Wikisource:Scriptorium

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Proposals

Request that English Wikisource be added to Commons deletion notification bot

Per an earlier discussion, it sounds like it would be useful for Wikisource to be notified when files in use here are nominated for deletion on Commons. The Commons deletion notification bot run by the WMF Community Tech team provides such a service. We just have to have local consensus for using the bot and then make a request on Phabricator. If you have any opinion about this, please make it known below. Nosferattus (talk) 02:16, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support - not only useful for copyright reasons but for the fact that for almost every Index, there are hundreds of page namespace pages that would have to get mass-deleted / mass-moved etc. every time something is deleted, so better to know ahead of time to prepare our admins for that in advance. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:40, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

provisional support—provided that the notifications are restricted to files that are relevant to enWS and that the notifications are prior to deletion rather than post-deletion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:42, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support, would be useful to be able to import files. @Beeswaxcandle: From what I can see of this bot's edits, it only makes "file has been nominated for deletion" pings, which are pre-deletion. Also, it only notifies a Talk: page when a file used on it or on its item is getting nominated, so I don't think we're going to get flooded by irrelevant files. — Alien  3
3 3 06:29, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support per all above. We should not be caught unawares by actions on another project. BD2412 T 05:15, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 23 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support - Very useful. The bot notifies by posting a message on the first 10 talk pages of a page where a Commons file is being used, upon the file being nominated for deletion. Ciridae (talk) 16:53, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support —Tcr25 (talk) 22:44, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

 Support and prepare to move things here accordingly.--Jusjih (talk) 00:58, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource:Translations proposed for becoming a guideline

Wikisource:Translations, originating in 2013, has always been taken into serious account here and treated as if it were an official policy. A short time ago it was noted that it has not undergone any official vote, and so I am proposing it now to become an official guideline. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

Voting

•  Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose. The restrictions on original translations are too heavy, I think, for this proposal to be legitimated. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)
• Tentative  Support I'd like to see the clarification mentioned below to the guideline, but in general I'm in favor of the proposal. Update to full support. —Tcr25 (talk) 22:54, 27 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Support — Alien  3
  3 3 09:27, 28 December 2024 (UTC)
•  Oppose because the policy on original translations says that works "incomplete and abandoned for long periods" can be deleted. I think that this is against the spirit of Wikisource, which, like Wikipedia, is always a work in progress. There is always the possibility that a long abandoned project can later be picked up by another user; we wouldn't delete an English language transcription simply for being incomplete, so I don't think that we should delete a translation for being so either. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:40, 28 December 2024 (UTC) striking my vote per Xover prospectprospekt (talk) 21:05, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support making this a policy. In fact it is one of the strongest policies we have, because it was the subject of extensive community discussion through the RFC mechanism. What it lacks is a mostly pro forma !vote to label it as policy.
  However, I support the existing policy page being promoted; not the moving target being hashed out in the discussions below. First promote the existing policy then make separate proposals for the changes being discussed. For example, The Knickerbocker Gallery/Ad Fontium Nymphas is not a translation covered by the translation policy. Changing the policy text for this case makes little sense to me (at present; I am absolutely persuadable on the point). I have similar issues with the other proposed change. --Xover (talk) 10:56, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

  I might be missing something, but I brought up The Knickerbocker Gallery/Ad Fontium Nymphas as an example of an original language text that's not on Latin Wikisource, but for which a translation has been made (Translation:The Knickerbocker Gallery/Ad Fontium Nymphas). A strict reading of the policy would require the poem to be on Latin Wikisource before a translation could be hosted on English Wikisource. —Tcr25 (talk) 01:51, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  I personally understand this concern, and support adding it to the guideline. Although it makes sense that we should probably first accept de iure the text which has de facto already been used as a policy for many years – among others, it is linked from the {{No translator info}} template, from Wikisource:Annotations policy, and has been used as a basis in numerous RfD discussions – this particular change is not really big, and so if it gets support in the discussion below, it can imo be added straight-away. Otherwise, a separate vote can be triggered subsequently. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:33, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes. The point of the restriction is (in part) to make sure contributors do not just create a translation on enWS, but in fact proofread the work on its original language Wikisource too. Having a loose poem translation from an English language original does not aid this goal. This is why I do not want to make changes simultaneously with the !vote: what's being suggested is actually a substantive change to the policy. It's possible Translation:The Knickerbocker Gallery/Ad Fontium Nymphas is a sufficiently relevant edge case to merit adjusting the policy to accommodate it, but I'd want that as a proper separate discussion where we also look at specific wording and consequences. Xover (talk) 08:42, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

