Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

Announcements

Thank you.

A picture of four Little Blue Books: Man and His Ancestors, How to Dress on a Small Salary, The Psychology of Leadership, and The Puzzle of Personality.

I started working on Wikisource a year ago. This community has been helpful and graceful since I started.

What first drew me in was the Proofread of the Month for February 2024. It was a Little Blue Book called The Art of Kissing. I pictured members of the Greatest Generation furtively buying and studying this book, and it was, at once, both hilarious and heartwarming. When I saw some Little Blue Books available for sale at a curiosities expo, which are not available at all online, I jumped at the chance to buy them. I look forward to adding them to our library.

This has been a tough year for me and my family. This project has been a welcome respite from all of that. In my first year of volunteering at Wikisource, I have read more books than I have read in any year in the last decade. I proofed a memoir of my ancestor. I validated a book I never knew of before. I discovered my new favorite poem.

This is a demanding project. I just wanted to take a moment and extend my gratitude to everyone involved. This is a good website, and it's going to be beneficial far beyond me.

Thank you. —FPTI (talk) 09:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

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)

 Support per the above. (User:CommonsDelinker does a similar thing but for already deleted files, which is also quite useful.) Duckmather (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I have posted the Phabricator request here: https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T384484. Nosferattus (talk) 15:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

@Nosferattus: Another discussion here: Is the Index talk page the best place for this notification? Talk pages often go totally unnoticed on smaller wikis like this one, or the editors involved with those indexes may have left 10 years ago. Should the bot give the Scriptorium, Copyright discussions or some other main discussion space, a notice instead, so the entire community can become immediately aware? SnowyCinema (talk) 15:21, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That is a great question. Feel free to open a new discussion about that so that we can collect more input. Nosferattus (talk) 15:58, 22 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

Repairs (and moves)

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

See also Wikisource:Scan lab

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)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:07, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Pamphlet of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, vol 23–24.pdf.djvu

The name of this Index is incorrect. This should be moved to Index:Pamphlet of Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, vol 23–24.djvu. ToxicPea (talk) 19:03, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:11, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Index:Maryland House Bill 705-2023 Regular Session.pdf and Index:Maryland Chapter 247-2023 Regular Session.pdf

Please move to Index:Maryland Chapter 245-2023RS.pdf and Index:Maryland Chapter 247-2023RS.pdf respectivly. I've already requested the files be moved on commons. ToxicPea (talk) 02:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Done for both. — Alien  3
3 3 20:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

A Critical Examination of Dr G. Birkbeck Hills "Johnsonian" Editions

This needs to be moved to A Critical Examination of Dr. G. Birkbeck Hill's "Johnsonian" Editions. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:05, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merito to Government Service

Please move to Reforming The Federal Hiring Process And Restoring Merit To Government Service. It is spelt wrong in the original and not capitalized like it is in the original. Coleisforeditor (talk) 20:22, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I moved to Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service. I am not convinced that we need to capitalise all the words. If we do, I apologise. -- Beardo (talk) 21:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Great Expectations

This should be moved to Great Expectations (1890) (with all of the chapters), as a disambiguation page is needed for Great Expectations (1st edition). Ideally, it would be moved to The Works of Charles Dickens/Volume 29; however, The Works of Charles Dickens also needs to be disambiguated, as it currently refers to a different edition (the 32/36 volume Gadshill, as opposed to the 30 volume of whatever this set is). The latter move doesn’t need to happen now, as there is still bibliographical information needed for it. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:08, 28 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:08, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Cane

Can this page and all its subpages be moved to Cane (Toomer)? That way it can be converted into a disambiguation page. Thanks, prospectprospekt (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:04, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Home-Made Toys for Boys and Girls (Hall)

Not sure what specifically to ask here, but can everything related to both the index and the transclusion of a Home-Made Toys for Boys and Girls please be corrected to "... Girls and Boys". Sorry for my mistake. I have already requested that the file be moved on Commons, which has been completed. I can also manually adjust the ToC and any other fixed links throughout the text if need be. Also, and more for future reference, is there any benefit to a move request, compared to moving the pages manually, besides time saved and/or a reduced likelihood for errors? Thanks, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:37, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

It's mostly time saved. Admins can move all subpages in one click, which takes much less time than if you'd done them all manually. — Alien  3
3 3 17:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 Thanks for clarifying. Could these all be moved then, or am I missing something? Thanks, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

They can be moved, yes, just hadn't taken the time to yet.

