the entire issue and just transcribe the 4 pages desired? Better than dumping a 4 page stand-alone extract on Commons.

Such a short source file was a snap to setup for you -- see the edition's layout at Index:White and Blue 1911-02-14 v014 n014.djvu. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your tips. I think I'm getting the hang of this place. Animalparty (talk) 08:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

@Animalparty: You said that our introductory help pages are not sufficiently comprehensible. We would appreciate any comments on the respective help pages on what they pages are missing, or means on making them better. We understand that there is a bit of a hump to the learning, and that is one of the reasons that we have WS:POTM as an means of introduction.

With regard to png v. pdf v. djvu, the reasons that the latter two are preferred is due to their ability to carry text layers, saving work, and also usually better than most people's typing, plus they are designed for multipage works which makes them better files at Commons, and more manipulable files here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:17, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Addendum. It is possible to manage a string of single image files, if that is the supply that you have. It takes a little fiddling, so rather than battle with it on your own, asking for someone with some experience to do it is quite okay. And if you are really desparate to see such a configuration, we can find one for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

For the terminally curious @Londonjackbooks: effort "The Pathway of Roses" (←index; assembled result→"The Pathway of Roses") is one example of a fairly extensive book assembled from many individual page images. AuFCL (talk) 10:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

My god, that is horrifying. I do not have words to describe my thoughts on this. I have now been converted to being solely in the camp of "assemble, then upload." Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:28, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Not standard practice, and not recommended (what I did, that is)! My version was not available online, and as I didn't want to break the binding by scanning, I took photos of the pages. Too much "info" to assemble/create a PDF from Word (my only means), so I took The Pathway Less Traveled... Tedious, but you do what is within your means to get the job done! Definitely recommend assembling then uploading to Archive.org/Commons if able. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

A shorter example: (Index, Main) Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Old French Fairy Tales

Completed this book with the intent of printing a .PDF copy for my granddaughters. Activated the book generator and followed the instructions, but all I got was the page titles, no content no images. Is there anyone who tried the process successfully? Any comment is much appreciated.--Ineuw (talk) 06:54, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Done Yann (talk) 09:15, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately, nothing changed. No text or images, only page headers, and copyright notice.--Ineuw (talk) 19:10, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I'm seeing the same thing. The content transcluded by the <page> tag is not being picked up by the book gadget. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:26, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

From Help:Books#Known bugs:

Known bugs
2014-06-04 - From PediaPress Helpdesk
Wikisource uses the "proofread extension" which is incompatible with our book output. The failed output
can easily be spotted when previewing your title and so far, we never had any orders from Wikisource.
Best, Christoph
PediaPress Customer Service

I learned the hard way. Different experience than above PDF generation, but perhaps related... I purchased Is Capital Income? recently, ignoring the book sample output—assuming that its incompleteness (lack of visible content) was merely due to it being a "sample" showing of title, etc. Received the book and the content pages were blank aside from title, etc. Found the above blurb while waiting for the book to arrive, and thought, uh-oh. So it was! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Londonjackbooks, thank you for alerting the rest of us. I have never trusted that printing company to start with. I did experiment with choosing .PDF (both single and many pages) and the downloads are a mess. However, in relation to User:Mukkakukaku's statements I just took a few .PDF files from Internet Archives (IA) to a small local printing company and all that I asked for was done well. They even can set their systems to ignore old brown or yellow colors as if they never existed. —Maury (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890).djvu

Could somebody please fix Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu? It should be simple but I can't get pagelist to work. Thanks, Jamesx12345 (talk) 15:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

What do you mean by "fix"?--Ineuw (talk) 18:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I thought the "Create a pagelist for the source file before commencing proofreading (to verify file is correct)" meant that the pagelist was wrong, but thanks for fixing it. Jamesx12345 (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

That's only a message when the Index is created. The problem you had was that you placed <pagelist 1=9 /> on the same line as the tag and that didn't work. You should create the all the non-existent pages to make sure the book is complete, as well check with the community if the 3 column setup you are using in the Page: namespace, will be OK in the Main ns as well.--Ineuw (talk) 23:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

The columnised layout was by another user, and I don't think I'm going to use it - there is a very large number of images which will need to be worked in somehow. Jamesx12345 (talk) 23:59, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Best quality images are the .JP2 zip from Internet Archive. One must batch convert them to .JPG or .PNG to upload them to the commons. The also must be cleaned and trimmed and vertical images flipped to horizontal position. In my experience, the best graphic tool for these kind of jobs is IrfanView (Windows only). --Ineuw (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Page numbers aren't color-coded on index page

I am currently baffled by why the page numbers on one of my index pages, Index:When It Was Dark.djvu, are all nicely color-coded by page status, whereas the other one, Index:Some Mistakes of Moses.djvu just has plain links with no colored background. Anyone know off-hand what might be causing this? Phillipedison1891 (talk) 18:02, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Clear the browser cache (usually Ctrl-F5}, or the page cache. There is a button on top right of the display. OR, select the UTC clock gadget which also clears the page cache when clicked.--Ineuw (talk) 19:50, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks Phillipedison1891 (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Index:1930 QLD Royal Commission into Racing Report.djvu

This is a mess , with 2 different styles of sidenotes used.

Can someone set ONE style consistently across this, and leave a note on the talk page? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Page Alignment

This is about the chapter Durgesa Nandini/Book 1/Chapter 3. Pages in the original book are mis-arranged. Two copies are available on the net: West Bengal Public Library Network and Digital Library of India. Both copies have the same defect. In order to be truthful to the original, I uploaded it in original arrangement. Now I need to add section 1 of page 13 after pages 71-74 in Book I/Chapter III. But page 13 portion is not getting transcluded in the same line as the ending of page 74. Please help. Hrishikes (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

The best I can think of for now is to sacrifice use of <pages/> altogether. Maybe someone else has a better solution, because this one is really pretty awful? AuFCL (talk) 21:55, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks. It looks nice to me. There was an extra blank line in between the first two pages, which I have corrected. Hrishikes (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. I did not mean to leave that blank line in there. AuFCL (talk) 08:35, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Why are we transcluding this work at all if the pages are out of order and unproofread? Seems like the correct answer should be to fix the underlying file, reorder the pages, [proofread, ] and then transclude? Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:10, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

THANK YOU for the correct & only answer. Sheesh :(

Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:14, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Norm on Apostrophes and Quotation Marks

What is the current practice on apostrophes and quotation marks regarding dumb quotes and smart quotes? —Wylve (talk) 16:59, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Use dumb quotes and typewriter apostrophes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:53, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. —Wylve (talk) 06:42, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Encyclopaedia Biblica

archive.org has djvu files on Encyclopaedia Biblica. If anyone wants to import them, and make the index pages, things I don't do well, and tell me what to do with the existing pages, I can work on improving it. John Carter (talk) 19:41, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Some options for automatic importing here. Pick what you need, and if you post the imported files, someone might take it from there.--Mpaa (talk) 21:03, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Table alignment issue

I have an issue where I can't center-align a table. The page in question is here (and the one after that). I've used all the methods I can think of, but to no avail: the table stays left-aligned. I've center-aligned tables before so I don't get why it's not happening any more. The way it transcludes can be see on my [[5]].—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:49, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's center aligning for me. It may be the result of using html code in combination with a particular browser, instead of using wiki-markup and CSS. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

It's not center aligned for me. But for a block element to be centered it needs a width. The table is, by default, 100% of the width of the page. I shoved a width onto it and now it center aligns, but it's a bit too narrow in the transclusion. Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaladshar: I could make it look exactly like the original, but I must use wiki table parameters, I am less than good with HTML table parameters.Ineuw (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Ah! It was the table width issue. I can't believe that didn't strike me sooner. Thanks!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:13, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Edit window malfunctioning

I've lost the ability to see the DvJu image beside the edit window when proofreading pages. It worked fine through yesterday, but today problems started. At first, I could get the text to appear with a few refreshes or coming back to the page, but now, I can't get the DjVu image to show up at all. Three or four refreshes do nothing. I've tried two different browsers with the same results. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

I have the same issue. I was able to proofread just fine for a few pages, then they all started to break and I couldn't get them to ever load.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:04, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

No such issues here. Do you observe the same when not logged in? -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:18, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

+1: no DjVu image appeared for me when I made my most recent (13:44, 7 August 2014) proofing edit, despite multiple image reloads; however the image loaded on preview. Hesperian 00:15, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thats a bit confusing - do you mean you were able to pull an image only thru clicking the 'Image' tab (i.e. full-size jpg) but not a.) when landing on an existing page (view mode), or; b.) when creating a new page for the first time (edit mode), and/or; c.) when previewing a new page after making some edits (also edit mode)?

And again, the first thing we should look for in narrowing down causes is to see if the same thing happens when you're not logged in. So . . . .? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Ha ha, no unhelpful drive-by plus-one comments on George's watch! The image did not load on the edit page. I have my own personal reload script in the sidebar, which triggers an image reload at reduced resolution. I clicked that and the image did not appear. I clicked it again and the image did not appear. I did not, at that time, check to confirm that my reload script was actually working. I can now confirm that it has been broken by recent site changes. Therefore I didn't actually reload the image at all. I did not, at that time, check to see if the image would load for me if logged out. When I finished editing the page, I clicked "Show preview", and the image loaded on the preview page, allowing me to proof what I had edited and save my work. At present, things appear to be working nicely for me; I am unable to duplicate my problem, so cannot participate in diagnosis. In short, I have nothing to contribute, I am wasting your time with useless information, and I wish I hadn't made a goose of myself by posting here in the first place. Still confusing? Hesperian 01:13, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for clearing that up. So we're back to square one I guess. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:35, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about EncycloPetey, but whatever issues I had are now resolved.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 05:43, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

This is something that happens from time to time to me as well. Purging the file on Commons sometimes helps. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:49, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

The problem has now cleared up for me as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:12, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Purging the file on Commons sometimes helps

To continue BWC's point on what appears to be a lag in the overall accounting of what amounts to the list generated by clicking on 'What links here' in the sidebar menu (e.g. instances of related linked & transcluded files), I've found 2 additional API calls to be helpful here.

For example, when I see to many Index: pages that have "lost" their ProofReading color-coded Page: status, I force not only a "purge" but also a [recursive] link update by either targeting the main "template" used by all Index: pages...

• https://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=MediaWiki:proofreadpage_index_template&forcelinkupdate
• https://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=MediaWiki:proofreadpage_index_template&forcerecursivelinkupdate

... or by targeting the Index: itself:

• https://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=Index:villette.djvu&forcelinkupdate
• https://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=purge&titles=Index:villette.djvu&forcerecursivelinkupdate

Using a combination of the above, I managed to clean out the obviously incorrect readings produced when generating the Special: List of Index pages.

What would be helpful is if some snarky 'crat or equivalent could somehow manage to have these 2 API calls quietly run 'along side' the current Purge action tab when selected. This way, all 3 tasks could be run at once with just one simple click. :) -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:03, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Can an editor who's good with images help validate this work?

I've been busy proofreading a scientific paper that includes a lot of illustrations, many placed in configurations that seem challenging to replicate here. I'm not especially familiar with Wikisource's preferences and capabilities regarding image placement and I've found Wikisource's help file distinctly unhelpful, so I thought I would ask the community if someone who's good at working with integrating pictures into works could help me with this one. Any takers? Abyssal (talk) 02:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Look at this page and if you are satisfied, there will be a small charge per image. Let me know. --Ineuw (talk) 03:26, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

What do I do...

when I find that The Cambridge History of American Literature/Book I/Chapter I, which I'm looking to assemble from an index, already exists as a standalone page? John Carter (talk) 18:29, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

If it's the same edition, then overwrite with the scan-backed version. If it's a different edition then move the page to a disambiguated title. By the way, we've mostly standardised our Book and Chapter page titles to use Arabic numerals even if the original text used Roman. This was done to ease the process of intertext wikilinking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. John Carter (talk) 21:57, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Minimum items for portal creation?

How many items should we have to create a portal, amd would multiple/plural encyclopedia articles be sufficient? John Carter (talk) 22:01, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

There is no minimum to create a portal, there just has to be potential for a corpus of PD literature (and a relevant LoC code). Yes, encyclopaedia articles are fine to start it off with. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:07, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Use your best judgment and common sense. Is the Portal one that has much content to list currently? Is it likely to grow much over the next year? Might the presence of the portal stimulate additional contributions? Does it have a clear parent portal to link from? Are visitors likely to look for such a portal? If you think there is real value in having a particular portal, and it is likely to be useful in some way, then it's probably worth starting that portal, even if there's not much right now. Example: When I started the portal for Greek drama about a year ago, it was pretty sad compared to the portal today. Starting a portal can be a great focal point for determining what we have, what we lack, and what we need. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

A long time ago we had a discussion about having "Topic" or "Subject" pages for bringing together works on or about the same topic. It was agreed that we would do that but that we would use the portal namespace rather than opening up a new namespace. So to my mind "portal" is a bit of a misnomer. "Portal", to me, implies an alternative main page for reader communities of a specific interest, whereas we simply mean a page about a certain topic. As such, the threshold for creation is very low. Hesperian 00:07, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

The specific portals I am considering creating are for the purposes of providing something to link to in the text of the book I am developing. So, for instance, if we have two or more significant sources on Increase Mather, either extant or potential, I will try to see all the shorter sources (not including book-length) we might have in existing indexes get created, link to them in the portal, and then put in links to that portal in other places where reasonable. And, yes, I do expect this to take awhile. John Carter (talk) 14:55, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

If you are linking from a published book that you are transcribing, then that's not really how portals are meant to be used. Could you provide an example or two of where you mean to link, so that we might suggest alternatives?