•  Support--Jusjih (talk) 00:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Support. Though I have a couple of minor quibbles, the page has had all serious issues ironed out, and is being regarded as guiding policy at this point. To my mind, the vote simply formalizes the community position. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:25, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
•  Oppose — The restrictions on original translations are too stringent. The requirement that a scan-supported original work exist on some Wikisource would rule out many of our existing translations, and the requirement to have one translation per original work doesn't take into account that, as explained earlier in the proposal, different translations will satisfy different needs. Dmoews (talk) 05:33, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it would, and have you actually looked at (most of) those existing translations? The quality is in general extremely poor, and they cannot be improved reliably because there is no original scan to work from. In practice these are user-generated pseudo-editions that we are allowing users to self-publish on Wikisource. We do not allow users to host their own "improved" version of War and Peace (or reconstructed Cardenio or…) in English, so why in the world would we allow those things just because they are translations? Xover (talk) 08:24, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've looked at the four translations from German (1, 2, 3, 4) linked from Arnold Sommerfeld, which were done by D.H. I think they have some value, although they don't comply with the proposed bureaucratic policy. Still, if you want to check how good or bad they are, it's easy enough, since there are external original-language scans which are linked (#2, 3, 4) or easy to find (#1. In this case there is an original-language transcript on the multilingual Wikisource with a link to an external original-language scan.) The proposed policy would not make it much easier. Dmoews (talk) 17:36, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Discussion

The restrictions on original translations are more than necessary, and in fact they have already been applied for a long time. The main reason is that patrolling original translations would be too difficult without this rule, because the patroller would have to to check 1) the original used for translation and 2) the translation itself. If the translation is based on a scanbacked original in the appropriate language wikisource, we can focus only on patrolling the translation itself. This is still a very difficult task, given the low number of people who do the patrolling here (and especially the low number of people who patrol translations), so refusing this rule would be a huge step back. Of course the situation would be different if there were crowds of patrolling volunteers, but there are not. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:20, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

The bit I have a question about is "A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation." There are instances where, for example, an untranslated work is included in a work that is otherwise all in English (for example, "Ad Fontium Nymphas" in The Knickerbocker Gallery). In a case like that, so long as the Latin text is scanbacked and linked to with the rest of the English document, it shouldn't require adding a version to the Latin Wikisource to back an original translation. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:36, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That is reasonable. In fact no rule can cover all possibilities that may arise in reality, and so various specific cases are usually dealt with individually. In doubts there is always a possibility to start a specific-case discussion where any rule can be overruled by the community. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:03, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

Just to head off possible issues, I'd suggest adding something like "If a non-English work is included in a scan-supported work otherwise eligible for inclusion on English Wikisource, a link to that work will suffice." to the guideline. —Tcr25 (talk) 22:53, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with this, and if there is no opposition, it can be included. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:17, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

@Tcr25: And what about "If a non-English work is included in a scan-supported work present on English Wikisource, a link to that work will suffice"? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:35, 27 December 2024 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. —Tcr25 (talk) 01:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Incomplete and abandoned

Wikipedia and Wikisource are projects in neverending progress as a whole, but they differ as for their elementar parts. While WP articles are always a work in progress, this is not true about individual works in WS, which, once proofread and validated, are finished and only minor improvements like correcting overlooked typos can take place there afterwards. The problem with WS translations is that we (unlike Wikipedia) can rarely expect that somebody will continue an abandoned work. There are zillions of books worth translation, and from time to time a dedicated contributor picks one of them to translate, but if they stop working without finishing it, the translations simply stay unfinished. Unfinished translation is much more difficult to continue than unfinished profreading of some index, and so they tend to pile up. Even without this rule being accepted, the current practice has been deleting translations which have been abandoned for many years without anybody noticing them. If this point were a real obstacle for the rule to be accepted, it could be changed of course, but it would be better if it stayed there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:15, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

BTW, the rule says it "can be deleted". The fact that a work appears to be abandoned does not mean it gets deleted automatically. It is always nominated at WS:Proposed deletions, where the community has a chance to decide about it being kept, if it is worth keeping. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:23, 28 December 2024 (UTC)

Maybe there's not much point writing "... can be nominated for deletion", though. After all, any page can at any time be nominated for deletion. Why not remove that? — Alien  3
3 3 16:27, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

That is OK with me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:29, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

The phrasing was used because of strident grandfathering of translations with no specific source text to translate, such as claims that works could not be deleted because they've been here for a long time. The phrasing was meant to say that a deletion discussion was a viable option, and deletion could not be objected to simply because of a translation's age or length. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:32, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Bot approval requests

• See Wikisource:Bots for information about applying for a bot status
• See Wikisource:Bot requests if you require an existing bot to undertake a task

User:Leaderbot

For meta:Global reminder bot - the bot will rarely run here, but this wiki requires explicit authorisation, so putting it here. Please ping me in a response. The bot flag is NOT required. Leaderboard (talk) 09:34, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle, is this something you can assist at? Thanks in advance. Leaderboard (talk) 08:36, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Given no opposition, as per the policy I am turning on the bot here, though I do not expect it to post anytime soon. Please let me know if there are issues. Leaderboard (talk) 06:07, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Repairs (and moves)

Designated for requests related to the repair of works (and scans of works) presented on Wikisource

See also Wikisource:Scan lab

Broken file title: "Star Film Catalogue 1905/1908"

Hello from a novice! I'm trying to proofread Georges Méliès's Complete Catalogue of Genuine and Original "Star" Films, but the filename of the scan is causing technical problems.