The move itself, of the mainspace pages and the index and the Page:s, is Done.

The pages tag have to be updated in mainspace. — Alien  3
3 3 20:25, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Pages tags ought to be Done too. — Alien  3
3 3 20:31, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 Many thanks. I will start updating links now. Also sorry if my second comment rushed things (and for naming the work incorrectly in the first place), but I wasn't sure how serious "in one click" really was. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 20:33, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It's fine. I'm postponing too much stuff these days, and I was about to put this as well to later. Your comment made me tell myself "oh and why not actually do it while we're at it".

(There is a caveat to the "in one click", which is 100 subpages per click. Then, rinse (move root back to original title) and repeat (had to do it thrice for this index). Theoretically, Page:s would be more annoying to do, as the index isn't actually their parent page, but I just create a temporary dummy parent page to move them, and then delete it.

So here in the end it was moving the mainspace root once, the index once, and the dummy Page: root three times, to move in total about 300 pages.) — Alien  3
3 3 20:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Dombey and Son

This needs to be moved to Dombey and Son (Gutenberg) to create a disambiguation page for Dombey and Son (1848). The Gutenberg copy is from a later edition, so it is not superfluous at this time and should not be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:20, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 17:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Tussock Land; a Romance of New Zealand and the Commonwealth

This should be moved to Tussock Land seeing as that's the actual title of the book. Norbillian (talk) 09:40, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 12:57, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Works of Aristotle - ed. Ross - 1932 (djvu, workstranslatedi02arisuoft).djvu

Asking to move Index:Works of Aristotle - ed. Ross - 1932 (djvu, workstranslatedi02arisuoft).djvu + pages to Index:Works of Aristotle - vol. 2, ed. Ross - 1932 (djvu, workstranslatedi02arisuoft).djvu (adding the vol. 2). The djvu should be updated to the correct name at Commons. Thanks, Overthrows (talk) 23:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Done MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Repeat of request to move pages in Index:Mathematical collections and translations, in two tomes - Salusbury (1661).djvu

As per previous request of September 2024, could you please undertake the following moves:—

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

Thanks Chrisguise (talk) 23:45, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

The Weary Blues and The collected works of Henrik Ibsen (Heinemann Volume 1)

Requesting that the former be moved to The Weary Blues (collection), since the collection shares a name with a poem inside it, and all the subpages under the latter to The Collected Works of Henrik Ibsen/Volume 1, to convert to title case and remove the parenthetical disambiguation for the volume. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Done for both - please check and update accordingly Special:WhatLinksHere/The Weary Blues, and other links. — Alien  3
3 3 20:18, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Fanny

There are currently two works that use this title, Fanny by Edgar Allen Poe and Fanny by Fitz-Greene Halleck. I'm requesting that Fanny be moved to Fanny (Poe) so I can convert it into a disambiguation page. Norbillian (talk) 15:14, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Done - but please note that this section (move requests) is mainly for mass actions that would take a long time to most users. You can move single pages yourself. — Alien  3
3 3 16:02, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Poems Sigourney 1827

Preferably move this to Poems (Sigourney), seeing as there's no evidence that the book is actually named that. Norbillian (talk) 15:39, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved to Poems (Sigourney, 1827), as Poems Sigourney 1834 exists (will move that to Poems (Sigourney, 1834)). — Alien  3
3 3 16:11, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And that's Done too. — Alien  3
3 3 16:17, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! If you have time, could you also rename Tamerlane and other poems seeing as every source I've seen refers to it as Tamerlane and Other Poems? Norbillian (talk) 16:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Will do, is listed as that on w:Tamerlane and Other Poems too. — Alien  3
3 3 17:32, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. I left redirects, though, because there are many links. — Alien  3
3 3 17:35, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Rebel rhymes and rhapsodies (IA rebelrhymesrhaps00moor).pdf

Please move to Index:Personal and Political Ballads (IA rebelrhymesrhaps00moor).pdf. File renaming has been requested at Commons. —Tcr25 (talk) 15:47, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

File renaming at Commons is complete. —Tcr25 (talk) 16:16, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Done. — Alien  3
3 3 20:03, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Thank you! —Tcr25 (talk) 22:07, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:The Appari News, Volume 1, Issue 45.pdf

Please move it and all related page to The Aparri News, instead of The Appari News. I've already requested a renaming on Commons. Norbillian (talk) 19:55, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Done — Alien  3
3 3 20:10, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Other discussions

Does only the template:person allow an image to display?