However, if you are creating an original book on Wikibooks, that sounds reasonable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:01, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

"If you are linking from a published book that you are transcribing, then that's not really how portals are meant to be used." I beg to differ. I think that portals are indeed meant to be used as John Carter proposes to use them. Hesperian 01:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Can you supply a single instance where that has been done? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:06, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't see that John Carter's intentions are any different from what mine were when I created Portal:Banksia sessilis, Portal:Yagan, etc. Hesperian 07:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

So, was that a "yes" or a "no", because I don't see an instance yet. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

What is it you think that John Carter intends to do that differs from what I have done in the above cases? Hesperian 12:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

He plans to link to a portal from text inside a transcribed work that is not part of the Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you mean like this and this and this and this? Hesperian 00:14, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Only like the first and last on that list; the middle two items are included in the Portal. The first item might be added to the portal, but the last item seems to make an odd link that could be better served with a simple tooltip note. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Then your objection is not to the portal itself, but to what we might call 'incidental' links to the portal — linking to the portal from within works that should not themselves be listed? That is, if a work is not really about Increase Mather and would not deserve to be listed on an Increase Mather portal, then a passing mention of Increase Mather in that work should not be linked to the Increase Mather portal even if portal exists? If this is your position then we still disagree. Hesperian 01:19, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

The work being developed is the Cambridge History of American Literature. The first visible potential portal would be Humphrey Gilbert, mentioned on Page:The Cambridge History of American Literature, v1.djvu/27. We already have the DNB bio and a Longfellow poem about him. So I would first create the yet-to-be-created EB article on him, and anything else I can find yet-to-be-created on him here, then the portal including them all, and then add links to that portal in any works on naval history or whatever which already discuss him.John Carter (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

As I said, that's not really appropriate for linking to a portal. You could link to an author page, if the emphasis is on him as an author. Alternatively, you could link to the Wikipedia article about him, then add a link at WP to a Portal here, but linking to a portal within the text of a transcribed work isn't really appropriate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:34, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Gilbert should have an Author: page created. We know that he wrote A discourse of a discouerie for a new passage to Cataia and there are likely to be other works given his Irish and Newfoundland exploits. Author pages have two sections. The first is for Works by the author; the second is for Works about the author. See Author:Robert Bridges for an example. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:18, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

More edit window problems

When I click on the edit tab I arrive at a screen with no preview or text entry field. I didn't have any problem a couple of hours ago. Has a sysop changed something? Abyssal (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Same problems on fr.wikisource --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Are you still having these problems? I don't seem to have them, but have not been editing for the past 12 hours either. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My editing toolbar has changed

Since this morning, my editing toolbar has changed and does not include any added buttons from my User:Londonjackbooks/common.js or zoom in/zoom out buttons, etc. I have made no changes to preferences or elsewhere. Any insight would be appreciated, as I use the toolbar regularly. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:24, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

What my toolbar should look like (to include the zoom in/zoom out buttons): File:LJB Toolbar correct.jpg Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm not having this issue. All seems normal to me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:43, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Just a minor inconvenience, but the toolbar with customized buttons makes life much easier for me. Not sure what the issue is, but someone will come along with insight... Glad it's not affecting you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

It's happening to me as well, but only in the Page: namespace. What's actually happening is that the "old" toolbar appears briefly and then is overwritten with what looks like the enhanced toolbar. The loss of the zoom buttons is critical for me when working with pages like Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/353. The diacritics on the Greek text at the top of column b are difficult to make out, and some nuances in score snippets are potentially lost. The button to dismiss and bring back the header/footer fields is also missing, as is the button to automatically insert {{hwe}} based on an {{hws}} on the previous page (a gadget). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:07, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

My editing toolbar has vanished in Page: namespace too. It is showing in this mainspace edit window though. Moondyne (talk) 09:20, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The old toolbar that used to be at the bottom of the window is now at the top for me in the edit window. So, where I used to have to scroll down to the bottom to insert em-dashes, I now have to scroll to the top. Otherwise, I'm seeing no change, really. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:47, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: @Beeswaxcandle: @Moondyne: @EncycloPetey: I apologize for not bringing this earlier to the attention of the community. The custom toolbar buttons require some extra code to possibly avert issues. If it is not changed it will affect certain features in different ways. In my case it knocked out HotCats. Please see this post [6] and check out the changes in my common.js — Ineuw talk 17:40, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am then at the mercy of those who know how to apply the code fixes to my User:Londonjackbooks/common.js—if that is what is needed. Thank you ahead of time, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:52, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The joke is on me. I have no buttons at all in the Page:namespace, but it does show up here as I type this. This includes my custom button. — Ineuw talk 18:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I am using the Modern Skin and removed all toolbar code, caches cleared, but nothing changed, so I don't think it's the code in the .js, — Ineuw talk 20:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Whose door should be knocked on about this? Copying and pasting breaks is getting tedious :P Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:28, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III: GO3 help please. — Ineuw talk 21:35, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I switched to the enhanced editor just to get some functions back. This includes the magnifier and the header/footer collapse.— Ineuw talk 22:23, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

I still don't have any legacy style toolbar buttons in the Page namespace. Can someone help please? I logged in with my public user and the regular user account and it's the same problem. So, it's not user related. IneuwPublic (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

While I have no solution, I can point to the most likely avenue for investigation. 1.24wmf16 was rolled out on the day that these problems manifested. There were two changes to the ProofreadPage extension in that roll-out. There was also a change to Toolbar in the Core. Something in that lot has caused this problem. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I've been busy this week (in addition to moving to Win 8.1/IE10 at the same time) so I'm behind on what is going on. Oddly enough, I have only one toolbar issue and I suspect that is due to the addition of .svg icons to WikiEditor.

Again, all the legacy toolbar stuff is no longer supported - for some time now actually. I'll "look around" and see if I can't come up with some answers though. In the meantime, I suggest moving to WikiEditor if not using it already. We can customize it - it just needs a "group effort" at this point. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE#1: [7] -- This change looks suspect since the Page: namespace is not wikitext content but proofread page content. This could explain the lack of buttons for some in the Page: namespace (again, I load my own WikiEditor toolbar and see no difference from last to this week). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:19, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #1: Yes This seems to be an additional issue wikitext vs. Proofreading page.

@George Orwell III:

• The only reason I went back to the legacy toolbar is to gain more editing space height.

NOTE #2: PAY ATTENTION. I can add as many of the old buttons as you like using the old icons (bad practice but not earth-shattering) right along side the other buttons without the need to expand any additional Wikieditor menus. I added the M-button for example.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #2: Is this code accessible from the Common.js so that we can learn to modify the toolbar on our own?

I was hoping to get to the point where we can agree on a core set of buttons to load site-wide and then have folks customize their own from there but that's still a ways off if this latest hiccup is any indication of changes to come. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I also understood that the old toolbar is alive and well because many users on other wikis are demanding it.

NOTE#3: THIS IS FALSE. Repeat it again and you'll get my back up like never before.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #3: I am not going to get your back up., but do recommend that you read some of the comments bandied about in Bugzilla.

Whatever. I follow VisualEditor's progress and THAT interface is suppose to become the "standard" while WikiEditor will serve as the fall back for projects "like us". Sure you can muddle your way through monobook & the old toolbars but one day its going to be turned off regardless. You can follow whomever you wish. -- George Orwell III (talk)

• I also figured the problem is an mw. update, but couldn't understand why only for some users and not others.

NOTE#4: Don't know this yet for sure. It could be all the "outdated" gadgets you're loading as well.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #4: I have No gadgets, my common.js was set up by you.

HERE is where it said you have gadgets loading. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• I copied the Firefox element inspector results HERE. It seems to me that load.php missed loading three scripts.

NOTE#5 Do have anything more along the lines of a script debugger? That just shows something is not quite right - a more specific error message would be much better.

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #5: Forget this please

OK -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

• On the other hand, I have all your customized implementation of the Wiki Editor backed up and saved. So I will reinstall it because I haven't done any on line work in days.
• Also, I will check Bugzilla whether anyone else reported this problem. and can file a bug report. — Ineuw talk 00:14, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

NOTE#6 Please do. I've fixed up my Bugzilla access since our last fwiw. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:41, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Ineuw's reply to NOTE #6:User:Tpt reported to this problem to Bugzilla.

User:Helder.wiki is who we need to come around and "clean" our .js/gadgets up. The bugzilla seems premature imho -- 06:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Just hoping I can get my customized buttons back. Not sure what all the above means, but please keep this layman posted in layman's terms on how things can be rectified if I need to do anything on my end. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: I left you a comprehensive message on the subject on your talk page. — Ineuw talk 06:10, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

RE: Please accept my apologies. I confused the gadgets with .js code. I also didn't realize that the gadgets themselves can be outdated. — Ineuw talk 06:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Title page borders

The 1907 edition of King Solomon's Mines has some lovely and elaborate borders on the title page and around the editor's note. Is there a way to preserve these borders? Should we preserve these borders? I tried searching the Scriptorium archives but 'border' is a terrible search term it turns out. Thanks. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:36, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

{{overfloat image}} has been used for this before. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:41, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Leader box with two right columns?

Is it possible to make a leader box with two right columns? I need one for a page I'm proofreading. Abyssal (talk) 18:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

The easiest(?) way to do this is with a table. I've had a go. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:03, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll reverse engineer your code for use whenever that style of data presentation recurs. Abyssal (talk) 20:10, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

How do I handle this image arrangement?

How can I arrange the images in this page to resemble the ones in the source file? I've been playing around with a table but can't get it "just right", especially regarding the alignment of the captions. Abyssal (talk) 00:08, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

It would be better as a single image.— Ineuw talk 00:27, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, that's probably less of a struggle. :) But just for future reference, is it at least possible to do that using Wikimedia code or templates? Abyssal (talk) 00:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I assume you are referring to display. To display the image use {{FIS}}. Tables are only good when you must display images with split descriptions, or two separate images. but in this case a single image is the easiest.

I meant displaying separate images in complex arrangements like I had tried to do originally. Abyssal (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes. But in this case it's difficult because of the original arrangement. A single image is easier here. One problem is the varying image sizes. — Ineuw talk 02:09, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Have I formatted it the way you intended? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:11, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, that's just what I had in mind. Abyssal (talk) 03:03, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Setting the width to 80% (or to any fixed measure) is a bad idea. On wider screens the entire group will spread W A A A A Y apart. That's why I removed it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:10, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the guidance. Abyssal (talk) 15:44, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Image formatting help

Any recommendations for this page would be appreciated. I also have the other two decorative images (surrounding "Millet") available at Commons as well. At your leisure, and feel free to tinker... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:50, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

P.S. There's probably a lot of unnecessary formatting that I have included because I copied/pasted/tweaked from an image from another work. Don't feel you need to keep my formatting... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:41, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:51, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Non Unicode character

On pretty much every page of Index:A dictionary of the Book of Mormon.pdf there is character made up of a c and a t with an arch joining the tops of the two characters. There is no equivalent Unicode character. What to do? John Carter (talk) 15:52, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't render very well on my own browser, but perhaps have a look at {{ct}}: produces ct. AuFCL (talk) 21:21, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

There's no ligature on my browser in that example, so clearly your mileage may vary. Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:27, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This is an orthographical thing. It's a holdover from certain handwritten scripts where these two letters were joined, just like fl, oe, and a few other oddities. It isn't necessary to reproduce this particular ligature, as this has never been a separate letter in English, and is generally not noticed by any modern reader. You may choose to preserve it in texts of some particular historical interest using {{ct}}, but you can also safely choose to ignore it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Bearing in mind the above comments, there is also always use of the so-called Unicode "combining ligature left-half" which just might work (but probably not universally): c︠t? AuFCL (talk) 06:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I would also be careful about the possibility of breaking searches. I think the ct template behaves, but a ligature character would not. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Colons in titles?

I've uploaded a PDF to Commons but wasn't able to include the colon from the work's title in the file name. How do I create an index here if the file name won't match the index page's name exactly? Abyssal (talk) 19:06, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Simply proceed with whatever file you have got; and upon editing the corresponding Index: page the "Title" content (second box down; below "Type" (of the book)) may be changed into a wiki-link to any name you deem appropriate. AuFCL (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! Abyssal (talk) 21:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

What is the title. Is it a secret? — Ineuw talk 22:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The file is File:North American Plesiosaurs- Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus.pdf. The title should be "North American Plesiosaurs: Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus". Abyssal (talk) 23:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The title of the file and the title of the work do not need to match. You could theoretically name the source file "File:Billy.pdf" and still call the work "North American Plesiosaurs: Elasmosaurus, Cimoliasaurus, and Polycotylus" in the Main namespace. (. . . although calling it "Billy" would not be best practice) --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Adjunct to that, is that the Index: namespace page cannot have colons as it needs to align to the file: ns page at Commons. So the quirk can come in the transclusion in the mismatch. To note that there are numbers of works where the title in the naming line differs from that in the header template, and we have not overly fussed about it, and we cannot as we have to disambiguate works anyway and that changes page titles. So do feel that there is not a requirement to get the page title exact and have to use a colon, but do get it right in the header template. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Further adjunct is that there is a title and a subtitle involved here. The text up to the colon is the title and the text after is the sub-title. You should enter these two parts into the Book template on Commons. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:20, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

It's a journal article, not a book. Abyssal (talk) 08:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:عقبة بن نافع.pdf

Not English. Is there a page for transwiki requests?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:24, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Done — Ineuw talk 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:UU 14 2008.djvu

Not English language work in scans, page content in places appears to be a translation, but there no indication if it's an official one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done — Ineuw talk 18:59, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Characteristicks002shaf.pdf

This should probably be renamed, Also I note it's volume2, where is Volume1? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:45, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Done Uploaded
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 1.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 2.djvu
Index:Characteristicks of men, manners, opinions, times Vol 3.djvu

And now pagelisted (If someone's able to check the index as being contiguous in Vol3 it would be appreciated, if not I'll add it to my own todo list).ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:Manners and customs of ye Englyshe.djvu

Where there aren't page numbers what's the numbering convention?. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Use the DjVu numbers.— Ineuw talk 16:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Index:British Flowering Plants.djvu

Process deletion of this and pages, file is damaged (i.e missing pages). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Why delete it instead of fix it up? It's a shame to lose such good work.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:32, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

If you can find the missing pages;) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Flipping through the pages of the work at Archive.org, pagination is fine (inclusive) up until [actual] page 160, then it jumps to page 177 (so it is missing [actual] pp. 161-176); from there, it includes pp. 177-192, but then jumps back to p. 177 and is inclusive till the end of the book. Couldn't find another copy on IA or Google books, but that's not to say that another one won't come along in the future. I'd just make a specific note on the Talk page or the Index page and let it be for now. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:33, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I support leaving it be for now, too. Abyssal (talk) 21:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

This is actually how the physical book is. Signature 12 has been bound into the book twice (16 pages per sig, so 16 pages missing and 167 pages duped). To confirm this is not a scanning issue compare in two tabs Index and Index, the first page of the index has a ripple in both cases, but in a slightly different place (top left). Rich Farmbrough, 14:03 23 August 2014 (GMT)

Copy for sale here at a rather steep £36. Rich Farmbrough, 14:14 23 August 2014 (GMT)

Library copies in Oxford (Radcliffe Science Library), University Library Cambridge, NLS, Edinburgh and University of Chicago. Also of course, the British Libary. Rich Farmbrough, 14:42 23 August 2014 (GMT)

Marginalia

Here and one would imagine in many volumes, one wishes to have text in a margin. How is this done? Rich Farmbrough, 12:49 23 August 2014 (GMT)

The most common approach is to use {{sidenote}} and related templates ({{sidenotes begin}}, {{left sidenote}}, etc)). But there's also {{MarginNote}} (examples) and {{marginal summary}} (examples). Mukkakukaku (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

TYVM! Rich Farmbrough, 16:17 23 August 2014 (GMT)

Unknown character

Does anyone know what the letter is in footnote 4 on the bottom of this page? It looks like a reverse eth, but I can't find it in any alphabet I've searched for.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:50, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

ó? -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

No. That character is really obvious in the text. This is some kind of archaic Welsh/Celtic/English character that I can't figure out.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 01:02, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Looks Welsh based on a quick search. Also see p. xvi of the same text; it shows an alphabet. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:18, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

w:Welsh orthography strongly suggests that it should simply be ó, the acute being used to indicate stress on a syllable other than the penultimate.

I suspect this is another example of the problem tabled at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2009-10/Concerns about fidelity of Internet Archive DjVu files. Briefly, the DjVu compression algorithm works by clustering glyphs into a set of glyph classes, and assigning a single glyph to be the representative of each class. When it works well, there is only one "roman-a" glyph stored, and it is used to represent every "roman-a" in the entire book. When it fails, glyphs that represent different symbols may end up in the same class, and represented by the same glyph, resulting in corruption of the text in the very images we are relying on to proof!

In this case, it looks like the same glyph is being used to represent both "italic-o-acute" and "italic six". This hypothesis could be proved or disproved by downloading the jp2.zip, and extracting and examining the uncompressed page scan. Hesperian 01:38, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

More novice searching: Doing a search of some of the text from the footnote ("ar y geuyn ehun") resulted in the same text with a "w" substituting for the 6 ("arwest" for "ar6est", etc.), just like in the alphabet on p. xvi of the link mentioned in my first comment above under "w". Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

The character as rendered here as well for "ar6est" (see highlighted line) as referenced from here as "arwest"... Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Here is the original page as suggested by Hesperian and you don't have to download the whole file: [8] just maximize the image and you can see the text clearly.--Ineuw (talk) 03:35, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I believe that link displays an image post-compression. Hesperian 03:51, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I have viewed the raw jp2, and the character looks like a 6 there too. So much for my theory.... Hesperian 04:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for all the help, guys! I learned a new letter today. ỽ seems like it's similar to w, but I'm not sure under what circumstances you use one and not the other. Too bad the letter doesn't seem to show up right now in the browser.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:17, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

For those (like me) who can't see it, here it is: [9]. Hesperian 13:46, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've checked with a Welsh friend who pointed me to w:Ỽ, which I think is the capital. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:56, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Well if Ỽ (&#7932;}} is the capital letter, then according to the unicode tables ỽ (&#7933;}} ought to be the lower case equivalent. Both very similar and both visible here. AuFCL (talk) 08:32, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only person seeing little squares instead of whatever this mystery character is? Mukkakukaku (talk) 23:52, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

@Mukkakukaku: Don't be too surprised. You know this thing called "unicode"? Take it as an advertising term (i.e. a lie—it is anything but "universal".) Oh, and universal fonts? (Well you get the idea: none of this junk is generally portable betwixt browsers, operating systems, installed fonts, web-font support et al…) Here endeth the cynic's lesson.