Years ago I uploaded the scan to Commons as "Star Film Catalogue 1908", which is an accurate name: this is the 1908 edition of the catalogue, listing films released from 1897 through 1908. However, just a few days ago some well-meaning editors renamed the file "Star Film Catalogue 1905," since the copyright page misleadingly says 1905. (Presumably Méliès saw no need to pay to register the updated edition for copyright, so he just carried over the copyright page from the 1905 edition.)

This rename has broken a lot of links on the Wikisource project; the backward/forward arrows for each page of the transcription no longer appear, and the up arrow has become a redlink. I've asked on Commons for the rename to be undone, but should I also take any action here to fix the broken links? If so, what? Many thanks for any advice. Lemuellio (talk) 15:08, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Apart from renaming the file, no, nothing to do as far as I know. — Alien  3
3 3 15:16, 29 December 2024 (UTC)

Page moves in Index:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu

The existing scan is incomplete, so I will be replacing it with a complete version. To support this, please carry out the following page moves.

• Index page name = Index:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu
• Page offset = 1 (i.e. /10 moves to /11)
• Pages to move = "10-456"
• Reason = "inserted missing pages"

Thanks Chrisguise (talk) 16:28, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

@Chrisguise: Done Xover (talk) 16:47, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I've uploaded the new file. Chrisguise (talk) 18:25, 4 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi, really sorry about this but I missed a couple of variations when I requested the move above. Could you please do the following:—

• Index page name = Index:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu
• Page offset = 1 (i.e. /115 moves to /116)
• Pages to move = "115-274"
• Page offset = -1 (i.e. /409 moves to /408)
• Pages to move = "409-454"
• Reason = "realigned pages"
• Delete = /705 & /706
• Reason = "pages not in work"

Thanks Chrisguise (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

Hi (again). Could you hold fire on this request. There's something odd going on with the index page. When I click on some pages they show a page image from the new file (gold trim to covers is visible) and some show the original file (plain brown cover edges visible). I've tried purging the Commons page where the file resides and the individual pages on WS, and things seem to be improving (slowly) but everything has clearly not properly updated yet. Chrisguise (talk) 14:42, 5 September 2024 (UTC)

@Xover Whilst there are still one or two pages of the old scan showing, they do not affect the pages needing to be moved. Could you do the two moves and deletion set out above? Thanks, Chrisguise (talk) 15:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

File:The Eye of Argon.djvu

Recently found that a near-complete scan of the fanzine this story appeared in (and confirming that it was printed with no copyright notice) was on the internet, so the existing partial scan can be moved to the new index.

• Pages to move:
  • Page:The Eye of Argon.djvu/1 -> Page:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf/1
  • Page:The Eye of Argon.djvu/2 -> Page:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf/28
  • ...
  • Page:The Eye of Argon.djvu/24 -> Page:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf/50
• Add pages Page:The Eye of Argon.djvu/25 and Page:The Eye of Argon.djvu/26 to File:OSFAn-10 (1970).pdf

-ei (talk) 00:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

It sounds as though the file needs to first be repaired to include the missing pages. The PDF is incomplete, and missing pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:29, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

Spectacles and eyeglasses, their forms, mounting, and proper adjustment

I foolishly renamed the PDF on Commons while transcribing, and it broke stuff.

• Index:Spectacles and eyeglasses, their forms, mounting, and proper adjustment (IA spectacleseyegla00phil).pdf renamed to
• Index:Spectacles and eyeglasses- their forms, mounting, and proper adjustment 1895 (2nd edition).pdf

What should I have done? HLHJ (talk) 15:12, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks to MarkLSteadman for fixing it. HLHJ (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Done with tranclusion updated. Let me know if I missed anything or you have any issues. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:30, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do, but it all seems to be working perfectly now. HLHJ (talk) 03:47, 12 November 2024 (UTC)

File:Cambridge Modern History Volume 1.djvu and File:Cambridge Modern History Volume 2.djvu

I think these files can be moved to Commons as they should be in the public domain in the UK too. Among all the editors and authors for volume 1, the latest death year is 1938 which puts it in the public domain in the UK and its publication date of 1902 puts it in the public domain in the US. The list of authors by chapter can be found here. Can someone validate this and move the files to Commons?

For volume 2, the latest death year is 1948, which should also be in the clear. Ciridae (talk) 17:59, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

Index:Fiddlers house Colum.djvu

Something has gone wrong. This page shows invalid interval and there are a number of pages which show nothing linking to them. I don't know enough to work out what needs to be done. @Packer1028, @ShakespeareFan00 @Xover - you have worked on this. Any ideas ? -- Beardo (talk) 03:10, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Beardo This file has been deleted at commons. commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Fiddlers house Colum.djvu. I discovered this by using that special purge button (the swirly arrow) found on index pages.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:14, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, but the file page contains the message "Do not copy this file to Wikimedia Commons." implying that there should be something there. Is that the problem - does the file need to be uploaded again there ? -- Beardo (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

It was migrated to a local copy because of the Commons deletion. That local copy on WS isn't rendering / parsed properly (as the File view shows 0 pages) which causes the Index page to not find anything to render. Why it is not parsed into pages on the File page I do not know, the file works downloaded to my local machine .... MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beardo I've removed the "Google page" and it looks fine. // M-le-mot-dit (talk) 15:24, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

@M-le-mot-dit - excellent. -- Beardo (talk) 18:18, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Index:Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908, Massey and Underhill).djvu

The file name has the authors name spelled wrong, by me, at IAUpload. It was annoying enough that there was a request to change the name. It will need to be moved at commons also, so I require a filemover there to complete this task here.