Does only the Template:person allow an image to display? Template:portal_header does not appear to allow an image and it does not seem to be recognized by the bot that creates a link at Wikidata to the Wikisource entry. RAN (talk) 18:38, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

From what I can see, it does, yes, with the |image= parameter, e.g. like this. — Alien  3
3 3 18:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

• Your example was the Template:person, which I know works. Template:portal_header will not display the image, and it doesn't appear to get indexed by the bot that connects it to Wikidata. See:Portal:1854 South Carolina Hurricane. I changed it to person to get it to display and I hope the bot will now see it to connect it to Wikidata. --RAN (talk) 06:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  About the bot: may or may not be added to it, but that depends mostly on the free time I'll have and on WD's acceptance of that. Don't expect it just now.

  Why would regular portals use images? After all, we don't use images for mainspace works. — Alien  3
  3 3 06:41, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Alien333: Would the bot pick up "Wikidata=" instead of the usual "wikidata=". I found one that did not connect and the only difference was that it used "Wikidata=". I tried to do a search to see if it missed others, but I could not work out how to search for only capital "W". —unsigned comment by Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) .

  Ah, that's an easy issue at least. (this does it). Tell me next sunday if it still misses them. — Alien  3
  3 3 15:47, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Portals are not equivalent to mainspace works. A portal is a collection of resources assembled by editors. Why compare them with mainspace works? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:02, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Was just not seeing a particular reason to add images, that's all. — Alien  3
  3 3 16:07, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  You are aware that many works we host here contain images to represent things being discussed? In Portals, it is not unusual to do the same. See for example Portal:Language and literature, Portal:French literature, Portal:Music, Portal:Operas, Portal:United States Navy, and many others, which include one or more images to make a wall of text visually interpretable. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  I suppose the logical step from here is adding images to Module:Portal header. I intend to do so. — Alien  3
  3 3 17:44, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

  Should be Done. I also removed the image from Module:Person, else it would duplicate the image already added by Module:Portal header. — Alien  3
  3 3 20:16, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

• @Alien333: The bot still doesn't pick up the surname categories and link them to Wikidata. See: Category:Lindauer (surname) for example. Wikidata currently links to the category in Commons and the article in Wikipedia on the surname, missing is the category in Wikisource. Anyone else think it is a good idea to link the category here to Wikidata? --RAN (talk) 19:31, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, it is, just haven't found the time, it's coming; — Alien  3
  3 3 19:39, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  (It's quite separate, from a technical POV, as it implies matching the page to its item, whereas for the rest it was given so it was easier.) — Alien  3
  3 3 19:47, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  I have added wikidata= to all the surname categories at Wikisource, your bot only searched template:people and now template:header, it just needs to search surname categories. Someone else suggested using mix and match, but now that wikidata= appears in each entry, a direct search will provide an exact match. Surname categories are new to Wikisource, previously you would not be aware that "Bill Smith" existed as "William Smith" or as "William A. Smith" or as "William Adams Smith", now you can peek in the category to see who already has an entry. --RAN (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

  However, the surname categories are mis-parented as they are in mainspace categories and should be in Portal categories if they are to exist at all. This needs fixing before more are created. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:51, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well, normally there's no need anymore to add the IDs, and cats with or without IDs alike should get matched on sunday.

  @Beeswaxcandle, regarding misparenting, I believe EP has resolved that. Is that right (just to be sure)? — Alien  3
  3 3 09:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• One more thing to consider is a missing backlink to Wikidata at the category entry here at Wikisource. Since categories have no header, we do not get a backlink to Wikidata. Wikidata is not contained in the "Authority control" template and we do not use the Wikidata generated "wikidata infobox" template, like at Commons, that contains the link. Are there any suggestions on how to best display a backlink to Wikidata in the categories? One possibility would be to display the Wikidata number in the "Authority control" template and add that template to each category. --RAN (talk) 19:19, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think {{plain sister}} fits this purpose. — Alien  3
  3 3 12:37, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Thanks! Perfect. --RAN (talk) 19:54, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Dark mode compatibility and Template:author

It is, as-is, having trouble with dark mode compatibility (reported by @Reboot01). E.g. try to read Author:Nora May French's header in dark mode. It hardly is possible. I have tried, at {{author/sandbox/styles.css}}, to use codex colors to make it work. A problem, though, is that the tints of maroon used by the template are if I understand correctly not available as variables in codex. So, I have used redder colors. This is what it looks like:

Nora May French

What do you think? — Alien  3
3 3 19:31, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

This is completely subjective, but I unironically like the way that red looks in dark mode, it's very pleasing to look at and adds a bit more than black, grey, and blues. Reboot01 (talk) 21:03, 14 January 2025 (UTC)

Note: A similar issue exists with {{process header}} (also using unavailable colors, here yellow-/orange- ish ones). I was thinking maybe gray for that one? (As red is taken). — Alien  3
3 3 11:10, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm going to try out an alternative, not using codex variables but @media screen. — Alien  3
3 3 11:03, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Forgot about doing that, and Matrix has done it before I remembered to. So all good now. (normally) — Alien  3
3 3 10:09, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Transclusion of multiple or all subworks on a single subpage

As is done e.g. at Poems (Pushkin, Panin, 1888).

Arguments that I know of, feel free to add:

For: can be construed as simpler (less pages, reduced/no need for section tags)

Against: prevents attaching information to one specific subwork ({{similar}}, wikidata items, &c); can result in unwieldy pages; searchability a bit reduced (with the title not being in a pagename)

Where do you all stand on that?

I personally would be rather against. — Alien  3
3 3 20:22, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as attaching information to a specific subwork at wikidata, there is no longer a hindrance, since wikidata can support redirects now. I am not aware of any reduced searchability; searches are already hit-or-miss, even when the title of a subwork is in the pagename. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Our works are not always so cleanly divided into subworks. We have a lot of gray area with some of our works. Consider Bibliography of the Sanskrit Drama/Names of Authors. Should we treat that as a single section because it is so listed in the ToC, or do we need to split it up by letter of the alphabet because there are clear divisions in the text pages? Should The Poems of Sappho/Chapter 3 be divided into 122 separate pages because fragments of 122 poems are identified? even if some consist of a single line? Is The Waste Land by T. S. Eliot a single work, or a collection of subworks? In The Souls of Black Folk, should the song at the head of each chapter be placed on a separate page because it is a song and not part of the essay that forms the chapter? I do not think a single answer can be applied to all our many works hosted here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

LJB preferred to do poetry books that way for two reasons: a) to keep the poems that followed a theme together (bibliographic); and b) to not need to use sub-subpages (practical). When I did Whitman's Leaves of Grass (1882) I went the sub-subpages route and ended up having to create intermediate subpages that aren't in the text just to parent the sub-subpages.

In general, I agree with EP that there is a lot of grey. The philosophy should be to ask what is going to be most useful to the reader. How will the work or page be used? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:59, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks to to both for the info! — Alien  3
3 3 10:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle@EncycloPetey Whilst I agree that there are grey areas, in most cases where poems are grouped under a heading, it's still clear—from typography if nothing else—that they're separate poems, not the equivalent of stanzas or cantos of a larger piece. In such circumstances, I think the poems ought to be transcluded separately. Lumping stuff together just looks like a half-hearted job. I've broken up a number of poetry collections that were lumped together, although I don't intend to make a habit of it; it was a tedious process. Chrisguise (talk) 00:08, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

While things are sometimes grey, we shouldn't confuse things, and say well we should just transclude the whole DNB or EB1911 onto one giant page because hey, what are chapters with epithets anyways? We can provide some prescriptive guidelines that things like having a 1000 page transclusion of a book that lists 100 chapters in a TOC is generally bad and should be broken up. magazine should be broken up into issues and articles etc. There may be leeway in interpretation, but it isn't all grey. And then we can provide more suggestive guidance, where I would incline to agree with @Chrisguise that for poems listed in a TOC and titled individually we should favor breaking them up in general over using anchors and deep-linking, especially if we think it is worthwhile to have an independent WD entry. MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Two help requests

Hi folks, it's been a while! Hope everyone's well. Please can I get help on a couple of things:

1. Can someone remove my "abuse filter editor" right? I'm not using it, so should drop it for security.
2. I'm interested in maybe proofreading this work from Google Books. Unfortunately it has the Google front page which needs removing, and it's not on the Internet Archive. What's the easiest way to strip the front page nowadays without using dodgy software/websites?

Thanks! BethNaught (talk) 23:54, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Done Rights change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

For page removing, I'd personally recommend w:PDFtk, which should be available to everyone.