By the way a genuine thank-you for the feedback. Which browser+version+operating system are you using because {{unicode}} was supposed to provide some degree of Internet Explorer support (and clearly doesn't quite cut it in this instance.) AuFCL (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

Chrome 36.0.1985.125 m, Windows 7. Also tried on Firefox 30.0 and IE 11.0.9600.17207. -- Mukkakukaku (talk) 00:46, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

This wikipedia page seems to indicate that I need to install a special Windows update for Win7 to enable unicode support. That's probably the step I'm missing. Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:05, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

It is extremely likely you already have unicode support. This website tells your browser "display my body text in Helvetica Neue font if you have it installed, otherwise Helvetica if you have it installed, otherwise Arial if you have it installed, otherwise whatever your default sans-serif font is." Your browser follows those instructions and selects a font, and you can only hope that the selected font contains a glyph for every unicode character on the webpage. If your font doesn't contain a glyph for a unicode character, it displays that 'little squares' glyph instead. So depending on what fonts are installed, some of us will see the character, some the square. Me, I'm seeing the squares like you are. Hesperian 01:23, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

I just took a peek at the font-family declaration in that template, and the intersection between the font-family and the ones installed on my computer are Microsoft Sans Serif and Lucida Sans Unicode. Probably the glyph in question is present in one of the other fonts that have higher precendence than those two (which don't contain the glyph.) --Mukkakukaku (talk) 01:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)

New unknown character

I have a new unknown character appearing here in the footnote. It looks like a 7, but its placement isn't right. It seems to show up in old Welsh poetry examples. Does anyone have any idea what it is? Someone figured out this strange writing system called an ogham that I had an issue with earlier in the text...maybe someone has an idea what this is.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

I haven't seen that in Welsh texts before but, off the top of my head, it looks like the Tironian ampersand. It's more common in Irish and Scottish but see if that fits the context. In any case, if you're just transcribing, you can certainly use its unicode symbol—⁊;—it looks close enough. — LlywelynII 10:43, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! That's exactly what I'm looking for.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:25, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like a square to me. But then again I think it's been established that my vanilla Windows 7 install doesn't come with the fancy fonts that contain most of these unicode characters. Can you try using the {{unicode}} template when you proofread it? Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:52, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I do all my proofreading on a Chromebook. Apparently it has a wider variety of glyphs in its fonts than Windows (I have the same problem on my Windows-based computer). I wish that font selector worked because maybe we could force it to load the glyph from a font in one of those for the benefit of everybody.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 13:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

You're welcome! — LlywelynII 13:18, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Errata

What is the SOP for a.) notified errata, b.) other typographical errors? Rich Farmbrough, 13:16 23 August 2014 (GMT)

We haven't yet fully compiled guidelines on how to deal with errata, and what are the best practices, but some work is underway. You'd need to be a bit more specific about what it is you are asking, because there are lots of different sorts of errata and errors. For a misspelled word, you can use {{SIC}}, but bigger issues may not be solvable through the use of that template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I was thinking specifically of this errata page. Rich Farmbrough, 16:29 23 August 2014 (GMT)

I haven't seen a standard method proposed for dealing with that sort of situation, and so would be very interested myself to hear what people have done (or think could be done) to handle errata like those. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:34, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I remember that User:AuFCL did some work on A History of Mathematics, which included an errata page. Have a look? —Clockery Fairfeld (ƒ=ma) 16:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

He used {{SIC}}, but without knowing that there is an Errata page while reading, there is nothing to indicate that use of the template is based upon published errata versus suspected error on the part of the WS editor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If {{SIC}} might be misleading, one can always use {{tooltip}}, adding a remark like {{tooltip|text_1|text_2, see errata}} or something like that.--Mpaa (talk) 20:48, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Neither of those templates "work" on mobile devices because they require a hover action. Just throwing that out there. Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:29, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Hm, I am inclined to correct where the errata are bound-in with the text, as this represents the intended form of the book at the time of publishing. Of course bibliographic needs differ from the general reader's needs, but those readers will presumably resort to the image. Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)

The guidance I was given a few years back was to indicate errata in the notes field of the header template for the relevant mainspace page. However, for DMM as the Addenda and Corriegenda are in a 300-page Appendix, I've been adding a note in brackets at the relevant point in the article. See A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/Missa Papæ Marcelli for an example of this. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:21, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

That's some useful alternatives. Thanks for that. Rich Farmbrough, 20:02 24 August 2014 (GMT)

This one is another example. Someone may have a look and offer guidance. Hrishikes (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: If we are talking published errata, then two other works that I did ages ago are

• List of Carthusians, 1800–1879/B see Birch, on the Errata page, I just left it
• Highways and Byways in Sussex/Errata and follow the links

Of course, there is also the errata that we have done for the DNB entries where we have transcluded the errata in later volumes to the original (corresponding) article. There will be no standard due to the nature of the errata, either published in the same work, later works, and the form and amount of the errata. We would look to keep the original page as is, then somehow hook-in the errata in the least defacing means. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Footnotes

I would like to be able to use asterisk and obelisk for footnotes, I can't see how to do this in the help page for footnotes, nor work out my own method. Probably it would require some change in the underlying software, but maybe there is CSS solution. Comments? Rich Farmbrough, 02:52 24 August 2014 (GMT)

Use {{ref}} and {{note}} per Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Alternatives. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:15, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, it appears that the choice is between having this flexibility, and having the dual footnotes/endnotes capability automatically. Hm. Rich Farmbrough, 20:01 24 August 2014 (GMT)

@Rich Farmbrough: We usually don't replicate *, †, ‡ reference labels and just have the default. 1) it is easier, 2) we are reproducing the work with endnotes, rather than footnotes, so hanging onto a typographic archaism seemed fruitless, and probably pointless. What it requires is a requested change to mw:Extension:Cite to have this done tidily, and even then not too nice in endnotes (and I think hell freezing over will come first). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes indeed, I was puzzling over the endnotes solution to multiple asterisks and obelisks. It does seem a shame to loose those lovely typographical creatures altogether though. Thanks for your response, and also the one on Errats, which is just as helpful, and more satisfying. Rich Farmbrough, 07:17 28 August 2014 (GMT)

< pages > and Templates

I was trying to speed things up with {{EB9 Transclusion}} by using template parameters in the < pages > term to reduce all the typing and redundancy, but nothing I try seems to work. I thought the problem might be the initial call and did {{EB9.7 Transclusion}} in the hopes I could at least get one template per volume to work, but no luck there either. Am I missing something in the formatting? would I have to do it page by page using the old {{page}} template? or is this just impossible? — LlywelynII 06:55, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I am going to guess on what you are talking about as you haven't provided a sample. Try using a {{#tag:}} or if you want to push a substitution then {{subst:#tag:}} . (See mw:Help:magic words). This will look something like

{{subst:#tag:pages||index=index namespace title.djvu|from=nn|to=nn|fromsection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}|tosection={{subst:SUBPAGENAME}}}}

This is one that I utilise all the time, and if you are having issues getting something to work, then feel free to {{ping}} me. You can also look at {{d}} which is a cheat's way of using {{DNB00}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:36, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

The sample was at the links, but thanks for the code. I'll try using that instead. — LlywelynII 04:39, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

As a side note, the issue failure of templates inside <pages ...> will also occur similarly in <ref>, and #tag used in the same way resolves most issues in refs; well except the w:Help:pipe trick that fails miserably in refs whichever way you try.

I obviously need to keep learning since formatting that should work the same (same-line form of the template versus the multiline one) is behaving differently but at least one format of {{EB9 Transclusion}} now works, so thanks! — LlywelynII 05:08, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I added name parameters, and I don't think that I broke it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

For Sale: A slightly used OAuth token, used to file transfer from IA to the Commons.

Some time ago, I purchased (was assigned) a working OAuth token to transfer files from Internet Archive to the Commons. Drove it once or twice, but for some unknown reason it died. The red indicator on the dashboard said #403, which means it no longer recognizes the token's validity. I contacted the salesman Tpt for help, since it was his product, but he no longer seems to deal in tokens. I tried to disable/delete it in my preferences and ask for another working token, but it's as if it was tattooed on my account, (or another choice body part), and I can't get rid of it. I don't remember how I got the original either. Tpt must have been selling them in some dark alley in my neighborhood. I then turned to Mediawiki which has lots of pages marked "out of date" and 0 info, (Just like the toolbars I bought in another dark alley transaction. - a dig which I could not forgo). Can anyone tell me what my options are? — Ineuw talk 00:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Test-drive the link at the bottom of User:Beeswaxcandle/Works. If it operates fine, I'll let you have one of the spare keys (copy it somewhere useful to you). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:14, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. It works!!! I will borrow it.— Ineuw talk 01:28, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I should say that you must use it only as a link and only while logged in at enWS. It cannot be used as a favourite and it will attribute the upload to your username on Commons. Attempts to use it in other ways will result in a return to the dark alley where arcane rude words will be yelled at you by cyborgs. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:38, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads-up. I was concerned but tried, and it recognizes me as the uploader. It should be no problem Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 02:47, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

User talk:Laura1822

Isn't there anyone here smart enough to help this near blind girl see by changing the colors in common.js for her? She needs a black background. I have a medium grey background with black text.

—Maury (talk) 02:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

George is already working on it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:03, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I saw that he was but did not know if he still is. I don't use the new editor and my set-up works fine. Using my common.js it seems just changing the color codes would work. I also know I use both the gadget color, whatever that color default may be, plus what Inductive Load placed in my common.js which is medium grey/gray and black text. Sometimes old things work better than new things. Mine works fine. Thanks Beez, —Maury (talk) 03:10, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you all for the help! Mr. Orwell fixed it. Laura1822 (talk) 14:29, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

War of 1812 documents

I've made a transcription of a pension grante[e], signed by Henry Burbeck:

• User:Ecruelvia/Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815

Can someone proofread the text and move it to the right place? --Ecruelvia (talk) 14:30, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ecruelvia: I have created an Index: page and then put the transcription onto a Page: ns page at Page:Battle of Chippawa-New York Pension Roll-1815.png which allows for side-by-side proofing. I had a quick text hack, but did not mark it as proofread. See how you go with proofing it, then one of us can validate, and show you how to transclude to the main namespace. As the work is for a specific person, we will need to fix the name that we use for the piece on the main namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks, now marked as proofread. --Ecruelvia (talk) 04:31, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

Question regarding appropriate hyperlinking in jargon-dense technical works.

I believe but cannot find to verify, that Wikisource's style manual says that if you're linking to a term in a work, you should only link to that term once. However, I'm not sure this is appropriate for the work I'm proofreading now, Synopsis of the Exinct Batrachia and Reptilia of North America. Part 1.. This work is quasi-encyclopedic in that much of its content consists of "self-contained" descriptions of various different kinds of prehistoric animal rather than being part of an over-arching narrative. As such, most readers are likely to be interested primarily in portions of the work rather than reading it overall from start to finish. The work is also very dense with obscure technical jargon (eg "diapophysis"). In light of all this I've been linking to terms that may confuse readers once per section about a given genus of animal rather than only once in the entire work. I would like to request comments on whether or not you guys agree that this is the right approach and about the hyperlinking as it exists so far (especially starting from page 34). Abyssal (talk) 16:17, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

The right amount of linking has always been one of those tricky questions in a work. We don't want a sea of links. we want the level of linking appropriate to the work (technical work versus fictional work), of a higher order relevance, something that aligns the expected level of readership to the presented level of the work. Then we have internal linking versus external linking, the linking indicated in the work itself, ie. internal explicit cross references (q.v.) and maybe a link to a glossary of terms, and external links to other works.

So my first glance at the page showed quite a few links, and more than I would normally expect for one of our works. They look external, and not to any references, nor to any internal references within the work itself. So rather than me to judge, for someone reading the work, what would expect why are they reading it? how have they arrived at the work? what is their expected level of knowledge on the subject? why are they reading it, and what are you expecting for them to do with the component that they are reading? Can we expect them to have another reference available? I know that numbers of the words that I saw were unknown to me, so I could see myself clicking on some of the links to learn a little more. Some words were clearly used in common English and I felt not required for linking. Sometimes I think a link only where it gives pure value to link off through making the work clearly more understandable or ore in context, and I here I doubt that I would click every link. What value will I get, what will I learn from clicking a link? I would expect explicit value for any link clicked. So with those reflections, maybe you can look at your linking and see whether you think that you have it right. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:36, 3 September 2014 (UTC)

I've removed a few links from page 34. Is it starting to look more reasonable? Does anything else stand out as being in need of removal? Abyssal (talk) 14:39, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

As a biologist, I still think this is over-linked. There is no reason to link "Kansas" or "limestone", for example. Most people likely to read the article will know what a "plesiosaur" is. Linking in a technical article should help the user: (1) find additional relevant info, such as works by a mentioned individual, or referenced works. In this instance, Fort Wallace and the Smoky Hill River are significant as locations, and someone would appreciate being able to follow a link to quickly get more information. (2) clarify terms or concepts that are likely to be obscure to the sort of person who would visit the article. In this instance, a person reading this article ought to know what a "neural arch" or "foramina" are, so those ought not to be linked. These are just general principles I use, and only a couple of examples where I think linking is done correctly or incorrectly. One other point: a link should be obvious, so linking the word "of" to an article on the paleontology of Kansas is not likely to be helpful. The user at this end will not spot that unless they know to first hover over the link. Hiding a link behind text that isn't immediately relevant, obviously connected, or purposefully leading to that link is not especially helpful in my view, and ought to be avoided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:08, 5 September 2014 (UTC)

190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident - Transcript of the 'friendly fire' incident video (28 March 2003)

Wikisource, very usefully, provides access to audio and video from the 190th Fighter Squadron, Blues and Royals friendly fire incident. It also offers a transcript. I am part of a team of four sociologists, specialising in studies of interaction, who have been working on this incident since the video was first released to the public in 2007. As part of our work, we have produced a transcript that significantly improves on the one released to the public and that currently on Wikisource (which reproduces mistakes in the original). We'd like to make that work available through wikisource - how do we go about it? —unsigned comment by Michaelmair (talk) .

Please do correct any errors in the transcript, and provide a text summary that makes that apparent, eg. correcting errors made in previous transcription from audio. The associated talk page is also useful to add a comment if you need to explain what and why you have done certain edits, or to link to pertinent, and relevant other sources. The purpose of this wiki and our proofreading processes is to present accurate texts from the original edition.

On a similar note, if you have other works in the public domain, we would be interested to hear from you about those, and we can provide assistance to bring them online. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:24, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Text rotation / vertical text

Hello. I'm sure I'm not the first who asks this question, but is there a way to display vertical text (e.g. in table headers)? Maybe using <math></math>, or any other way? Nonexyst (talk) 19:53, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to this page? If this is acceptable (and works universally—will need to check if some browsers infarct on that!) then adding to {{table style}} should be a comparatively easy step. AuFCL (talk) 21:23, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

Works on FF 31.0 (and looks great) but not IE8—both under Windows 7 (Enterprise Service Pack 1). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:07, 8 September 2014 (UTC) P.S. Should say that the table still looks fine on IE8, it just doesn't have rotated text.