Index:Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908, Massey and Underhill).djvu to Index:Wireless Telegraphy and Telephony (1908, Massie and Underhill).djvu Thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

All Done on the wikisource side. Waiting for the commons rename request. — Alien  3
3 3 08:12, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:52, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Alien The transclusion (first page, chapters, and index) needs to have a name change.

<pages index="old.djvu" to index="new.djvu" />

I fixed the File:djvu and Category: at commons and wikidata; at least I hope I did. Russbot there moves files out of frequented categories that don't exist. I put that category on the bots list temporarily to see if the files get automatically moved. To be sure, I am not using the template correctly there and will remove it after the move. Usually, I try to avoid the Russbot. Nothing against Russbot, I just try to look before I drop something there.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:02, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I did change the <pages> tags to match the name change this morning, just have to purge out the cache. — Alien  3
3 3 17:15, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

jpgs to djvu

I uploaded the volume djvu for some articles that I had previously added here via jpg index. Unfortunately, I created the pages in the djvu and am unable to move the jpg page into the already exists djvu page.

Please move the contents of Index:The Goddesses from the Machine-1904 to (starting with) Page:Scribners-Vol 37.djvu/34

Thank you!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:12, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Done Please mark each of the jpg files for speedy deletion, as they are all redundant. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

The commons I grew up on would need more reason than this to delete them. I was getting ready to upload png of all the orig jp2 so that image work can be easier and/or proceed. Have things changed there?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Spring and all - William Carlos Williams.djvu

Showing "Error:Invalid interval". -- Beardo (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo I think this was just a file purging issue (I am assuming the index was proofread when the file was on commons, and that said file was recently moved to Wikisource, leading to the temporary invalid interval error). Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 04:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

@TeysaKarlov - thanks. So if we wait, should it just correct itself ? Or does something have to be done ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

Usually, the answer is purge the file (there's a purge clock gadget). It appears fixed to me, does it for you? — Alien  3
3 3 17:25, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

The Index looks fine now. (It didn't when I tried purging previously). The individual pages are still showing nothing in "what links here ?" - so there is still some sort of problem. -- Beardo (talk) 02:04, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's normal, WhatLinksHere always takes a while to actualise, like categories do. — Alien  3
3 3 06:21, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Ukpga 20000036 en.pdf

Could someone please move this to Index:Freedom of Information Act 2000 (UKPGA 2000-36 qp).pdf. ToxicPea (talk) 16:59, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

ToxicPea The file needs to be moved at commons and then the stuff that is here (everything else) can be moved. It is not a great name for a pdf file, but I have seen so much worse. Is it important to make the file have a standardized name or something like that? For sure, everything that I just wrote here might get blown off or shown up by an admin who just moves everything; but it might go more quickly if there is a standardization thing or something.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:53, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

The file was already moved at commons. I'm asking to move the index so that it matches the filename at commons. ToxicPea (talk) 20:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Should be Done. — Alien  3
3 3 07:01, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe

This is currently a combination of a versions page (listing a number of versions printed in the 1850s) and a top-level page for two volumes (1 and 2). However, the two volumes are actually from different editions (vol. 1 is from the 1850 ed., vol. 2 is from the 1859 ed.). I can clean up the versions page afterwards, but I need The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe/Volume 1 to be moved to The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe (1850)/Volume 1 (with sub-pages) and The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe/Volume 2 to be moved to The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe (1859)/Volume 2 (with sub-pages). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

Other discussions

Poem formatting

{{ppoem}}, made by Inductiveload in 2021, is, as far as I can see, better than the <poem> extension in all ways. It was not mentioned at Help:Poetry until Peteforsyth and I added it in April. We still tried to be about neutral and to describe all alternatives. I am thinking of making a proposal in the near future to deprecate <poem> in favor of ppoem, and officially state in all relevant places that poetry should be done with ppoem. The only real disadvantage I have seen to the template has been premature wrapping around {{di}}s, but that can be fixed easily and is anyhow not a breaking issue. Is anyone aware of others issues that would prevent officially recommending ppoem? Regards, — Alien  3
3 3 20:06, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

It would be helpful to note / illustrate that it works across pages inside ref tags, as especially the joining together of muti-page references has its own quirks. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:19, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Will do (assuming you mean about {{ppoem}}s in <ref follow=s centering with those before, not sure I understood correctly). — Alien  3
3 3 20:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Exactly. I have seen various templates break in that context caused by the slightly different behavior of the Cite extension parsing. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:43, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 08:57, 8 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333 I am not sure what you have in mind when you say deprecate <poem>, but are you aware that <poem> often appears in strange places, as a simple means of introducing line breaks? One of the more recent examples I could think of is Page:R Theranos Inc CMS 07-07-2016 Letter.pdf/32, noting that remembering where <poem> shows up for non-poetry uses is more the difficulty here (for not giving more examples), rather than the lack of random appearances of <poem>. For the record, I am not against the (sensibly biased) recommendation of ppoem for poetry, but am just trying to clarify what deprecating <poem> would involve. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It would only involve stating in the relevant WS/Help pages, that the preferred way to do poetry, for new works, is through ppoem. It would not involve replacing older uses of <poem>, and it would not be a ban, just a guideline.