Removing the first two pages can be done with pdftk source.pdf cat 3-r1 output result.pdf. — Alien  3
3 3 07:49, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you both :) and I will look into that software. BethNaught (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

If you desire a non-command line option for pdf editing, I use the remove pages function of w:PDF24 Creator for dealing with Google Books. I will warn that with very large (1000+ pages) books it sometimes crashes if you let too much of it load in. But it’s a relatively simple option. Penguin1737 (talk) 21:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Plum Bun

While working on the index here, I saw that there is a table of contents with four chapters. Additionally, there are separate chapters not mentioned in the ToC. What should I do? Norbillian (talk) 17:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{AuxTOC}} is made for situations like this where you can add additional material not listed in the original table of contents. Without poking thru to figure out why there are missing chapters, you should probably be able to resolve it with this template. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:26, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

{{AuxTOC}} is good when there is no toc; when there is one, and it's missing rows, I think it's better to add them with |class=wst-toc-aux (in {{TOC begin}} & co), or with some of {{Auxiliary toc styles}}'s stuff. — Alien  3
3 3 17:46, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource Conference

The 2025 Wikisource Conference takes place in Bali 14-16 February; Only User:SWilson (WMF), User:Giantflightlessbirds, User:Rajasekhar1961, and I are listed as participants from en.Wikisource; is anyone else going, from this project?

The online copy of the programme is in the process of being populated. AFAICT, no session are being live streamed, though some may be recorded. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:42, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

User:A.Murali is also participating in the Conference.--Rajasekhar1961 (talk) 07:10, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Box around a block of text

Is there a way to put a box around a block of text? Some advertisements and some newspaper columns have a box around them. RAN (talk) 19:53, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

The templates Frame, Border or Centered Box should do, depending on the formatting that you want. -- Beardo (talk) 20:07, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

• Perfect, thank you!
  --RAN (talk) 02:22, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource reader app

Colleagues report:

We are excited to announce that we have been developing a Wikisource reader app for Android mobile users for the last three months and the beta version of the app is almost ready for testing. The development of the mobile app was a much-awaited request from the Wikisource community and when fully released, hopefully, it will help bring more readers to Wikisource platforms.

See meta:Wikisource reader app. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:05, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Dashiell Hammett's works from Black Mask magazine

Starting in 1927, Hammett published several series of related stories in Black Mask, which he then reworked into novels. The first of these is at The Cleansing of Poisonville, which was taken from a scan of just that story. I have not been able to find scans of the full magazines, and I understand that there are very few copies of the magazines still in existence. Should these works be left as standalone works, or should they be treated as sub-pages of the relevant issues of Black Mask even if we are unlikely to get the rest of the issue ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Template for the header of a title page

Been attempting to figure out what template(s) to use for Page:The Reference Shelf Vol. VI No. 4, The Thirteen-Month Calendar (1929, IA referenceshelfth0004juli).djvu/5; it has underlined justified text at the top followed by a RunningHeader-like volume and issue number. Does anyone have any recommendations? Arcorann (talk) 05:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

• Arcorann: I added the code I usually use for such a purpose; feel free to fiddle with the size if the general formatting looks good. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 05:11, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks. I made a few adjustments to it and it looks good. Arcorann (talk) 02:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Paragraph spacing

One of the things that we discussed a short time ago at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2024-11#Deployment of Vector 2022 was changed paragraph spacing. It was mentioned there that if we want, the spacing can be adjusted locally.

I saw numerous pages where the new skin broke their layouts (like here) and I doubt we will be able to discover them all, thus their correction being just a matter of chance. Besides, I do not think the enhanced spacing is desirable for transcription of our texts. For example, common paragraphs in printed books are not spaced, but sometimes a space is added to highlight some important paragraph. In our new layout we have all paragraphs heavily spaced, and enlarging one of the spaces does not do the same service as there was in the book, the only result of such an attempt is just a way too big space that instead of highlighting looks inappropriate. And I suppose others could add more disadvantages.

For these reasons I suggest we remove the enlarged spacing locally. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:32, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support removing spacing locally. SnowyCinema (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support (as one of those who suggested it).

On implementation: the code that would do this would be .mw-body p { margin:0.4em 0 0.5em 0; }, added to MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css.

The .mw-body is necessary to have enough specificity to override the skin CSS (it doesn't explicitly use .mw-body in the code, but it's because it's .less, it's just written further up).