BTW Template:Table-rotate exists. (Not mine and I've never used it.) Template:Rotate exists too, explicitly "experimental." djr13 (talk) 07:11, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I was kind of afraid of that. For the record, {{rotate}} did not work in the current version of Firefox (didn't contain the CSS transform:rotate() or display:inline-block clauses.) I have added these, so if that template now (still?) works in I.E. then there might be a way forward. AuFCL (talk) 08:34, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Same pattern. Works in FF 31.0 but not IE8. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:12, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

O.K. That's me officially out of ideas. AuFCL (talk) 09:46, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Once more for luck: I quite forgot @George Orwell III:'s 90-degree rotation CSS classes ("rot90", "rot180" and "rot270": which ought to work in I.E. as well as Firefox at least.) Would somebody please be so kind as to verify if this version fails in their browser (and if so please make a note here)? 10:47, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks to everyone, especially AuFCL. Both methods work in Chromium 30.0.1599.114 and Firefox 25.0.1. I tried to do something like first method, but maybe made some syntax error. Nonexyst (talk) 17:27, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I applied the second method to this page and some columns did not shrink in width. (For example, the second one with vertical header). What I did wrong? Nonexyst (talk) 17:50, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

This is outright cheating and serves merely as a demonstration: (page 50). The columns previously took their "width" from the unrotated text: well-now-height (are you confused yet?) By enclosing each entry in {{zfloat left}}s (which as a side-effect declares its contents as zero-width) and then adding min-width styling to stop empty columns collapsing too much…

Well I admit this is really ugly, needs further tweaking at least and possibly substitution of an even better approach… AuFCL (talk) 18:25, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

Yeah the text is rotated under IE11 here but those class definitions mentioned earlier need to be "calculated" on the fly somehow (or re-worked altogether?). Without that I agree - it looks rather "ugly" though its better than anything else I've seen in this area. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:29, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I "simplified" a bit further (still pretty ugly.)

There is of course, in the last resort, the choice of making each rotated title into an image… advantages are: "official", compact, works broadly and can be made cut-and-paste friendly through use of alt text on said images. AuFCL (talk) 00:05, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

In IE8 this table has the rotated text albeit shifted to the right as if there is a linebreak before each header, but the headers on the other table doesn't rotate and, interestingly, the not-rotated headers over-write the page image, while the rest of the table is underneath the image. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC formatting help

If anyone is willing, I need help formatting the first page of this TOC. I have already proofread the text. I do have some requests, however. Please:

1. Use simple table formatting (as basic as possible... something I can understand and replicate myself for the remainder of the TOC)
2. Use limited (and only if necessary) templates
3. Do not replicate the dots
4. Simplify, simplify, simplify

Thank you, thank you, Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2014 (UTC)

I've done it as simply as I know—which is how I would do this table anyway. The {{ts}} templates are either "ar" (align right) or "ac" (align centre) and the colspans are to spread the text across more than one column. I haven't used anything else. I've assumed you'll look after the rest of the linking. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:51, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Beautiful, thank you, BWC :) I'll take it from here, but I might check back with you if I hit any bumps along the way. Thank you so much, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:09, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Bump #1: How do you format the indentation of sections I & II present at the top of this page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Use {{ts|it42}} if that's not sufficient, I will add the code. — Ineuw talk

My apologies but the design is fundamentally incorrect. @Londonjackbooks: I will redo the table. 21:50, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Now? Simpler than reworking the whole table; and if I didn't point it out would you have noted the imprecision? AuFCL (talk) 23:58, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

I'm happy with the results— Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:27, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I am happy too. A neat solution AuFCL! Although, reworking the table is not a big deal using the tools I have. Also, a single right align in the table header would have eliminated the numerous declarations of {{ts}ar}}. @AuFCL: This is not a dig, it's more like a bit of a scrape. :D. — Ineuw talk 08:33, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Fair point. I was trying to work with the cards as they happened to have been dealt with minimal consequent disruption. AuFCL (talk) 08:39, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Educate me. How would putting a single right align in the header have only right-aligned the left and right fields, but left the main "text" field left-aligned? Also, I don't understand AuFCL's solution. Could we not have simply used : indenting? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

I shall have to let Ineuw address his own part, but as for "my solution" it was a simple rip-off of your own overall table formatting, applied as a sub-table within the (pair of) cells formerly occupied by "Body and Soul:—" and its (non-existent) page number. AuFCL (talk) 09:08, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Please store this with my other apologies. I overlooked the fact that it's a horizontal layout to which I am not used to. What I would have done is declare (ar) right align in the table definitions because they are the majority of the alignments, and apply (al) align left to the text. If I am not mistaken, if there is no left alignment declaration the text may end up justified, perhaps in the Page: namespace. As for the line wrap on the second page I would have used the "it42" padding-left:4.0em;text-indent:-2.0em; hanging indent shortcut or an indent that matches the text sample. — Ineuw talk 15:21, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

<Standing by quietly trying to learn from you all, and thanking you for whichever outcome you deem best :)> Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:17, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

TOC with Horizontal Ellipses

Is there any good way of doing TOC with horizontal ellipses? Of my current projects, two works (This and this) have this type of TOC. I have transcribed the pages as I could, but the pages look quite ugly and appear differently in diff. browsers. Any solution please? Hrishikes (talk) 10:07, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your message. You just beat me replying here; so I am guessing you already know the rest. AuFCL (talk) 12:19, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks once again. I'll keep this as a guideline for future projects if needed. Hrishikes (talk) 12:31, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

Suggestions are sought on how to organize the subpage levels

In this book in the main namespace I would like to omit the "Section" as a subpage because each section contains only one chapter. Mexico in 1827 Vol 1/Book I/Boundaries, Geological Structure, Climate. But I am not sure. Can anyone suggest an acceptable alternative please? — Ineuw talk 04:29, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would ditch the volume level in the Mainspace. The Book numbers are continuous between the two volumes. So, Mexico in 1827/Book 1/Section 1. There's no need to include the "boundaries, ..." wording in the page title. This makes inter-work links easier to manage. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:02, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

I would go further and ditch the books, and volumes, and just do a straight chapter numbering (and later create redirects). I did something similar at My Life in Two Hemispheres, though replicated the book/chapters in the sections. My reasoning is not to be a slave to a form of the presentation, and in our WS world, the extra subpage levels are a nuisance as they basically became nude levels, the relative linking is a nuisance, especially when we can concatenate the respective ToC onto the lead page. Don't be a slave to a bookbinder! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:35, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you both. Much enlightened. — Ineuw talk 14:42, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

copyright tag not on list - texas court documents

I'm trying to upload the court file from when Howard Hughes, Jr. had his disabilities of minority removed at age nineteen. There is no selector to say "This is a work of the State of Texas" like there is for federal government works. Anyway, the Court case is public record and I want to upload it.

I'm not a lawyer or anything, but just Googling around it it looks like things are fairly complicated copyright-wise for Texas government stuff. As far as I can tell there are laws that mandate citizens have to be granted access to see records for themselves, but that's not the same thing as waiving copyright or having the right to redistribute copies of records. This public information act guide from the state Attorney General mentions in a footnote

Open Records Decision No. 660 at 5 (1999) (Federal Copyright Act “may not be used to deny access to or copies of the information sought by the requestor under the Public Information Act,” but a governmental body may place reasonable restrictions on use of copyrighted information consistent with rights of copyright owner).

and also specifically requires that

provision of a copy of the information in the requested medium will not violate the terms of any copyright agreement between the governmental body and a third party.

so for example here's a lawyer complaining that he has to pay a publisher to access copies of court documents he himself wrote and filed.

If I understand it all correctly, I think this unfortunately means that you'll need to determine which government body owns the copyright to the documents you've got and find out whether that particular body allows them to be freely redistributed in a way that qualifies as copyrighted, but "free" as defined by Wikisource:Copyright_policy. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:15, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Or alternatively, if these are documents that would count as having been "published" under the legal definition between 1923 and 1977 without any copyright notice, you could mark them as {{PD-US-no-notice}}. Maybe someone else knows whether court documents count as having been "published"? ❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 22:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Copyright is the "right to make a copy", which should not be confused with access to documents, information, etc. or should not be deemed to be giving anyone a right to reproduce. Publishers have been publishing court proceedings for years, and still there has been some discussion recently [10]. That said, something used in evidence in a court case would not lose its original copyright for appearing as evidence. Is it published? Interesting question., though I would say not. No ISBN, not sold, no copy given to the national library.

For the work that you are looking to upload, I would suggest that if it is uploaded that the decision of the court sounds like we would licence as {{PD-EdictGov}} as the court is making a decision on behalf of the State, and thus acting for government. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:58, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Planning to autoarchive this page (30 day post last contribution per section)

Unless I hear comments to the negative, it is my plan to set this page to archive on a daily basis using @Wikisource-bot:, with the criteria to be set that if a section has not been edited within past 30 days, taht section is archiveable. It will be possible for any person to put on a hold on a section, and if it is auto-0archived, then I will point to instructions on how to do that. I plan on using the existing archiving structure. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:59, 10 September 2014 (UTC)

This is not a negative; however being a page frequented by newer users who might want to refer back to earlier questions and answers is it worth considering (if the bot either is or may readily be made so capable) of at least leaving links to the archived entries for ease of reference? AuFCL (talk) 02:27, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

It would be much preferable if instead of leaving these topics hidden in various past conversations, archived or not, they were distilled into definitive guides and such. Of course, I realize me saying this isn't helping build those pages. djr13 (talk) 02:36, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

We already have about a 30-45 day archiving done manually due to the size of the page, so I was jut looking to replicate what we are doing. If you see that there is a better time elapsed on which to archive, then some feedback on what is most appropriate is welcomed, in a page that is long enough to give comfort, but not too long to scare. I have added {{engine}} to the top to allow for searching of the archives particularly, with those who come via WS:S already have the search box. I have also updated the content listing for 2014 on Archives.

If we/you think that a list of recent posts is pertinent, then we can look to either "LST" in the section for 2014 as either a list, or convert it to a hot list. What Djr13 says is actually the most pertinent, look at the list of questions, and make sure that our help pages/FAQs address the lists. Noting that I am a "page tail" denizen in that I only look at the past couple of days posts and only pay attention to sexy or unanswered questions, so I am the wrong person to know. Getting someone to actively curate would be fantastic, and even if we pick out the most important question for the past month or so, and had that better addressed would seem to a significant improvement. All that said, sometimes the human touch of answering questions is nice and adds connectiveness to and for newbies, and the human element of WS has always made usually makes this a more attractive feature. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:57, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Set the page to archive at 31 days, and we will see how it proceeds today. Feel free to revert if it doesn't work as expected. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Help pages

To note that we didn't have a link to our help pages here, which I have just added. How silly are we? For those who wish to see a list of pages in the Help: namespace, an up-to-date list is here. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:16, 11 September 2014 (UTC)

Page image not showing

The page image doesn't show up on Index:Alerielorvoyaget00lach.djvu. Oddly enough it worked for the first page I edited. Any ideas? (I've tried it using Firefox and Explorer). Misarxist (talk) 04:51, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Don't know why but "Scan resolution in edit mode" was set to zero on the Index: template. Removed that and all page images seem to display now. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. My mistake, trying to work out what it did. Misarxist (talk) 05:40, 13 September 2014 (UTC)

@Misarxist: that page allows some modification of the size of the scan. The text/image works on a 50/50 %width so for those with lower res monitors on high intensity scans, the resolution can be lowered. Generally there is not a large need to make a mod. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:Hillsborough Taylor Interim Report Cm765.pdf

A problem has arisen,

Whilst the text may be OGL, the images, currently marked as problematic might not be, and there's nothing in the doucmennt to indicate a possible source.

I've used a temporary placeholder, but would appreciate someone with some experience tidying up.

BTW The following may contain other material that could help trace the status : http://hillsborough.independent.gov.uk/ of the images concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:50, 15 September 2014 (UTC)

Commons file rename/deleted - How to handle here?

A file that I uploaded (commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III.djvu) has been proposed for deletion because the first page is the Google Books notification (which I thought had to be retained, rather than removed). commons:User:Edaen created a copy of the file w/out the Google page at commons:File:Memoirs of a Trait in the Character of George III2.djvu (thank you!) and proposed deletion of the original.

My question: what needs to happen on this end with the Index page? If the original is deleted at commons and then the new copy is moved to the old name, will everything work out? Do I need to move the index to the new file name, and then back once it is renamed at commons? I don't imagine that a change at commons would delete anything here, but I'm not sure how the linkage (if any) works between the projects and I would hate to lose the work already done. Thanks! -Xpctr8 (talk) 14:43, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

The page count and position has to be the same. Having said that, I will download the original and remove Google claim, and append a blank page at the beginning, which I keep for that reason.— Ineuw talk 15:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Please check the proofread pages if they match. — Ineuw talk 16:23, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Everything appears to match up, thank you. -Xpctr8 (talk) 20:19, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

You are welcome, in case they delete it, I kept copies and upload them to here (there was another file, beside yours). — Ineuw talk 20:36, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

Forth Bridge (1890) help with tables

Is anybody good enough with tables to be able to help at Index:Forth Bridge (1890).djvu? There's quite a few, and I can't get them to look nice. Jamesx12345 (talk) 21:14, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

It would better if you insert some of the tables as images. — Ineuw talk 22:32, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

New International Encylopedia

Found Volume 2 which is missing from the Volume set Commons/Wikisource has - https://archive.org/details/newinternational02gilm

Small issue is that I can't seemingly use IA-upload as it's too big. Can someone that has a "sledgehammer" upload this so that the volume set is complete? .ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Done Index:The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu Hrishikes (talk) 17:37, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

You might want to move/rename the file and the index for consistency with the rest: "The New International Encyclopædia Vol 2.djvu"→"Index:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 02.djvu" (PS, I did a couple tweaks to the description pages for Volumes 1 and 2. I'm feeling a bit too lazy to replicate that across the rest...) djr13 (talk) 07:05, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

I have done the manual labor of adding it here. Now I leave the cosmetic surgery at your able hands. Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Renamed.--Mpaa (talk) 19:50, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night - Volume 10.djvu and others

1 volume absent (namely volume 9), Any suggestions? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:26, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Please go and look for it.— Ineuw talk 19:45, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

https://archive.org/details/arabiannightsent09burtiala , Want me to add this to the upload list, when i have the bandwidth?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

And done, Cover design is diffferent, but the issue here is the text :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Guidance about copyright

I am in the process of adding here a series of physical research papers by Jagadish Chandra Bose. I am identifying the components of the series from a secondary source, the author's Collected Physical Papers, published in 1927 by his institute, which is now owned by the Govt. of India. I am trying to add the items from primary sources. But when I can't find primaries, I am adding from the 1927 collection, reasoning that a reprint cannot have a separate copyright and the primary copyright should hold. Now I have reached a snag. This work was previously unpublished, published for the first time in this collection, but acknowledged there as a 1895 work. This is part of this series, so can it be added here? Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

If published in India in 1927 and not published in the US at that time, for an author who died in 1937, then the work would be {{Pd/1996|1937}} with the works coming out of copyright on 1 Jan 1988. If published after death, then enter the public domain 50 years after the end of the year of publication (for India). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:22, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Oh wait, if 1927, then we may have 95 years, depending on the copyright detail in the work. If without proper details, it would have been 1937+50. If proper copyright then it is 95 years (all presuming that it was not published in US at same time). It is a tricky one. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:29, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Link for the 1927 work given in the author page. Details can be checked from there. It's a govt publication now that the institute is owned by govt. I have not started transcribing the article; if not allowed here, then pse delete the djvu file. Hrishikes (talk) 08:10, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Addendum: I have checked. Like this author's other works, this collection was also simultaneously published in the U.S. as per publisher details given in this page. As for PD-India, it's author's life + 60 yrs, not 50. For U.S. publication verification, see this page and this page, both at sl. no. 8 of references. Hrishikes (talk) 10:23, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

At this point of time I cannot get the DLI site to respond to me (time out issues). We need to know what copyright statements were put into the work, if any, as that impacts how the US law will regard it. If there was coincident US publishing (requirement is within 30 days) then we need to check the US system for copyright, and subsequent renewals (see WS:CV for some of those links). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Mirror site for DLI here. I have uploaded the initial pages here. I could not find any relevant info at ws:cv sites. Hrishikes (talk) 05:20, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

As I have already stated, I could not find any info about this work at ws:cv-linked sites. And as can be seen from info I have already provided, this work was published at least from Calcutta, London and New York, all in 1927. So, subject to no contrary evidence, I think this work can be safely assumed as a case of PD-US-no renewal. Any thoughts? Hrishikes (talk) 04:20, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

Duplicate scan sets?