On treating other line-based passages as poems: I've done it myself from time to time, but I don't see how it would be affected by this proposal. After all, {{ppoem}} is able to do that just as well as the poem tag.

(Also, I don't understand what you mean by "sensibly biaised", would you mind clarifying?)

— Alien  3
3 3 20:23, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333 Thanks for clarifying, and sorry for any confusion regarding 'sensibly biased', which just meant I agree with you (i.e.~it is sensible that you are biased in favor of ppoem, for poetry). Also, by default, doesn't ppoem automatically center? How would you simply generate a 'poem' with, e.g. left alignment and a 5em left offset like in the above example? Not saying you can't, just saying that I would like to know how you would (maybe also as an example on the ppoem or poetry pages, as every example for ppoem I can see is centered). Thanks, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:38, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

You can kill two birds with one stone with {{ppoem|style=margin-left:5em|...}}. It works like that because ppoem's centering is through margin:0 auto;. — Alien  3
3 3 20:56, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

@Alien333 Thanks (you make it seem too easy...). At any rate, would happily support your proposal. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 21:18, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

Also, as a side note: if this gets consensus, Help:Poetry and Template:Ppoem/doc should probably be merged/redirected one into the other, as it'll be the same content. — Alien  3
3 3 21:00, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

It shouldn't be the same content. Help:Poetry covers more than just the use of ppoem in its multifarious modes. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:53, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

{{ppoem}} appears to have the same primary issue that <poem> has; namely, that it uses explicit line breaks rather than paragraph breaks between stanzas. I think I'll stick to manual formatting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:51, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

I don't get what you're saying. {{ppoem}} uses \n\n (which I think was what you meant by explicit line breaks, correct me if not), as does ppoem, and as does manual formatting (well, it doesn't have to, but from looking at manual formatting pages you've done you seem to use that too). Also, I didn't understand what you meant by paragraph breaks (I'd have said \n\n, but that's what ppoem and <poem> already use). — Alien  3
3 3 08:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

{{ppoem}}, like <poem>, encodes the gap between stanzas as <br>. Specifically, {{ppoem}} renders it as <span class="ws-poem-break"><br></span>. Manual formatting, i.e. using the standard wiki parser, turns two line breaks into a paragraph break, </p><p>, which in my opinion is much preferable. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:04, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's an issue. This br (which btw I have just simplified into just a classed br as opposed to a br in a classed span) has position:absolute on it, so it is unrelated to the stanza spacing, which is done through .ws-poem-stanza:not(:last-child) { margin-bottom: 1em; } (and can be customised through index css). The use of this br is only for the content to copypaste correctly.

In a way, it's exactly the same as if it was </p><p>. The only difference is that it is </div><div>(as the br in the middle does nothing). It could be </p><p>, though, if you think semantic-wise it would make more sense (as nothing uses div.ws-poem-stanza). It must be said, though, that p tags have already have a lot of styling attached to them, so it's less practical. — Alien  3
3 3 19:39, 17 December 2024 (UTC)

One thing I don't like about {{ppoem}} as it is is that the HTML markup it produces is a lot more complex. This is due to the many <div> and <span> tags, which apply several CSS classes. By contrast, the HTML markup created by <poem> is a lot simpler. If there's some way to make {{ppoem}} produce simpler HTML, I would love for that to happen. Duckmather (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

• The only thing that was not useful, as far as I can see, is wrapping the br in span tags. I have replaced <span class="ws-poem-break"><br/></span> by <br class="ws-poem-break"/>, which is more concise. It is necessary for the linebreaks to have a class for them to not disrupt the layout, which is in fact only done through display:block and margin-bottom:1em (respectively on lines and stanzas). (Ppoem also has brs, by the way.)
• poem also has a parent container, used here to centre it, and adapt some other templates inside it (plus, can and is used to target it in index CSS).
• poem also has stanza containers (p instead of div.ws-poem-stanza). These, along with line containers (the only difference between ppoem and poem output), is I think more of a feature than of an issue, because it allows applying classes to these easily (the predefined classes, {fine}, {sc}, & co, are very useful, and you can also do custom ones), saving much proofreading time (from my experience). See uses of this.

So, in the end, we could remove some of the markup, but we'd also be removing features, and it's not much worse than poem in my opinion. How bad of an issue do you think it is? I hadn't thought of the output markup as a problem (given it's not invalid HTML, and who looks at it?). — Alien  3
3 3 20:34, 18 December 2024 (UTC)

(@SnowyCinema) I did something that should help:

• make the stanzas use p tags and not div tags, because p tags naturally copypaste as a line break, and so there's no need to put a "position:absolute"'d br between stanzas (to be able to actually position:absolute it on all browsers, it had to be wrapped in a span, which is unnecessary markup complexity). @Beleg Tâl: as a side effect, this is now literally </p><p>.
• and so remove entirely that br between stanzas
• change <span class="ws-poem-break"><br></span> at end-of-line to <br/>. This br does not in fact have to be absoluted, and so there is a need neither for the span nor for the class. @Duckmather: I think that this is as far as it can get on the simplification side, without seriously hacking into the features.