Detailed reasons why it won't cause overriding issues

Basically the same reasons that make it so that when V22 does it it doesn't have these issues, but in detail:

This will not cause issues with Index CSS or templatestyles, as that is already wrapped in .mw-parser-output (plus .prp-pages-output for index css), and so has enough specificity to override this also in any case.

As user CSS is not wrapped in any class, user stylesheets that use a simple p qualifier to change margins would have to update them, but there are none (checked by sifting through this search).

User stylesheets that use selectors of the form .class-abc (i.e. don't use the element name, and only use one class, not two as this would override) to change p tags' margins through classes applied to them are not a problem either, as they are already unable to override V22.

Adding the body.skin-vector-2022 selector to the line given above would allow targeting specifically V22, but I think we should not, for these reasons:

• it would make it much harder for essentially anything to override it, which should be carefully avoided; we don't want to override local styling
• the whole purpose of this, is to make paragraph spacing consistent between skins. Here it's V10 and V22, but any third skin should also have the same spacing, and so should not be exempted.

— Alien  3
3 3 16:44, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

 Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:29, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-04

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

Updates for editors

• Administrators can mass-delete multiple pages created by a user or IP address using Extension:Nuke. It previously only allowed deletion of pages created in the last 30 days. It can now delete pages from the last 90 days, provided it is targeting a specific user or IP address. [1]
• On wikis that use the Patrolled edits feature, when the rollback feature is used to revert an unpatrolled page revision, that revision will now be marked as "manually patrolled" instead of "autopatrolled", which is more accurate. Some editors that use filters on Recent Changes may need to update their filter settings. [2]
• View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the Visual Editor's "Insert link" feature did not always suggest existing pages properly when an editor started typing, which has now been fixed.

Updates for technical contributors

• The Structured Discussion extension (also known as Flow) is being progressively removed from the wikis. This extension is unmaintained and causes issues. It will be replaced by DiscussionTools, which is used on any regular talk page. The last group of wikis (Catalan Wikiquote, Wikimedia Finland, Goan Konkani Wikipedia, Kabyle Wikipedia, Portuguese Wikibooks, Wikimedia Sweden) will soon be contacted. If you have questions about this process, please ping Trizek (WMF) at your wiki. [3]
• The latest quarterly Technical Community Newsletter is now available. This edition includes: updates about services from the Data Platform Engineering teams, information about Codex from the Design System team, and more.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 01:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Wiklinks to U.S. Code needed for Presidential announcements in general and for DOGE announcement in particular

Please use the U.S. Code to blueify the redlinks here, if you can: s:Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency", executive action of 20th January 2025.

And then please teach the rest of us how to do it. Is there a template that will quickly link to the specific section? Thanks!

Jaredscribe (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Just noting: careful with the presidential announcements, check they've not already been done. There have been two duplicates today. (As it was the same text, and so there was no specific reason to prefer one of the two over the other, I deleted the most recent page in both cases.) — Alien  3
3 3 20:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Then please at least one of them back here:

Establishing And Implementing The President’s Department Of Government Efficiency January 20th, 2025

Or else tell me where the canonical one exists, if it still does, and put list it on page Author:Donald Trump where it belongs.

Thanks, Jaredscribe (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Jaredscribe: It’s currently at Establishing and Implementing the President's "Department of Government Efficiency", which is the original name you gave. It should probably be moved to Executive Order 141xx; I plan to add all of his new EOs come the FR issue (hopefully releasing to-morrow). In addition, the EO itself should not be linked from his main Author: page, but from the Executive Orders sub-page, which already has that EO (and a few others of his second term) listed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thanks, found it. I fully endorse using the FR issue and EO numbering scheme and the custom page formatting we use for it, which I assume comes from a gadget or template, and wasn't aware of before.

  There should be probably redirects from the english name to the numbered order, (or vice versa) at least for the popularly publicized EOs.

  And yes I agree they should not be on his main Author page, and moved them here: Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders (2025-2029), for ease of access and organization, as a proof-of-concept:

  Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Executive_Orders#Proposal_to_divide_EOs_into_subpages_by_presidential_term

  Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

PPoem and Images

Day-yu-da-gont is a long poem with some marginal images. I've got it all laid out, but things don't seem to line up nicely. Are there any thoughts/suggestions on ways to make things work better?
Thanks, Tcr25 (talk) 00:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I think I just fixed it, @Tcr25. My solution was to end the ppoem sections before each image on the first page. Now it looks all lined up to me when transcluded (though the page itself looks a little off.)