• Index:The Book of the Thousand Nights and a Night - Volume 1.djvu
• Index:A plain and literal translation of the Arabian nights entertainments, now entitled The book of the thousand nights and a night, volume 1.djvu

The latter is a better fit with the other volumes listed (going by the cover design). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:22, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

CharInsert and WikiEditor help needed

(Request moved from above where it was likely to be unnoticed)
I’d be grateful for some assistance with my editing toolbar. I just disabled prefs for the edit toolbar and enabled enhanced editing toolbar but am not sure whose common.js I should be stealing, if any. If possible, I’d like to keep the current cleanup script, plus a button or something to run the running header script. Moondyne (talk) 04:17, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

I've given you the same buttons that you had in the old version, plus a hyphenated word script from InductiveLoad. For the cleanup and running header scripts you'll need to talk to @Pathoschild:. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

edit conflict ... and the old toolbar should be available again late Tuesday. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:51, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

Please excuse the interruption @Billinghurst: by Tuesday you mean September 2nd? — Ineuw talk 16:11, 28 August 2014 (UTC)

@Ineuw - Probably meant Sept. 2nd (= 1.24wmf19) but, as of today, if you select just the old toolbar option in your User Prefs on https://test2.wikipedia.org first and then go to the Page: namespace there (https://test2.wikipedia.org/wiki/Page:The_book_of_try_and_learn.djvu/2), the problem remains (1.24wmf19). This is not to say a "patch" hasn't been constructed yet (quite the opposite - more than one fix &/or partial reversions have been submitted concerning this bug both directly and indirectly), its just that they haven't been sorted out, approved and applied for some [valid] reason or another.

The one thing I noticed now that I'm not sure was true before this past Tuesday's release (1.24wmf18) or not is that if you enable both 'show editing toolbar' and 'enable enhanced editor' at the same time in your user prefs, WikiEditor loads above the noinclude'd header field in the Page: namespace while selecting just the enhanced Editor, the WikiEditor toolbar loads above the main text (or body?) field instead. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:10, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I am composing the reply, please bear with me for a few minutes.— Ineuw talk 00:24, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

┌─────────────────────────────────┘
The answer is simple. The advanced wiki toolbar is working as you intended with the drop down lists gone and I thank you for that.

I was testing all kinds of Preference\Edit setting combinations, and checking the results in the page ns: and discovered that when both settings are on, the "Chainsert" displays on top, which is perfect for MY EDIT REQUIREMENTS because I don't need to scroll down to access my limited CharInsert requirements. Thus both BWC and I seem to be content.

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T72431Resolved

I did not bring it to your, or the community's attention, to avoid further muddying the issues and frankly, I didn't want to loose it. How you discovered it is a mystery to me at the moment. — Ineuw talk 00:47, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I test combinations/settings whenever something changes like a core update or the PR extension is patched out of habit (that is what beta/testbeds should be used for btw) so that's why I "noticed" the behavior this round.

At any rate, I doubt CharInsert will "stay up top"; that phenomenon ceased from happening this session as soon as I cleared my cache and ran through edit/submit, edit/create, etc. a few times in the Page: namespace - also probably due to some subtle difference found from this past Tuesday's core update & the handful of relevant changes that came with it. Once all the editing scenarios synched to the current code, CharInsert then loaded below the edit window once again. 'Enjoy it while it lasts' in other words - sorry. Maybe "we" (hint, hint to Helder) can find a way to add that position to the CharInsert gadget as a valid option so don't get too discouraged over any of this just yet either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:07, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

I understand, absolutely. I don't expect it to remain on top, but if it happens, fine. However, if I announced it to the community and others would try it and then lost it - it would have been a disservice. At this moment as I edit, I am happy to report that it's still on top.— Ineuw talk 01:27, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

A toolbar to dream about

UD = User defined.— Ineuw talk 01:46, 29 August 2014 (UTC)

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T70791Unknown

Well the following should be good news...

To load the CharInsert toolbar above the WikiEditor toolbar regardless of the namespace you're editing in, just add the highlighted line in the below snippet to your .js file.

/* CharInsert specific */
window.charinsertDontMove = false;
window.charinsertMoveTop = true;
window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertCustom = { User: '|  =  {\{+}}  [\[+|]]  —  “+”  ‽  Æ  æ  Œ  œ  ℩  {\{hws|+|+}}  {\{hwe|+|+}}  <section.begin="+"_/>  <section.end="+"_/>' };
if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();

I modified the CharInsert Gadget to make that a valid option (of course I'm not sure if my addition was the most elegant way to make that a reality). Anyway it works for me - please report back either way if you opted to apply it. Improvements welcome!. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Splendid! --Zyephyrus (talk) 09:32, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Ditto, brilliant! @George Orwell III: Sorry for the late reply. Swamped with watchlist emails — Ineuw talk 17:22, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

See bugzilla:70233. Helder 00:32, 1 September 2014 (UTC)

Helder, I'm not sure if that bug was even related to the remaining issue mentioned in the closing comments of Bugzilla:70431 or not but it also seems to be fixed now according to the original reporter. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:52, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

---

Update: After working with some folks over Wikipedia and coming to the conclusion that adding 'user' to the list of dependencies for this gadget properly resolves issues with where the CharInsert bar could be loaded and how, there are some new nuances that should now be considered if not just noted when customizing this application.

Using the below as the new template of all currently valid options . . .

/* CharInsert specific */
window.charinsertDontMove = true;
window.charinsertMoveTop = true;
window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertCustom = { User: '|  =  {\{+}}  [\[+|]]  —  “+”  ‽Æ挜℩  {\{hws|+|+}}  {\{hwe|+|+}}  <section.begin="+"_/>  <section.end="+"_/>' };
if(window.updateEditTools) window.updateEditTools();

. . . the most important change is that Line 6 is no longer required to be present for the Gadget to load properly. From now on, it should be-applied/in-effect for troubleshooting purposes only if for anything at all.

Line 5 remains as was prior to this refinement and Line 1 should continue to always be present as well for the sake of uniformity if nothing else.

Line 2, Line 3 and Line 4 should only be present (or in effect) from now on if the desired functionality is contrary to the gadget's default state. Note for Line 3 -- old option window.charinsertMoveHigh is now window.charinsertMoveTop

Example

• To automatically keep the CharInsert bar loading where the "old" EditTools bar did completely below the gray-ish edit form field, add the line as depicted above in Line 2
• To automatically generate the CharInsert bar between the edit field and edit form, add nothing. Do not use window.charinsertDontMove = false; anymore.

Any comments, question or observations are welcome. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:08, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Questions (left field; interest only; all regarding line 5 example):

1. What if any is the effective/technical difference between a space entered via "." and "_" in <section.begin="+"_/>?
2. Presumably separate elements on this line have to be separated by precisely two spaces?
3. Is it essential (or simply good practice) to "protect" braces and brackets with a leading backslash? Does this imply any kind of regular expression handling capabilities (present or future)?

AuFCL (talk) 04:51, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

The only one that I can answer with any authority is #2 - ans = Nope. I just double spaced it for my own ease of reading and have been blindly copying the same to these examples without really thinking about it. If we go by the approach used in MediaWiki:Gadget-charinsert-core.js, it seems spacing is more of a cosmetic thing than any sort of rule but that might not be true from one entry (a character) to the next (either another character or maybe a template?). We can always mirror the recent changes on Wikipedia's implementation that pseudo-buttonized each entry, regardless of it being a character, a string or a template.

The other stuff is kind of beyond my understanding to confidently weigh-in on but I document what I can in hopes that someone who knows better will come along and make those kind of refinements - sorry. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:12, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

No need to be sorry. I knew the questions were rather unfair as I asked them (and should have thought to look at charinsert-core; Mea culpa,) but thought if I threw them out there somebody might know or maybe even suggest a future change. (BTW I had already taken the liberty of adding to the "other half" of this discussion at w:Wikipedia_talk:Notifications#Typos—if anyone else is interested in the linkage.) AuFCL (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Guidance on linking citations in a work

I've looked through Help:, but haven't found any guidance on exactly what to link in the footnote references of a work that I'm proofreading. For example, the original work has a note reading:

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

...in reference to William Edward Hartpole Lecky's History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe. What I've done is linked the name to his Author page and the title to the not yet extant work, like so: Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

Here is the specific scanned page I'm asking about: Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_25.djvu/12

1. I'm assuming this is correct, please advise if something different should be done (e.g., don't link the author's name at all, link to the Wikipedia article on him instead, etc.)
2. Is there a way to link to the specific page/passage being referenced, particularly considering that the referenced book doesn't exist yet? (I did find a scan on Google and will import it at some point, and the footnote does point to the correct volume and pages for the quote.) Should it be linked at all?
3. If there is already a documented style guideline for this example, please point me in the right direction.

Thanks. -Xpctr8 (talk) 16:02, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

I've figured out the "how" part, for anyone else that wants to know how to deep link. The pagenumbers in mainspace works are links wrapped in divs, and each one has an ID like "pagenumber_90". Note that it is the page number specified in the index and matching the link text, not the DjVu file page number. So, to link directly to the passage I was asking about above, you would write [[Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_25/May_1884/The_Sins_of_Legislators_I#pagenumber_4|Citation text]] in the citation.

Regarding style, I'd still like to know if there is an established guideline, or if anyone is even doing this. -Xpctr8 (talk) 03:48, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

I don't believe there is an established guideline specifically concerning this type of anchored-linking but I have seen it applied before using this variation...

[[Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_25/May_1884/The_Sins_of_Legislators_I#4|Citation text]] ( no "pagenumber_" )

... which, of course, is easily broken if by some chance there is an anchored-link appearing before the intended one that is also labeled #4 so your way is a bit better in that regard and seems like the way to go imo (barring any further comments objecting to such practice that is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:18, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

There's no point in linking pages for a work which isn't yet on Wikisource, as it assumes quite a bit about the ultimate structure of transcluded content that is likely to prove false. Chapters are possible, though unless it's just that chapter that isn't yet on Wikisource, it's not very helpful and just redundantly adds to the red links. Here's two examples of attempts to guess.

The first one is simplistic yet extreme, taking each item at individual face value.

[[Author:William Edward Hartpole Lecky|Lecky]], "[[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe|Rationalism]]," [[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Volume 2|ii.]] pp. [[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Volume 2#293|293, 294]]

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

The second one I actually browsed scans to make, and thus has a much more likely structure. Notice how the work is in two volumes, with chapters that continue between the two. Further, since the reference does not explicitly mention a chapter, I condensed it into a single link, at the usually minor cost of not linking to the main page of the work in favor of the referenced page. However, that minor cost becomes a major cost when this is a red link, because all those extra layers of non-existant pages/subpages/sections only make it less and less likely that the red link will be useful.

[[Author:William Edward Hartpole Lecky|Lecky]], "[[History of the Rise and Influence of the Spirit of Rationalism in Europe/Chapter 6#293|Rationalism]]," ii. pp. 293, 294

Lecky, "Rationalism," ii. pp. 293, 294

Either way consists of a lot of guessing and assumption about how "Rationalism" will end up like if anyone ever gets around to adding it, and if it's different, hoping someone will find these mistakes and correct them. Thus, for non-existent pages, be careful how you do it. I've done similar multip-part-link edits with existing works, consisting of multiple blue-links. I may have even red-linked a chapter next to a blue-link for a work title. I'd be happy to see an established guideline on this, among many other things. :) djr13 (talk) 13:30, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

We've been wrestling with this issue of deep-linking into non-existent works for years. See Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02#Naming_convention? and follow the links to a stalled discussion and an naming convention that never got beyond draft form. Hesperian 13:42, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

After looking through some of the past discussion, I can understand why there is no clear consensus. To summarize my understanding, the mission of Wikisource is to preserve the original works as closely as possible to what was published, and it's accepted that nobody should change original text or insert their own commentary (loosely analogous to w:Wikipedia:NOR). The logical (and I would argue very conservative) extension to the argument is that nothing new at all should be added to a work.

As this has been debated for years without resolution, I won't attempt to restart the discussion, but it seems to me that not adding links where appropriate is refusing to use the very resource that we are building. Taking into consideration djr13's examples above, my approach for now, will be to:

1. Link the author's name upon first citation only, per wikilinking best practice, even where that author page does not yet exist.
2. If the work exists and the citation is correct (i.e., page numbers haven't changed between editions) link the remainder of the citation directly to the page referenced.
3. Otherwise, link only to the main title, making a best guess as to how that page will be created in the future.

Perhaps a template could be used in the third case, like {{missing table}} and {{missing image}}, to flag that link for future maintenance? -Xpctr8 (talk) 02:12, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You've summarised very well the tension between leveraging links (which are, after all, our value proposition) and reproducing the original work as it was (which is our mission).

I think a {{deeplink later}} template is an excellent idea — it could render the link as-is, but also check whether its target exists, and if so categorise into a maintenance category along the lines of Category:Pages with links to be retargetted.

Hesperian 02:33, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I've written my first (very simple) template, but could definitely use some help refining it. It is called {{deeplink needed}} and it categorizes pages into Category:Pages needing deeplinks. The tagged link itself has a faint red background and a superscript reading "deeplink needed".