I believe that this answers all issues raised. If it doesn't, please say so.

This is for now only in the sandbox, because as this is linked to cross-browser stuff, I'd appreciate if you could take a look at {{ppoem/testcases}} and confirm that the sandbox version a) has the same visual output and b) copypastes the same, before putting it live. It works on Firefox, Chrome, Opera and Edge, on mobile, and when exporting. Tests still needed for Safari.

Assuming it works and everyone's satisfied, I'll make the proposal sometime next week. — Alien  3
3 3 15:21, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Tested on Safari, also works. Going to put in live module. — Alien  3
3 3 16:38, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Update: it's a long story, but in the end that didn't work. Ppoem is going to stay pretty much as it was. — Alien  3
3 3 09:51, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

References leading to nowhere?

Hello, so I am trying to proofread Page:Ancient India as described by Megasthenês and Arrian.djvu/52, but there are small reference numbers for which I can't find a corresponding reference. How do I deal with this? It also happened on this page. Should I ignore it? —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 18:43, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Those are sentence numbers within the fragment rather than references. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:52, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Ohhh (I feel so stupid now... thanks for clarifying lol) —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 22:10, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle: Since these also function as references, I did something here. Thoughts? —Matr1x-101$_{when-replying}^{Ping-me}$ {_{user page} ^{(@ commons)} - _talk} 22:32, 14 December 2024 (UTC)

Actually, nevermind, Template:Ref seems to work better. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 18:39, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Tech News: 2024-51

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

Weekly highlight

• Interested in improving event management on your home wiki? The CampaignEvents extension offers organizers features like event registration management, event/wikiproject promotion, finding potential participants, and more - all directly on-wiki. If you are an organizer or think your community would benefit from this extension, start a discussion to enable it on your wiki today. To learn more about how to enable this extension on your wiki, visit the deployment status page.

Updates for editors

• Users of the iOS Wikipedia App in Italy and Mexico on the Italian, Spanish, and English Wikipedias, can see a personalized Year in Review with insights based on their reading and editing history.
• Users of the Android Wikipedia App in Sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia can see the new Rabbit Holes feature. This feature shows a suggested search term in the Search bar based on the current article being viewed, and a suggested reading list generated from the user’s last two visited articles.
• The global reminder bot is now active and running on nearly 800 wikis. This service reminds most users holding temporary rights when they are about to expire, so that they can renew should they want to. See the technical details page for more information.
• The next issue of Tech News will be sent out on 13 January 2025 because of the end of year holidays. Thank you to all of the translators, and people who submitted content or feedback, this year.
• View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, a bug was fixed in the Android Wikipedia App which had caused translatable SVG images to show the wrong language when they were tapped.

Updates for technical contributors

• There is no new MediaWiki version next week. The next deployments will start on 14 January. [1]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:24, 16 December 2024 (UTC)

Translation matters

A couple of matters:

Wikisource:Translations

This page has at the top "This page is a proposed Wikisource policy, guideline, or process. The proposal may still be in development, under discussion, or in the process of gathering consensus for adoption. References or links to this page should not describe it as a "policy" or "guideline"." Is that still the case ? It seems to me that I have seen elements of this described as if policy> Or is the policy placed somewhere else ? -- —unsigned comment by Beardo (talk) .

In practice it has already been treated as a policy for a long time. However, we may start a formal vote to accept it as a policy de iure. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:44, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't know about the procedures, but I don't think that we should be treating as policy something which specififically states that it is not "policy" or "guideline". -- Beardo (talk) 17:26, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

Voting started at #Wikisource:Translations proposed for becoming a guideline. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:27, 26 December 2024 (UTC)

User translations in Mainspace

There are some translation in Mainspace with comments along the lines "This translation ... was made for Wikimedia projects by " with a link to the user page. Should such translation be moved to the Translation space ? See An einen Boten, Das Todaustreiben, Es kam ein Herr zum Schlößli, Rätsel, Wenn ich ein Vöglein wär, Wiegenlied (Des Knaben Wunderhorn).

Is there a policy as to whether the name should be the original (in these cases German) or the English translation ? -- —unsigned comment by Beardo (talk) .

Unfortunately, the current practice is to accept Wikisource translations only of works whose originals were proofread and scanbacked at the appropriate language wiki, which does not seem to be the case of the works mentioned above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:46, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

problem uploading Djvus to commons

Hello fellow transcribers, I've had trouble uploading my two last djvus using the IA upload tool. The files seem to have been uploaded but they're not being rendered. I've have had a look at others fjvu uploads and see the same problem. For example File:Divine Healing.djvu Does anybody know anything about this? Jpez (talk) 09:47, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

It was a cache issue. It often helps with various issues to clear either the mediawiki cache (see the "purge clock" gadget), or your browser's cache (ctrl-F5 most of the time). Note: when linking to files, please put a : before the "File:" because else it will display it instead of linking to it. — Alien  3
3 3 10:50, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Thank you Alien  3
3 3! Jpez (talk) 23:21, 25 December 2024 (UTC)