Does this look good to you? — FPTI (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait, I think I see another issue. In the original text, the illustrative initial letter and the first picture are connected. If we want to preserve this, we should probably just include them both as one image. FPTI (talk) 07:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There was also an issue with transclusion; using step=2 instead of separate containers allow the poems to join correctly (else they're in different containers). — Alien  3
3 3 08:06, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! FPTI and Alien 333. Looks like that works. —Tcr25 (talk) 14:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Decline and Fall

Currently serving as a redirect page to The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. But Evelyn Waugh has a book called Decline and Fall that is famous and well-loved, entering the public domain last year. It's № 37 in the BBC’s 100 Greatest British Novels .

I'm working on a transcription now. When I'm done, would anyone have a problem with me replacing the page with the 1928 book? I don't think a full deletion discussion is properly necessary. FPTI (talk) 07:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I wonder whether it would be better to have this page as a dismbiguation page. -- Beardo (talk) 19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

DAB sounds like a good idea to me, especially since the title of the novel is a reference to the history. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:38, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Coming to the party a little late, but I agree that "decline and fall" is a name associated with the history book pretty commonly, so a disambiguation page is best. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:17, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Using anchors for speedy criteria in MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown

All criteria have corresponding anchors, so links like WS:CSD#G4 work (this has been the case since 2006).

So, I was thinking of replacing "WS:CSD code" by "WS:CSD#code" in the deletion reasons dropdown.

What do you think of that? Does someone have objections?

Cheers, — Alien  3
3 3 18:29, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is already the case at MediaWiki:Filedelete-reason-dropdown. — Alien  3
3 3 09:17, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan to me! Might be worth adding a <!--comment--> to WS:CSD so editors know not to remove the anchors. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:36, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Have done both. — Alien  3
3 3 17:29, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Difference between WS:CSD#G8 and "categories for an author's works" (precedent-based criterion)

It seems to me, that what falls under this "categories for an author's works" precedent criterion, also falls under WS:CSD#G8 as a person-based category.

Is there a difference I didn't grasp? If so, can someone explain it to me?

If there isn't one, we might as well remove the weaker precedent criterion, if they overlap. — Alien  3
3 3 20:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Are there nuances here around, for example, file-based categories? E.g. Category:The House at Pooh Corner (1961). Are we making a distinction between "pages" (which should be linked from Author or the TOC) and "files" (which are generally not)? 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)~ MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:05, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The House at Pooh Corner category is an exception rather than the norm, as it is about keeping files together for a work that can't be transwikied to Commons. The precedent criterion provides legitimacy for PROD nominations of works categories to be deleted. G8 is a more recently agreed speedy deletion reason, which puts the onus on the deleting admin to be completely sure about it and to do all the work required to remove it from all locations before deleting it. If it's done through PROD, there's the opportunity to share that load. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

My point is that it might be slightly broader under precedent-based under PROD, since it provides a chance for people to see and object? So categories with files or the administration / regnal period exemption might apply go to PROD, and then closed quickly instead of CSD. MarkLSteadman (talk) 11:26, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Portal for the Reference Shelf series

The Reference Shelf is a series of volumes compiling articles on a given topic, beginning around 1922-23 and still going today. I've just finished proofreading a book from this series and I see a few more (PD) that might be worth doing, so I figure it's a good idea to make a portal, but I'm not sure how to categorise it, is anyone able to help? Arcorann (talk) 02:18, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, it's always a good thing to have a series portal, since people might be interested in seeing more books in the same series. Some example portals to model off of might be Portal:Little Blue Books or Portal:Beacon Biographies. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Classification will depend on the subject range of the series. Since you haven't indicated that information, I cannot provide a suggestion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:06, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

The subject range mostly covers contemporary issues in society. Looking at the year preceding the issue I did (Volume 5, 1928), for example, we have Prohibition, Religious Teaching in the Public Schools, Independence for the Philippines, Agriculture and the Tariff, Five Day Week, Jury System, Flood Control, Installment Buying, Federal and State Control of Water Power, and Cabinet Form of Government. (By way of comparison, for 2025 they cover Labor Unions, Health Conspiracies, Exploration & Development of the Arctic, Immigration & Border Control in the 21st Century, and Space Exploration and Representative American Speeches, 2024-2025.)