The biggest issue I see is that the category is listing both the transcription and the mainspace work. Is there a way to detect the namespace and only add the category under Page? If so, what about works without an associated source, that is where the template is directly used in the mainspace? There are a lot of other things that could be done to improve this (like Hesperian's idea to check if the linked page already exists) and I'm open to suggestions. -Xpctr8 (talk) 01:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Personally I'm opposed to the altered style and the "[deeplink needed]" text. It's unnecessary. As for altering behaviour depending on namespace, see {{missing image}} for an example of how that is done. Hesperian 12:24, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

The Gall Wasp Genus Cynips: A Study in the Origin of Species/Key to Described Cynips

Someone, please, make the table look fine. I have an error in pages 485-487 (a cell vanishes) and I don't know how to fix it. Nonexyst (talk) 17:09, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I think the row with the page number added in the main ns spoils your rowspan scheme but I could not find out how to fix that.--Mpaa (talk) 21:12, 27 September 2014 (UTC)

I must be a glutton for punishment. I had yet another go at this and think it now works (please check!) but am not quite sure I can explain why. In essence I added a dummy min-width:1em to the first column (local to page 485); the idea being to anchor the width of that column in the instance there is no actual content (the "5." being on the previous page). I also went mad adding, I was initially sure, too many {{nop}}s. However by carefully later removing them again and watching things break I think the ones remaining are essential but I really cannot justify them in any other sense than the result, which I hope works for you as well. AuFCL (talk) 22:29, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Local upload licensing sanity check

I have just uploaded File:War of the Worlds page 279.png locally and would appreciate if someone a little more copyright-savvy than I (that's just about everyone) would be so kind as to cast an eye over the Summary block and let me know if I ought to have filled it out differently. As far as I can tell, as H. G. Wells, being British and having died in 1946, his works ought to enter into the public domain unencumbered in 2016 (life+70 years.) Is this a bad assumption or is there is anything else I need to check? AuFCL (talk) 06:36, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Any illustrations (if there is a listed illustrator) would have a separate copyright. Have you checked this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:03, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion, but at least at this point the illustrator or illustrators remain unknown. No apparent signatures of any kind on images (From my reading elsewhere, reputedly this publisher, Harper Bros, was in the habit of getting its staff illustrators to sign "Copyright Harper Bros," but I cannot see even this, so that doesn't help either.) AuFCL (talk) 21:08, 30 September 2014 (UTC)

Just need to make the template for" do not move to commons" to have an expiry of 2017, though I think that the artwork would have expired already with an 1898 US/UK publication with a US publisher and the artwork being unattributed, and not being Wells's work. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Done. Would you mind expanding upon your reasoning assuming this is beyond "playing it safe" with the author-death-year+70 years rule? Just asking the dumb questions now in hopes of saving a possible future re-education (by which time the rules will likely have changed anyway…?) AuFCL (talk) 02:36, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Unattributed illustrators were generally considered as works of hire, and the law in that regard gave the copyright to the publisher, and that then has a fixed number of years, rather than PMA. Still an aspect of modern law, and the wiser authors/illustrators these days would work out the IP as part of the creation. With the joint US/UK publication, the US law of pre1923 comes fully into force, and there is no means to not state the country of origin of illustrator, so basically it is US origin, US treated. Playing it safe as hosting here is free of Commonists, and we can move the work in 2017 without hassle from deletionists. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

That peculiar sound you just heard was the last of my confidence in ever properly understanding copyright arcana gasping its very last. Thanks for attempting to edumacate me, but from now on please just assume whatever I do in this area is going to be wrong and try to set me straight again each time. (In return I promise I'll try not to stray too far.) AuFCL (talk) 21:51, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

Copyright

Are there any wiki-specific training programs for copyright? If there aren't, would people be interested in it? We might be able to win an m:IEG] grant to pay for someone to teach it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:28, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

I rather think everybody here would be interested. However I pity the potential teacher as I expect few of the questions asked will be quite what is expected from a "normal" class (i.e. we will probably be asking things about the very knife-edge of legality… Hmm. suspiciously pirate-like behaviour. That sounds bad?) AuFCL (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing - there are a lot of copyright materials on English Wikipedia and Commons that are of varying quality; none that I'm aware of that are specific to Wikisource, though. For a variety of reasons I'm not sure IEG is the best outlet for this - simply because it is big enough that the kinds of lawyers you'd want for this would either (1) do it for free or (2) want more money than makes sense for IEG :) (Though that's not guaranteed to be true - I could think of some young, hungry, very smart lawyers who might not be able to do it for free but might be able to do it for a very reasonable, IEG-able price.) Can I suggest taking an informal poll of Wikisourcers of what kinds of questions/topics might be asked? That might help get a sense of the scope of the project, who might be good to bring in for it, etc. LuisV (WMF) (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

What do you do when scans are not enough?

Please pardon the fact the background to this is a bit long and involved:

Somewhat related to Local upload licensing sanity check, above, I have just completed proofreading of the scans in Index:War of the Worlds.djvu. The work is organised into two Books with Book I chapters running from I. to XVII., and Book II chapters running from I. to IX. Book I, and Book II Chapter I were already correctly transcluded when I started. Probably unwisely I replaced each subsequent Chapter (all were already populated with inline—i.e. direct/non-transcluded—text) with its transcluded-from-Page:-space equivalents as I completed proofreading enough pages to enable me to do so.

The problem is this. The scans clearly support there being nine chapters in Book II; but the main space text has a pre-existing tenth chapter for which I have absolutely no provenance.

How to proceed? Should this hold-over chapter be expunged; or should the (apparent) alternate version of the work be teased out and set apart; especially as I do not know from whence it originated. Some components date well back into 2005, and originated from non-logged-in sources (does IP: 71.96.170.245 ring any bells?)

Any suggestions (well civil ones anyway) gratefully received. AuFCL (talk) 21:41, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

There were no international copyright treaties in Wells' time. Anything published in the UK could legally be pirated into the US market, and vice versa. To prevent piracy of their works, some authors would submit a work simultaneously to a publisher in each country. Sometimes they would submit substantially the same work to both; but sometimes they would submit two distinct versions, each tailored to its target market. And then the two versions would go through independent review processes. See The Time Machine for a detailed example of this.

I suspect you have overwritten one "text" of The War of the World with a different "text". Best practice would have been to retain the text we already had, and set up your new text alongside it. But given the overwritten text was not supported by a scan, I wouldn't be inclined at this point to try to restore it.

Hesperian 03:21, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

Thanks; at least that explains the diverging texts. Unfortunately I simply did not notice until (some) of the damage was already done—and indeed I feel there is a good case a lot of it (the "damage") precedes my involvement. I am inclined to remove Book 2/Chapter 10 altogether as it really does not add significantly to the story, being largely a rehash of B2/Ch9 in any case. Does anybody object if I simply "orphan" its linkage from Chapter 9 (to indicate Ch10 may be discarded); or does this simply increase the difficulties for eventual clean-up? AuFCL (talk) 04:07, 3 October 2014 (UTC)

From what I've been able to find and infer, the epilogue was part of the original run in Pearson's Magazine, though it does not seem to have been included in the later book edition that you have procured. It does appear in the copy at Project Gutenburg Australia here, and it is referenced by several scholars of Wells' works that I have examined. However, I have not found an explicit explanation for the textual discrepancy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:05, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey may have just given and important clue regarding the solution of another small mystery about this work. Every chapter in the transclusion is linked back to the French WikiSource equivalent. I note that the Gutenburg Australia reference contains several images clearly relating to a French, rather than English issue, so maybe the "base" edition was in fact a PG cut/paste job prior to the scan being located/becoming available? AuFCL (talk) 22:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Image rotation of plates in books

There are many books where the original work has illustration plates - whole page landscape images - that are rotated through 90 degrees. Is there a view about the presentation on WikiSource? Keeping the original stays true to the source; adding rotated images look a bit odd in the context of the book but they are much easier to view. Added to this Wikimedia uploads that appear 'out of rotation' are occasionally flagged with {{rotate}} to 'correct' them. GreyHead (talk) 15:35, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

We prefer images to appear in their "natural" viewing orientation, rather than require them to remain in their printed orientation. In a printed volume, the reader can simply rotate the book. While this would be possible on a tablet or mobile device, it is not practical for someone reading the work on a laptop or computer monitor. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:51, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you - image rotations requested. GreyHead (talk) 09:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

The link to scan page?

I remember there were links to the scan page in main name space articles using <page ... />. Now it disappeared. Is there any way to make it come back?--維基小霸王 (talk) 13:41, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Can you you point to a particular work? — Ineuw talk 15:58, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Another 'lack of awareness' of the options found in the left-sidebar's Display options menu? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes. Thank you. But my Firefox shows Display options without options until I cleaned my vector.js.

By the way, can anyone point out here how to make Chinese Wikisource show that? --維基小霸王 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

@維基小霸王: mul:Wikisource:Shared Scripts is where you will find the information about switches, and implementation through Mediawiki:Common.js or its includes. Sites will implement components differently. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. it's done.--維基小霸王 (talk) 10:11, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

Not quite fractions

I'd like to get some assistance formatting a bit of text on this page.

In the footnote, there are lines of text where two words must appear together in-line, with one above and one below. The only method I know of for achieving this is to use <math> tags, but this adds a fraction bar that is not present in the original.

Is there an alternative that someone can offer? --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:41, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Looks like AuFCL Fixed it for you useing Dual Template.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 18:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

(recovery from edit conflict):

You have two choices; either:

1. substitute \tfrac with one or the other of \overset or (reversing parameters) \underset within the <math> formulations. Drawback: the two words are rendered with dissimilar font sizes, so unless you want to represent a favoured choice…
2. {{dual}} might just be your friend (my recommendation). AuFCL (talk) 18:20, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Done Thanks. The {{dual}} template does just what I needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:17, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

P.S. By the way there are a couple of ways of doing fractions without using math tags. {{over}}, {{frac}}, and {{sfrac}} all offer various lines. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2014 (UTC)

details note

i need to know about country wife as a social doctrine —unsigned comment by 182.66.55.226 (talk) .

I suggest that you read the article on Wycherley's play over at Wikipedia The Country Wife as a starting point. Ogden's introduction (listed in the bibliography in that article) is a good next step to understanding the play. Once you've done that, then start writing your essay from what you've discovered in the play itself. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:46, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

Archimedes Quote from Shelley

Help with Greek characters and translation. While working on the poem "QUEEN MAB" by Shelley on page 754, I found a quote by Archimedes in Greek:

Δος που στώ, καί κοσμου κιυησω.

Requesting another set of eyes to help encode the proper text and decode this quote. Are there any Greek speakers to lend a hand? The last word "κιυησω" doesn't appear as a word in the Greek dictionary. After removing the second letter, the word "κυησω" (pregnant) could be workable, yet unexpected phrase. I get the translation Give to whether or not, and secular conceptions. Does that phrase make sense? - DutchTreat (talk) 08:55, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I think you mean the word κινήσω the υ was actually a ν, slight difference hard to tell. You should have better results looking it up on a translator now. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 21:34, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

I fixed the other issues with the text (including the nun is cosmon being rendered as an upsilon and the type of accent used on the iota in kai.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:36, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

@Zhaladshar: and @Rochefoucauld: Wonderful! Thanks for the expert assistance. DutchTreat (talk) 01:50, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

I've de-italicized the quote; the apparent italicization is the result of the particular font used; the text in the original is not italicized—it's just what Greek looks like in books of that era. I've also swapped out for the {{polytonic}} template, which seems to render better than {{Greek}} for at least some users. As I understand it, the {{Greek}} template is for modern Greek, and {{polytonic}} is for Ancient Greek. The latter includes many diacritical marks that do not exist in the modern language. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:51, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyright information

This is related to #Copyright above:

If you could have someone – perhaps an attorney who specializes in copyright or related publishing issues – come to Wikisource and talk about copyrights, what topics would be most interesting? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

If someone came to Wikisource to talk about anything, where would they be, and how many people would be there with them? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)

Probably either in an online video conference, like Google Hangouts, or maybe in IRC. I don't know how many people would be there. It might depend on the subject. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Here's another option that might interest people who are serious about copyright. It's a 12-week class, so it's a much bigger commitment than just a one-hour talk with someone.

Harvard Law School is offering a free "CopyrightX" class for people who want to learn about the US copyright system. It is designed for non-lawyers and accepts both teenagers and adults. One of the WMF staffers took it last year, and he said that there were librarians, doctors, engineers, and students from around the world.

The course is 100% free, and all the material used is CC-licensed, but I believe that enrollment is limited. There is more information at http://copyx.org/ The bit labeled "an online course divided into sections of 25 students, each section taught by a Harvard Teaching Fellow" is the relevant one for US copyright law. It looks like there are also some similar options for other countries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:49, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Transclusion of TOC on Index page shows a large gap

For some unknown reason (by me) THIS INDEX has the TOC pages showing on the right of the page number map, but there is a large gap between top title and the beginning of the list. The border lines are turned on only temporarily. My concern is that this will also appear in the main namespace when transcluded.— Ineuw talk 19:59, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Done A mystery contributor fixed the problem. Thanks.— Ineuw talk

(Too fast) Needed a few "bites at the cherry" but how about now? Issues/methods of attack were:

1. Move all leading items on top of Contents page into table structure;
2. Remove (some) "cosmetic" newlines within "Remarks" field of Index: page. Believe it or not the wiki-parser was turning each and every one of these into <p><br></br></p> series and then effectively floating them to the top of the display in the <div> with class name "mw-kollapsible-kontent". Either ze developer german does speak; or has an unhealthy obsession with the Keystone Kop monster in nethack…

101.175.22.45 21:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Got it, thanks.— Ineuw talk

N.B. Slight correction of detail above (second <br> in set ought in fact to have been </br>. Change made above.) 121.217.59.161 per 101.175.22.45 10:34, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

François Millet Page 38

How should we deal with the Latin quote and its annotation on page 38 of the book? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 01:37, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Done by Hesp. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:59, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

TOC help

Can someone help with this TOC User_talk:Mpaa#TOC_err? I do not understand why, when transcluded, parts of it can be seen for a few secs and then disappear.Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 19:32, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Ok, nevermind, I manged to fix it.--Mpaa (talk) 20:19, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

TOC of "The Tsar's Window"

While I'm proofreading the pages of The Tsar's Window, an epistolary novel (maybe?), somebody needs to fix the page that the chapters of the novel will be transcluded to. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 00:43, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I went ahead and just transcluded the entire thing on one page for now for editing purposes. If its to much of a load to handle let me know.--Rochefoucauld (talk) 01:21, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

I just got through all the chapters AND I came across an image of a horseshoe at the last page of the last chapter. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 09:52, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenate or no?

Opinions sought—last line—this page: Should "sea-birds" remain hyphenated? Another version online does not help, as it breaks in the same spot. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:39, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Seabird can only be used in two ways 1."seabird" and 2."sea bird", is an alternative form of spelling as because it's a noun. Because there's a hyphen the author meant to spell it as "seabird", therefore it's "seabird." Although I will admit I have no idea of the history in the use of a hyphen considering it's from 1908...--Rochefoucauld (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

In my humble opinion and experience, I found numerous instances of end of line hyphenated words meant to justify the text. Although justification is not the case here, but end of line is, therefore I would not hyphenate this word in WS.— Ineuw talk 02:15, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Hyphenate it, per the last line of Page:The poems of Richard Watson Gilder, Gilder, 1908.djvu/47 Hesperian 02:35, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that find! I was just searching WS for support, but you can't really argue with support from within the same text. All input appreciated! Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:44, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call Hesperian.— Ineuw talk 02:48, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Calling from London, Jack. Leave it as the book shows it and keep on booking. —Maury (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Good call Hesperian.— —Maury (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Merging duplicates

I found a copy of Soctates Scholasticus' Ecclesiastical history here, and another copy here. Both of them are transcriptions of the same published work, A Select Library of the Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church, Second Series. I assume they should be merged somehow, but how is this done? Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:47, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

The latter looks more complete. I would just delete the first one.--Mpaa (talk) 22:18, 13 November 2014 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

You've redirected the primary page, but the three subsidiary pages have not been attended to. These should also be redirected, or perhaps deleted, depending on whether there are links to them (either on or off WS). --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Deleted.--Mpaa (talk) 18:00, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Paragraph break in footnote

Hi, on this page I had a footnote with a para break that wasn't displaying when it was coded as two returns. I added a {{nop}}, and that seemed to help. Is that the right approach, or is there a better way? Pelagic (talk) 13:02, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Added another approach, see if you like. Hrishikes (talk) 15:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I only knew about using <p> to force a paragraph break in footnotes, but I must admit, using {{nop}} certainly looks better in the code. I don't think there is a "right approach" unfortunately. djr13 (talk) 16:13, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

I've tended to use <br/><br/>, but mainly because I don't know why inserting blank lines doesn't achieve the desired result. I'd like to have some of the other code-minded folks here comment on the use of {{nop}} in this situation, because it's certainly the most elegant and easily explained solution, if it doesn't lead to any unwanted effects. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Using <br/><br/> is perhaps a bad idea, both for appearance and possible accessibility reasons. <br/> is purely visual while <p></p> actually indicates a new paragraph. djr13 (talk) 16:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