Main page

The main page was vandalised with the message "You guys forgot to protect the main page..." - I reverted that. But should the main page be made for autoconfirmed users only ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:37, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Someone deleted it ([2]) and forgot to restore the protection. I've reported it at AN. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 13:50, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

@Sohom Datta: make sure it's cascading protection —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 14:03, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

I did that Actually, no, it shouldn't be cascading (and it wasn't before), because {{new texts}}, that is transcluded on it, should be editable by autoconfirmed editors (and sorry for the whole mess). — Alien  3
3 3 14:12, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Cache problems when creating new indexes

After we have received two independent requests for help here and here I created task T382824 in Phabricator. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:19, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

This 0x0 problem (which is the same as the "Invalid Interval" one) has been noted in the past, though it's been a symptom of different things. T299521 is related to our issue (the one we have since March). Note: adding "or djvu" to the description: the problem is for some reason more persistent with pdf files, but also happens to djvu. — Alien  3
3 3 15:46, 30 December 2024 (UTC)

Scans to articles that don't have one.

See Tropical Cyclone Report: 2009 Tropical Depression One. Basically, that entry isn't scan-backed, however, there is a scan (here) which was made by the National Hurricane Center. What would I have to do in that case? Norbillian (talk) 14:34, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Upload it to Wikimedia Commons (c:Special:UploadWizard), create the Index Page, proofread it in the index's Page:s, and then transclude the content onto the mainspace page, replacing the current content. — Alien  3
3 3 16:59, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

The Software version in the Metadata

I have some scripts that I used to produce images here. I was at commons, with one of the files (File:Gods Man-1929-014.jpg. At the end of all of the information on that image page is a metadata section that has an arrow to view it. At the commons, this file is linked to w:GIMP 2.10.8; here, it is unlinked.

I was looking for a link here so I could put these scripts here; at wikisource. It is a very old version of the software and they would need some changing to work in this year's software.

It could be at commons; I don't think it is helpful at any wikipedia.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

Why doesn't WMF wiki's Captcha help transcribe Wikisource text?

I know that WMF wikis deploy mw:Extension:ConfirmEdit and use Captcha to prevent spam attack. Since WMF really dislike using Google's reCaptcha and instead build an MedaiWiki version, why can't they be programmed to show Wikisource texts and ask users to transcribe as part of the in-house Captcha? Best of all, it can pull other English WMF projects to transcribe English Wikisource's text (likewise for Spanish WMF projects to transcribe Spanish text, etc.) I see something similar was suggested 3 years ago but wasn't sure if that's what this discussion was referring to. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 21:57, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I have yet to see such a tool that can handle the shifts in font size, font style, and such that happen in the texts that I transcribe. Most have not been trained to handle 19th-century fonts at all. Throw in poetry or drama format, and even the good ones collapse. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Page numbers disappeared over the weekend

Sometime between this last Friday and today, page numbers have ceased to display within works on the left margin. This is affecting not only new works, but older works that have not changed in the past 60 hours. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:38, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

It's about MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.js, see User talk:Xover#MediaWiki:Gadget-PageNumbers-core.js crash. — Alien  3
3 3 17:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Fixed by Xover. (Might need to bypass a few caches here and here.) — Alien  3
3 3 17:42, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Changing a link in WS:general disclaimer

It currently says: You may use the content on this website under the terms described by the license template and the general terms described at Wikisource:Copyright policy.

WS:CP describes the terms under which we reuse content, not the terms under which others can reuse our content. Wikisource:Reusing Wikisource content corresponds more to that sentence, so I'd like to change the link to that.

That page being quite important, and linked to everywhere on site, I'd like to get a few more pair of eyes, for a sanity check, before making that change. — Alien  3
3 3 17:51, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support, makes more sense. Also, how to reuse public-domain materials is something that doesn't get talked about enough, everywhere (not just at Wikisource). I think it'd be nice to expand that reuse page greatly. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:02, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

Maybe I'm just stupid (very possible) but I don't understand what needs to be explained: by definition, public domain sources can be used in any way by any person with no restrictions. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

@Koavf: I am going on a bit of an off-topic tangent to the vote here, but I was more referring to the fact that people often lack actual things to use the content for. "Sure, it's in the public domain so I can do anything I want with it, but what would I ever do with this ancient thing?" is a question people ask a lot. There's gotta be some place we can list examples (even if it's not at that page). User:SnowyCinema/Uses of Wikisource is a start. SnowyCinema (talk) 18:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose for the moment. The current link is to a community policy, but the proposed new target is an old essay by a single individual. If the proposed new target is brought up to spec, and the community agrees it is current and well revised, then I will switch my vote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:16, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

In the meanwhile, the current link has nothing to do with that sentence.

Until we have a good link, maybe just remove the "and the general terms described at [link]"? What would you think of that? — Alien  3
3 3 18:19, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I took a look and copy-edited it a bit. It looks fine, useful, and unlikely to be controversial. IMO much better than linking to WS:CP in this context (although WS:CP should also be made much clearer and readable). Xover (talk) 06:27, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

While we're at it, let's do some more tweaking:

You may use the content on this website under the terms described by the license template and the general terms described at Reusing Wikisource content. In most cases, works are in the public domain or licensed under a permissive license.