The problem I have with using <p> is that it's an opening tag, usually with no closing </p> tag to accompany it. It only works as a hack. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

You can use both, and in fact that can even help. For example, if you have a three paragraph footnote, you can code it like this: "<ref>Paragraph 1<p>Paragraph 2</p>Paragraph 3</ref>", and nothing stops you from enclosing the second, or fourth, etc paragraph even if there is no other paragraph that follows it. Although I haven't checked if there are any problems if the second, fourth, etc paragraph is split across a page. djr13 (talk) 17:36, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I feel naughty using a naked <p> without closing </p>; though bad XHTML, I think it's allowable again in HTML5? Structurally, "<ref><p>Paragraph 1</p><p>Paragraph 2</p></ref>" would be more correct, as the two paragraphs are sibling parts of the parent ref. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

For the 10,000 time.... if you want "something" to ALWAYS appear, render, qualify-as and stay a paragraph across the wiki marked-up world, as well as in any printing/conversion normal HTML compliant world (let's say into a PDF) - you should wrap that "something" in opening <p> and closing </p> paragraph tags; end of story. While anything else might appear correct to the eye, you are just dancing with the wiki mark-up &/or dancing around the HTML specification to get that faux reality. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:00, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

GO3, according to my count it's only 5,632 times and not more.— Ineuw talk 20:30, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

If we took that to its extreme conclusion, then we'd all be using pure HTML markup instead of dancing with the wikicode. A possible down-side of <p>...</p> is that tools which deal directly with the wiki code would have to be written to cope with both the wiki-style blank line and the HTML-style <p> tags, if they wanted to detect semantic paragraphs. But I take your point, George, that <p>...</p> is robust. A future change to Wikimedia software could possibly break some uses of {{nop}}. The problem is that we don't really know why the two-line-breaks method doesn't work within a <ref>. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

"Dancing with the wikicode" here is a symptom of not being Wikipedia. Their mission is to foster the ease of ongoing discussions as they relate to material never considered to be finished or at least always in a state flux. It makes complete sense to apply formatting "shortcuts" via symbolic equivalents in their case. Our mission is to faithfully reproduce published works as close as possible to the original. It makes absolutely no sense to follow Wikipedia's lead here because our products can and do have a finite "end-point" - a point where a product becomes static and theoretically falls away from the need to make any further changes or amendments to it from then on.

But if you're still gun-shy about utilizing straight tags here on Wikisource, you can always check-out {{P}}aragraph tag & {{Span tag}} to see if they suite your needs for any given scenario or not. (Additional comments a bit further down) -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, for the feedback, everyone. For what it's worth, I did "show source" on the {{nop}} and <p> versions, and they both have the same HTML code. The structure is like <li> <span class>paragraph1</span> <p><span class>paragraph2</span></p> </li>. I don't know if they are served up that way; conceivably the browser may have built the same DOM from different HTML and be generating the "source" from its internal representation. Pelagic (talk) 12:08, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

LI = "line item" has never been all that well defined (css = display:line-item;) nor understood in all the history of the HTML specification when it came to element behavior and sub-element handling . Generally, most consider the closest equivalent to display:line-item; to be display:inline-block without the added ability of automatically generating the target item (the number or letter offset to the left in every [OL] list) that display:list-item does).

I suspect its those poorly defined nuances in line-item [LI] causing wiki mark-up to "break-down" when wrapping more than one other chunk or line of text. I've made the leap here that the inline in inline-block (closest equivalent to display:list-item) is causing -duh- multiple text-blocks separated by what normally causes a paragraph break between the two bodies of text under wiki mark-up to render "up against each other" in an inline manner instead. Using [P] for instances of two or more bodies of text under [LI] forces the desired separation of text chunks to break without the reliance of the [failed] wiki mark-up's expected behavior coming into play at all.

In those instances where there is only a single chunk or line of text content under an LI tag, there is no such issue. It seems that single, un-broken chunk or line of text reaps the benefits of block rather than inline in display:inline-block in spite of being - as you've noted in the source after a save - an inline element ([SPAN] = display:inline).

I'm sure there are ways to overcome this particularity using some elegant CSS defining or similar but, as stated before, you'd still wind up dancing with or tip-toeing around one [HTML spec.] or the other [wiki mark-up] at some point in your editing life here - making all this an academic exercise at best. Hope that made sense. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:46, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Minor edits

I'm not sure when to tick that box. What constitutes a minor edit on Wikisource?

On Wikipedia, basic fixes to grammar or punctuation are generally considered minor, but here I suspect even amending a single character could be non-minor. What about if I change a page from Proofread to Validated without any modifications (because there were no errors)? Is that still non-minor because it involves a status change?

Pelagic (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

The answer to that question will vary a bit from editor to editor here. My own very general rule of thumb is that a minor edit makes no (or very little) visual difference in the result (such as removing superfluous spaces or changing the way the coding is done), or if it will correct a small error that I made myself in the previous edit just moments before (such as just finishing a proofread, but then realizing a small-caps template is needed at the outset). I do not consider it minor if I've corrected OCR errors, and it is never minor to change the status of a page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, EncycloPetey. — Pelagic (talk) 12:07, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

History of Hungarian Literature Page 34

How do I deal with page page 34 of "A History of Hungarian Literature"? Especially its two different reference bullet points? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

@Lo Ximiendo: How is this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:04, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

The correct way of doing footnotes is to use <ref>…</ref> tags. See Help:Footnotes and endnotes for more details. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:18, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

You can see a specific use on Page:A history of Hungarian literature.djvu/14. If not done this way, then the text will not transclude correctly into the Main namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 18 November 2014 (UTC)

Special:ShortPages

I see nothing but those in page namespace in this special page as far as 5500 pages. Hopefully we will be able to choose which namespace to see or not to see in the future.--Jusjih (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

It would require a bugzilla request to get any difference, though I am not sure that this report will ever be useful for us. The main ns works are usually small as they don't contain the text, just the <pages> transclusion component. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Getting the WMF to do anything with the built in reports is pretty unlikely. Its not a very exciting task and some of the projects have been begging for changes for years that still haven't been done. Wanted pages routinely kicks out Templates and categories and talk pages even though these all have their own wanted Special pages. There are some things that could be done but I am not sure if they would be allowed here. For example if we added a sufficient length history statement to the Zero byte pages in the Short pages list that contain no text, it would remove them from the short pages list. It could also explain to new folks like why they are blank without actually changing anything to the visible rendering of the page. We could also create a bot that creates our own report rather than rely on the built in ones that never worked very well. It probably wouldn't be very hard for me to craft the SQL code to run it but it would require someone with Labs access and who would be willing to run the job. I'm not that familiar with the database table structure for Wikisource though so it might take some tinkering. In fact after doing a little checking ENWP has a report for long pages with the code available here. So we could use that as a baseline. Again though, I don't know how it works here yet, but I wanted to offer a couple suggestions. Reguyla (talk) 15:33, 3 November 2014 (UTC)

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T75136

Fwiw... a similar issue with the Draft namespace doing the same on Wikipedia has a Bugzilla already. It might be worth following/adding to. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:04, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

A switch to let you choose the namespace might be easy, in which case we might be able to find someone to do it. If you want, I'll file the request. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:09, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Works contained in other works

If a work is contained in another work, not as a section in a collection, but for example a poem that is cited in its entirety, should it be made a separate work with its own page in mainspace?

For example, the translation of Veni Creator Spiritus by John Dryden is cited in full in The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church/Veni Creator Spiritus, and it has also been transcluded into its own page: Creator Spirit, by whose aid

Another example: the Book of Common Prayer (1892) contains many prayers which are not original to that work, and some of them have been given their own pages:

• Lord's Prayer
• Apostles' Creed

Both of which are taken from Book of Common Prayer (1892)/Morning Prayer.

Is there any sort of guideline on how, or if at all, this should be done?

Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:20, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I can't say for certain but one thing to bear in mind is that even if the text as such is identical things like formatting may not be so it could still be worthwhile to transcribe the same content or virtually identical content in two separate places. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: would be the best person to recomend how to deal with this situation as she is doing quite a bit of work in the poetry space. The BCP example is probably not the best to follow as the Lord's Prayer appears in several parts of the book including Morning Prayer, Evening Prayer, and Holy Communion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I work mostly with {{disambiguation}} and {{versions}} pages with poetry, and Billinghurst has mentioned those methods below. It is a good way to have each work represented. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:21, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I have separately transcluded a work from an existing work where it is included in full, not an excerpt, and it is incidental to the work itself. So the full poem, full psalm, etc. Where I have done that I do it by putting section tags around the work, and transcluding to the name of the work, and in the notes I cite the source, and don't put it as a subpage of the original work (it is one of those exclusions from normal). Of course, we can create a redirect to a version of a work and utilise an anchor to direct.

That said, in the case that you cite "Book of Common Prayer (1892)" the published works are not incidental to the publication, they are the publication and should be dealt with as subpages of the work. In situation like this if it is the only version of "Lord's Prayer" we would put in a redirect to the work. If it is just one of a number, then we would have either a {{disambiguation}} or a {{versions}} page to direct the user to all the variations that we host. Each version is published, and each is worthy of its own presentation, especially through time, and through expanding geography of publication. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

So, based on what you are saying, this is what I understand, and I am going to use the Dies Irae as an example: the seven translations of Dies Irae that are included in The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church would be considered incidental to the work, and should be transcluded separately and listed on the {{translations}} page as separate works, instead of the list of links to anchors in The seven great hymns that I had put there originally. However, the translation of Dies Irae in The Catholic Prayer Book and Manual of Meditations is not incidental to the work, as it forms part of the Service for the Dead, so it should be listed on the {{translations}} page as a link to the anchor in The Catholic Prayer Book. Is that right? I had been doing it with anchors all along, until I came across "Creator Spirit, by whose aid" which had been separately transcluded. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Separating columns

Does anyone know how to edit this table to separate selected columns with vertical lines? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:04, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Done. Moondyne (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks!

Second question: On this page, why are the footnotes displaying above the table? The table needs to span two pages, so is there a way to correct this without using a klodgy work-around? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

I was going to refer you to Help:Page_breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks, but upon review it does not explicitly cover this case; nor in fact do I think it is worded particularly clearly (or indeed even correctly—e.g. what are the leading {{nop}}s in the headers even achieving?) 121.216.68.33 04:15, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! The simple fix makes sense. And yes, there are a lot of these special situations not covered anywhere here in writing as far as I know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Oops. Upon further checking those "peculiarly placed" {{nop}}s were so documented by our own dear @Hesperian: thus. Perhaps he might be so kind as to reconfirm their placement? (i.e. should they appear at the end of the header blocks instead of at the top? Or are they in fact correct as shown and my interpretation faulty instead [in which case a more detailed explanation might be appreciated]) 101.175.176.10 06:23, 25 November 2014 (UTC) (Yes: I know, I was 121.216.68.33 above. Just blame PPPoA negatioation!)

Table syntax only works if "{|" etc. appear at the start of a line. Previously the templates and/or PHP code that were responsible for pulling a sequence of pages into a single page did not start each page on a new line, so table syntax would break whenever a page started with or within a table. The {{nop}}s were the solution to this. I have no idea whether or not they are still required. Hesperian 12:56, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

They are still required. However, following the instructions for spanning pages does not work as given; additional coding is needing, e.g. "|-". And the instructions don't handle the situation where there are both footnotes and a page-spanning table. Without an explanation of what the {{nop}} is doing, I had to ask for help in figuring this out. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

{{nop}} gives information on what it does, which is basically be a placeholder while mediawiki does its iteration of presentation, and it is akin to the magic done for {{=}} and {{!}}.

If the instructions don't carry every permutation, then it is probably a situation that wasn't thought about at the time (so add it), or maybe all the edge cases made the instructions confusing (maybe add it to the pages about references), or there are other MW changes that have been made that have made for a new situation (so add it). To also note that there are a couple of variations to how to span tables, so what is provided there is one person's examples of what worked, rather than the single definitive means of how to do table spanning pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:44, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

requesting upload help

Hi,

Due to some unresolved technical issue at my end not been able to download and upload a bilingual book. A book called Marathi proverbs (1899) by Alfred Manwaring is mainly a translation book using english language available on archive .org. I am requesting help in getting the same uploaded at commons and en wikisource.

My further plan is to some how upadate and incorporate same at Marathi wikibooks Marathi language learning page in en wikibooks in course of time.

Thanks and regards

Mahitgar (talk) 07:26, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Mahitgar: From some research of sources the author was born 1855, and doesn't look to have died until 1950 which means that the work cannot go to Commons. Due to the multilingual nature of the work, to me it looks like it should be hosted at oldwikisource: due to the amount of mixture nature of the language through it, and with the work only being available at one site. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

England Birth[1]
Births Jun 1855
MANWARING Alfred Worthing 2b 261

England Death[2]
Deaths Mar 1950
Manwaring Alfred 94 Hastings 5h 339

My other sources are 1932 edition of Crockford's clerics that shows him as the author or the work, living in Sussex, and ordained in 1879 (which is usually when they are in early-mid 20s). 1911 England census has an Alfred Manwaring, a cleric, b.1855; and the 1861 census shows him the son of William (baker, grocer, postmaster) and Eliza in Broadwater, Sussex. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The work's explanation and prose is mainly in English and geared for speakers of English. I think the work would be fine here, and would be better served by putting it here. Oldwikisource may have some works, but I've yet to ever see one of them. Their Main Page makes it look as if they don't host anything and the site is impossible to navigate. It would be better to not put up a work at all than to waste time hosting it there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for your support in copyright status research. I searched Marathi leanguage sources but could not get any info in Marathi language.

I suppose he worked for Church Mission Society either in Nasik or Bombay region. this mention shows he was at Nasik and probaly refernce in this document may also be related to him. I found another of his title on line at this location.

Your last Sussex guess (son of William) seems to be nearest (but not sure). If we consider average 100 yrs life we shall need to calculate atleast to 1955. Indian copyright act brings books 60 yrs after death so the booke may come in public domain in indian some where in 1956 unless any previous death year gets confirmed. I do not know about UK copyright laws. So I suppose unless we get any more info it is safer to wait for another year (i.e. Jan 2016 per Indian copyright laws) before we upload the book.

About project sutabilty I gave thought and prefer en wikisource since it will be better to advert, seek and divert support of mr-wiki people at limited projects like en wikisource and mr wikisource for me. As such the said book is mainly in english and limited text in devnagari script.

Thanks again and seasons greetings

Mahitgar (talk) 07:03, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Creating a Page

Hi all, I'm trying to explore and help out in different Wikimedia projects. I stumbled across Wikisource and found it contained a library full of texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I've also found a website online here that contained all the texts from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I wanted to copy some articles into Wikisource but I don't know if this is correct.

For example, the first article in the ever 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica was about the A107. Wikisource doesn't have a page on it. So is it possible for me to create 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/A107 and copy and paste the text in? Thanks, TheQ Editor (talk) 20:59, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

While it is possible to copy and paste in text for the EB1911, we prefer to have the information proofread in the Page namespace, and transcluded in the article. For example, the article on Critias is transcluded from this page of Volume 7. The EB 1911 is one of the few organized projects here, with many editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:13, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

CoI and own book (published by reputable source)

Hi all,

I am the author of Open Access and the Humanities, an open-access book itself under a CC BY-SA license and published by Cambridge University Press. I would be interested in knowing if WikiSource would be interested in having a copy/version and, if so, what I need to do to militate against conflict of interest. The book has been peer reviewed and published by a reputable entity, but I appreciate that I have biased placement as the author. I did, however, deliberately choose a BY-SA license so that inclusion in WikiSource and other such projects might be possible.

MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It falls within our scope, and is therefore welcome here. As for conflict of interest, I should think that all we need is disclosure (achieved above) and continued mindfulness. Welcome aboard Martin. Hesperian 11:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Many thanks for the speedy response and warm welcome! I will wait for my account to become confirmed and will then work on this, including a disclosure on the talk page or another appropriate space. MartinPaulEve (talk) 11:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

formatting suggestions sought for inscriptions

How should I handle formatting for these inscriptions? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:04, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

If you think the last line being centered and the rest justified is worth capturing, there's a bit of formatting to handle that which works on some browsers, but not all. Prosody (talk) 01:14, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I would like to keep it as true to the text as possible, but I would also like to keep it as simple as possible (and browser-friendly). I also would not know how to apply the coding/formatting based on the link you provided, being myself technically-challenged... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:28, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, GO3. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:39, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Accessing (.edu - type) Open Courseware Materials

Hi, I am currently experiencing a ton of DNS-issue related problems in accessing opencourseware content related to Utah Valley State College (specifically with accessing Joylin Namie's Sociocultural Anthropology course materials - ie. Podcasts), and would like some help. Where/how I can get the best help for these issues would be great!

On this site I tried a few of the links regarding accessing the content and recieved pages that were not available.

Please help! —unsigned comment by LliamShepherd (talk) .

The links that we have may be old, and no longer exist. If you are getting blocking errors, I would suggest that you talk to your ISP, there isn't much we can do for you. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

Soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites

As I have exported most amended Law of the Republic of China as evolving works to Wikibooks, do we have soft redirects to other Wikimedia sites, please?--Jusjih (talk) 06:41, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I would think that we would just link normally and state that they are at enWB. It is not impossible for us to have a Translation: ns page of a piece of law, so the portal page is a relevant page to keep. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

A broken redirect was left behind: Additional_Articles_of_the_Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_China_(2000). @Jusjih:, could you look into it?. Thanks.--Mpaa (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am adding soft redirects for long term.--Jusjih (talk) 08:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

Between Two Loves Title page and TOC

I just got finished proofreading the novel Between Two Loves. Now who wants to add the image at its title page and modify its table of contents? Fix the pages that mark a new chapter, particularly the quotes before the chapter starts? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 10:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

How about the quoted paragraph on the start of a chapter? --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 11:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Bracketed limits in TeX formulae

Work: Index:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu Pages: Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/292, Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/293

Issue: Square brackets have limits on them, which was not seemingly possible to render on the relevant lefthand side bracket, currently rendered on righthand bracket. Assistance from someoenw that knows TeX would be appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Suggestion: drop usage of \left and \right and substitute \Bigl and \Bigr respectively. You may then either:

1. superscript and subscript the symbol using normal _ and ^ methods, or
2. \overset and \underset the limits per (for example) Page:The_evolution_of_worlds_-_Lowell.djvu/289.

The choice essentially boils down to offset or vertical (my choice) alignment of the limit values. AuFCL (talk) 05:51, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Done, care to do a validation pass? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect with that many unaddressed problematic pages nobody is going to get interested in this work. Come back when you have a real request, rather than a whine. AuFCL (talk) 06:02, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

With respect to your respect I respectfully incline that I'm sure addressing this matter will fix many of the "unaddressed problematic pages" or at the very least give the ability to move forward in addressing many "unaddressed problematic pages." Much respect, --Rochefoucauld (talk) 16:07, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Custom layout

I'd like to define my own layout for books. To test, I copied the code at Help:Layout#How_to_write_dynamic_layouts to User:Chowbok/common.js, but I don't see any difference, and "My Layout" isn't coming up under the Display Options. Do I have the wrong idea on how this works, or did I miss something, or...? --Chowbok (talk) 06:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Dynamic layouts are not a personal/custom layout they are all system layouts. To affect personal changes you would need to utilise CSS code in your Special:MyPage/common.css. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

But that would affect how everything is displayed, right? I just want to have an alternative layout as an option under Display Options. Is that possible?Chowbok (talk) 17:24, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Books without Indexes?

How does it work if I want to edit a book that's already here, but there's no index or source for it? I assume those weren't used in the earlier days of this site. Should I add them as if it's a new project, or start a new project, or something else?--Chowbok (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

What is the name of the book? —Maury (talk) 07:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chowbok, you have started a new book, Index:The Confessions of a Well-Meaning Woman.djvu, and have done little on it. Why not complete what you have just started? That is already a "new project". We get too many partial books here the way you are doing. We are backed up with incomplete books started and abandoned for others here to finish. Try completing what you yourself start before looking for another one to start. —Maury (talk) 09:20, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Sheesh. "Done little"? I think I've done pretty well on that considering I just started it a couple days ago, and it's my first project. I can't even ask about other stuff? Guess you guys don't have a "don't bite the newbies" rule like at Wikipedia.Chowbok (talk) 17:10, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

If are looking to replicate an existing work with a scan-supported text, unless you are 100% certain that there is an exact version/edition match, then it would be a case of a separate version, and we would disambiguate the two versions, or maybe delete the version unsupported by a scan (an independent decision). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:44, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Chowbok, I did not know you are new here. You have done so much on Wikipedia and seem to know how to bring in a book and start working on it. But it is still "little done" when you start asking for other books and asking what should you do. I just answered your question and then asked you, Why not complete what you have just started? but I am not going to argue with you over my reply. The book you *started* awaits and is simple. No, you should not "start a new project". You should finish that short and simple book you started that I validated pages on. That book isn't difficult. Oh, it isn't "guys" (plural) you are replying to - it is one person being only myself. Do you want me to do that little book for you so that you can start on a more complicated one? —Maury (talk) 21:27, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

No, I'll finish it, thank you. As I said, and you can verify this, I'm making pretty good progress on it, little as it may be. Sorry for even thinking about the future. I promise I won't even talk about other projects until I've finished this miniscule book you so sneeringly refer to.--Chowbok (talk) 21:47, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Since you are "new" here, and I didn't know as stated above, you are going far better than "pretty good". I didn't intend to mean the book is on a nanoscale. Peace be with you, —Maury (talk) 22:12, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

my first proofread page

My first proofread page at:

http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:15_decisive_battles_of_the_world_Vol_1_%28London%29.djvu/101&action=history

seems to have a problem that I don't understand. Please help if you can.

The first footnote seems to have a space before the "big dot" which is supposed to be an "asterisk" (*). What did I do wrong? or is it because I use Mozilla Firefox? All help appreciated as I try to be helpful making improvements to Wikisource.

KenJ

---

• KenJ

*KenJ

Look at how the asterisk works above. That volume states this at the top: "Source file must be fixed before proofreading". The guys that started that volume found out that pages are missing. That is shown. It should not be worked on until those pages can be found and inserted from another source.

You did not do anything wrong with the asterisk. They are like that when they touch the left margin. We just know to remove it when it is time to use the text that follows that "big dot".

Several of us here use Mozilla Firefox. I am using the newest version now 30.0.5

I have done that page you are writing about. Look at it now and compare the before and after to see the way the asterisk and cross footnotes are now used and how they appear both under "edit" the page and when page wasn't edited. Once a page is edited you click the yellow circle under the page to indicate the page has been proofread.

Register your name or alias as shown at the beginning of wikisource. Then instead of signing you type 4 tildes in a row and save. That automatically saves your name and user page and talk page. The reason for registering is so those internet service providers that you use will not show in the message above. Some people don't worry about it and don't do this which is fine but it is safer to register - especially if you get into an argument (rare here) and someone wants to track you like you encounter using Google search engine and other search engines and websites.

I am now going to type those four (4) tildes in a row but what will show is my name and talk page. Please find a different book because of the problem with the one you worked on and asked about. I hope that this reply helps you. Happy Holidays !, —Maury (talk) 09:32, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

Problem with MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in Ukrainian Wikisource

Hi! We are using MediaWiki:PageNumbers.js in Ukrainian Wikisource, it works fine, but we've got a problem with one specific page. If you go to this page in Chrome, the link to page 58 will be not shown. In Firefox everything is fine. Can anybody help me to find the cause of this issue? --DixonD (talk) 17:02, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Works for me in Firefox. I can see the page number. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:56, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

That was sort of the point DixonD was making. I also use Firefox (and the page reference works) which is why I did not feel it worthy of mention before. Now can some kind Chrome user try/verify/analyse this issue? AuFCL (talk) 07:41, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it works in Firefox and IE. It doesn't work in Chrome and Safari (I guess because they both use WebKit). --DixonD (talk) 11:26, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Fwiw... it works in IE 11's F12 Developer Tools using Chrome emulation. Granted, that is not the same thing as running Chrome itself but its been fairly consistent with actual Chrome behavior in my experience.

Since I can't replicate the problem, I have to ask: are the embedded links for 59 on also not rendering?

And as an aside; my console is also reporting several instances of Use of "addOnloadHook" is deprecated. Use jQuery instead. (see here) which could be affecting things related to this particular issue. Someone who knows better than I should be able to help straighten that out. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:27, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

User:Ignatus/Old Russian birch barks

I wanted to translate into Wikisource some birch barks from http://gramoty.ru. What do you think about this idea and the way I'm using for it? Ignatus (talk) 15:19, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Maybe have each artefact as a separate subpage, and put the "commentary" in the notes section of the header? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Update Easton's Bible Dictionary total pages and percentage

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Talk:Easton%27s_Bible_Dictionary_%281897%29#Status

I've updated the number of pages on the above, but could someone please update the total and percentage of pages. It has a maths percentage template and I'm not good at maths. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:55, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:30, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

categories link in header broken

Something changed recently, so that the {{header}} template no longer seems to link correctly to categories whose name includes an apostrophe.

See this version where the problem is manifested. I have cludged a workaround for now by moving the category in question out of the header. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:32, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

I think it has more to do with Module:String -- which is called by the header template to handle the category parameter -- than anything else. I'll have to ask someone over on Wikipedia to take a look so this might take awhile (unless somebody here has the chops to troubleshoot this of course). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

(e/c)I would hazard it was this edit to {{header}} which is most likely responsible. I might further guess that the pattern group [%w%s-] which occurs twice therein should probably be amended to at least [%w'%s-] (i.e. add single quote to match element) as %s does not match any punctuation. Further analysis of allowed characters is probably justified.) AuFCL (talk) 01:28, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Made that change and it seems to work now. We'll deal other punctuation failures as they present themselves I suppose. Thanks for the fix, AuFCL. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:14, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Here is a short list of existing representative categories (a couple of whom are empty and perhaps ought to be deleted instead?) of cases which still trip up the LUA filters:

1. Category:"Danforth Report" documents
2. Category:0%
3. Category:? births
4. Category:Bangkok Metropolitan Administration Act, BE 2528 (1985)
5. Category:Beck v. Eiland-Hall

I make no pretense this list is comprehensive, but bearing in mind the broad variety above may I make a case for replacing the overly-complicated coding (Honestly! One replace to remove the empty entry created in error by the other two?) in {{header}}:

   -->{{#if:{{{categories|}}}
|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|([%w'%s-]-)%s?/%s?|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|([%w'%s-]-)$|[[Category:%1]]|plain=false}}|%[%[Category:%]%]||plain=false}}
}}<!--

with the somewhat simpler (though still ugly)

   -->{{#if:{{{categories|}}}
|[[Category:{{#invoke:String|replace|{{{categories}}}|(%s)/(%s)|%1]][[Category:%2|plain=false}}]]}}<!--

? I appreciate the output of the latter is not stripped of spaces like the original code; the wiki engine really does not seem to care and still finds the correct category (at least in all my experiments to date. Feel free to verify/repudiate, please.) AuFCL (talk) 05:42, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Partial scan page in edit window

I am able to see only part of the scan page at this page, but the full page is visible on clicking the image button. Hrishikes (talk) 04:36, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Whilst I am sympathetic, as of right now the scan really does show up correctly for me. Did you perhaps purge the page (or possibly even the very act of your editing the page "fixed" the issue)? Is it still misbehaving for you? AuFCL (talk) 05:49, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

The page is now OK. I did not purge or did anything, I did not understand the mechanics. Anyway, now it's OK. Hrishikes (talk) 06:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

Sad to say sometimes these things "just happen" and after the problem goes away there is nothing really logged to indicate what had gone wrong. All I can suggest is, if it happens again try, in turn, each of the page operations "Purge", "Hard purge" and "Null edit" (all available from the tab-menu at the top of the page—may be hidden under the "More" tab.) I do not mean you need to execute all three operations; merely try one and see if the problem goes away and if not move on to the next choice and repeat. These tend to fix most problems, but of course in cases of stubborn failure ask again for assistance as the cause in that case might then still vary from server/database connection problems to system/javascript errors etc. etc. (Unlikely but possible.) AuFCL (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

No, the problem is still persisting in my tablet. Previously I had checked with my mobile, and there the page is OK. But not in the tab. I have tried all your given methods; null edit fails, and purge/hard purge does not give any result in this case. Sorry for bothering, but I am not able to fix it. Does not much matter, I think, as it is OK with other browsers. Hrishikes (talk) 11:23, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Right at present I have completely run out of useful ideas. However in order to assist anybody else who might be able to solve this issue here are some thoughts as to items it might be good to collect and report (in no particular priority; skip items which make no sense/are impossible):

• What make and model is the tablet?
• Are there particular pages which always show the partial scan problem (which ones?) or is it intermittent and/or random (i.e. sometimes works)?
• Do you know which browser it/you are using? Please report its name and version number.
• Does the tablet/browser have any kind of javascript or error console/log, and if so does it contain any messages which might help diagnose the problem?
• Are you using the standard browser referrer/user-agent? (This probably only makes sense if you have taken deliberate steps to change it.)
• Can you think of anything else which makes your tablet/browser "different" from a browser on which the problem never (or rarely) occurs?

Pardon the dump of questions and I hope somebody can take up this cause with more success than I. AuFCL (talk) 20:16, 28 December 2014 (UTC)

It's Galaxy Tab3, Chrome 38.0.2125.114. I think it's more to do with the cache from some earlier time, having some network problem at that time. This cache is not going away with purging. This is the only page where this problem is occurring. Please don't bother, it's not very important, this page being the only one. Hrishikes (talk) 00:29, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

Apparent "automatic" edits in Page: space—Is there something going wrong with Show changes/Preview?

If I open any Page: name space containing pre-existing header or footer content for editing, and immediately select "Show changes" I am presented with a display which implies the "Page status" has been forced to "Not proofread" from whatever it was before; and that both the header and footer areas have been blanked. That is to say the "Difference" display acts as if they are blank, but the actual header and footer edit areas remain intact.

In similar fashion "Preview" always shows the salmon "This page needs to be proofread." band irrespective of the current or intended state of the page.

However insofar as I can tell, both of these displays are "lying," because when actually saved only content actually edited changes.

This "fault" only manifests itself when I am logged in. "Preview" and "Show changes" perform flawlessly when logged out (but of course it is then impossible to change validation states.)

I have tried disabling various preference/gadgets/local scripting to no avail, and am currently quite out of ideas.

Is this perhaps a known issue? I like to be able to check preview before saving changes but can I put any trust into what it is reporting? AuFCL (talk) 04:25, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not getting this behavior at my end. It may have to do with your preferences, cache, connection, or some such, but it does not appear at this time to be a general phenomenon. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:57, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

I am also not getting any such phenomenon. Must be local problem at your end. Hrishikes (talk) 05:00, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks both for your observations. I remain at a loss. This is more of an annoyance than an outright disability. AuFCL (talk) 06:03, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

Additional: George Orwell III isolated this. Side-effect of having Preferences/Live Preview selected. Thanks all! AuFCL (talk) 06:47, 31 December 2014 (UTC)