No agreement, contract, warrant, or liability is created between you and the site (or anyone related to the site). While we try to ensure that accurate copyright information is provided, you are responsible for verifying the copyright status and any applicable license terms for any work you use or copy.

Most of our stuff is actually not directly compatible with the GFDL, and if we should highlight a single license it should be CC BY-SA 4.0, so better to use a general phrasing. --Xover (talk) 06:39, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

are not the licenses PD, such as PD-not renewed ? --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 00:24, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

Possible restoration of deleted transcription

A Room of One's Own was deleted as a copyvio in 2007. However, it should be public domain now (unless the copyvio was of a later edition or some such). Was the old, copyrightvio version any good? Is it worth restoring? (I checked a few others listed on [3] , but don't seem to see other deleted works there.) SnowFire (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)

What was there is vastly incomplete: only three paragraphs were done. It's in the public domain now no matter what the case was before this year, but we might as well scan-back it anew from a source like this one. SnowyCinema (talk) 00:14, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

It's slated for the March Proofread of the Month. Note also that undeletion requests normally should be posted to Wikisource:Proposed deletions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Note that there was a new edition published in 1931, so printings after that are likely to be the second edition. Any copyrightable changes will not yet have expired, but I don't know the textual history of this work well enough to guess at whether that will be a problem. Xover (talk) 05:59, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Someone will need to check whether the new edition was copyrighted and whether that copyright was renewed. I find no evidence of a renewal for the 1931 edition in the Stanford database, nor do I find an initial registration for the 1931 edition in the 1931 or 1932 listings in the Pennsylvania copyright records scans. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:41, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I find no renewal in U.S. Copyright Renewals 1950 - 1977, but Woolf was an English author, and a number of her works are noted in that as being first published abroad, so the URAA may have restored the 1931 edition.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:09, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

i see a 1929 English edition and 1929 US edition [4]. we might want to present evidence, rather than speculate, which is unhelpful. --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 23:49, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

We might want to present relevant evidence, instead of repeat irrelevant evidence. The difference between the 1931 and 1929 editions are what's at issue here.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

here is the 1937 ninth printing c:File:Room of Ones Own 01.djvu --Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 22:58, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

That's been noted on the page where the March PotM is being planned. We do not know whether this is the 1929 edition or the 1931 edition, because the front matter is silent on this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:12, 10 January 2025 (UTC)

…check whether the new edition was copyrighted … Or look for bibliographic scholarship that addresses what types of changes were made for the 1931 edition. They may have been trivial. Xover (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

NSRW Ropes issue

I have created The New Student's Reference Work/Ropes using the syntax from The New Student's Reference Work/Rockford, Ill.. But the new article does not display content. I cannot find any issue in the syntax, and the file displays for me, so I am at a loss to determine why the article does not display content. Can someone else see the issue? The new article does transclude from a different JPG Page content, but I have set up a section on that Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:35, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It looks as expected for me. Some kind of caching issue, maybe? Xover (talk) 05:51, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Looking good to me too. — Alien  3
3 3 06:40, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Presumably a caching issue, then, but one which was not corrected by purges (hard or otherwise) nor by null edits. --EncycloPetey (talk) 11:33, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

That happens occasionally, so far I've only seen it for non-djvu files. — Alien  3
3 3 13:00, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

I can confirm that it also displays for me and just for kicks, I did a purge, hard purge, and null edit. I hope it displays on your end soon. Thanks for making the article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:26, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

Lang block needs overhaul again..

Some recent changes have caused the opening DIV to prematurely close resulting in the following: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LintErrors/stripped-tag&dir=prev

A catergory I had all but cleared out. What is actually trying to be be achieved because at the moment it is obviously broken? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:19, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

(This appears to have been fixed.) — Alien  3
3 3 06:44, 9 January 2025 (UTC)

Evolving works

Why are evolving works kept out of scope of Wikisource? Riteze (talk) 14:57, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

@Riteze: Basically, it's because we don't want to have to deal with a backlog of constant updates on an external webpage. Our mission is mostly to transcribe works that originally appeared in analog form, which have use in digitization because they're generally harder to search and use in their original print forms (as scans, pictures, audio files, or videos). We don't want to be in a position where we have to constantly replicate another website's behavior. It's hard from a technical and project management standpoint. For example: if we "transcribed" a Wikipedia article here, we'd ideally have to update our "transcription of the article" at the same time that any Wikipedia editor modifies the actual article, which would be extremely difficult and ultimately pointless to maintain (since it's already on Wikipedia in digital form). SnowyCinema (talk) 15:07, 11 January 2025 (UTC)

The main group of works that affected by this policy are constitutional documents. If we continually update the page with the current version, then it is not possible to see what the constitution was in each year that it was formally published. Instead we host Constitution of Blah (1846); Constitution of Blah (1922); Constitution of Blah (1956); … Constitution of Blah (2024) (inventing some years). Each version contains all the amendments made in between. In the end it comes back to our purpose as a repository of sources. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:55, 11 January 2025 (UTC)