For now I've stubbed out a page at Portal:The Reference Shelf with basic info. Arcorann (talk) 22:41, 23 January 2025 (UTC)

Universal Code of Conduct annual review: provide your comments on the UCoC and Enforcement Guidelines

Please help translate to your language.

I am writing to you to let you know the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines is open now. You can make suggestions for changes through 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. This annual review was planned and implemented by the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, you may review the U4C Charter.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 01:12, 24 January 2025 (UTC)

Issue with translation license and PD-US

Index:The Jade Mountain.djvu's original (pre-translation) is {{PD-old}}, as it's from the 18th century.

Its translation is {{PD-US|1968}}, as it was published in 1929 (this is a 1945 reprint) and the last translator to die was Author:Witter Bynner in 1968.

So, the logical license to put on the author pages of the poets would have been {{translation license|original={{PD-old}}|translation={{PD-US|1968}}}}.

However, {{PD-US}} ends up saying that This author died in 1968, which is false, as it's the translator that died in 1968.

If remove {{PD-US}}'s 1968 paramter, it pulls from wikidata and calls {{PD-old}} instead, which is also wrong.

How are we supposed to deal with this sort of situation?

I was thinking, maybe we should add a translator=yes parameter to {{PD-US}}, so that, if given in author namespace, it replaces "This author died in ..." by "The longest-living translator died in ..." — Alien  3
3 3 10:58, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Or maybe I ought to put just {{PD-old}} on the author pages of the original authors? — Alien  3
3 3 11:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

Going to do that, as {{PD-old}} already mentions translations. — Alien  3
3 3 11:23, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what issue you're trying to solve. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:32, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The license at e.g. Special:PermanentLink/14819164 showing factually incorrect text ("this author died in 1968"). — Alien  3
3 3 16:34, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The divided use of original and translation licensing only applies to editions of works, not to authors. Authors aren't translated; their works are. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:37, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

The problem arises because you've included a death year of 1968 in the licensing template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:39, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

(As I said above, if you remove it, it says the translation is PD-old, which is also false here.)

Anyhow, thanks for confirmation that translation licensing doesn't apply to authors! That solves my problem. — Alien  3
3 3 16:42, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

DIY copystand design

This may interest some of you:

"Open source plans for a motorized camera column [using] 3D Printed parts and other open source hardware. The 3D Printing and aluminum cutting can be outsourced. The assembly only requires the skills of a highly motivated 3D Printing hobbyist.

"The CAD designs, 3D printable files, Bill of Materials, and Assembly Instructions for how to build the Qirab Digitisation Column QDC100 are available on the Qirab Github."

https://qirab.org/en/docs/hardware/digitisationcolumn/

-- Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:56, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

" and '

We have the template {{" '}}, {{' "}}, etc., which put a space between the " symbol and the ' symbol. But I struggle to think of a scenario where it would be desirable for the " and the ' symbol to be scrunched together, ever, if an alternative exists. And we've been having to add these templates manually for quite a while. Is there possibly some way to just make the Wikisource software, itself, possibly in global CSS and/or Lua/MW site code, handle this for all text across Wikisource automatically? In other words, if I simply typed "'text'" in this very discussion thread, the resulting display would show:

"'text'"

SnowyCinema (talk) 23:39, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

From the purely technical side of it, it is very easy, with this bit of JS:

mw.hook("wikipage.content").add((el)=>{ // run on page load
	el.html(el.html().replaceAll(/(?<=\>([^<]*)|^)(["']{2,})(?=[^>]*<|$)/g, // make sure the quotes aren't inside tags
		(s, m1, m2) => `<span style="letter-spacing:.2em">`+m2.slice(0,-1)+`</span>`+m2.slice(-1))); // put {{lsp|.2em on all chars except last
});

The question is rather, do we want this? We tend to prefer to stick to how it is done in the source; not all works used such spacing. — Alien  3
3 3 11:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

I would argue for it even in those cases, since it increases readability significantly; and there's a significant argument to be made that if this gap isn't used in the source text, technical limitation as a reason is likely (to save paper, to justify the text, etc.). SnowyCinema (talk) 13:07, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

In stating that the technical side is easy, are you considering situations where " and ' are placed next to each other but the ' is actually part of a doubled single-quote used for italics markup? --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:01, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, because this changes the HTML output, and in the html the ''italics'' have been replaced by the parser with <i>italics</i>.

Other technical info that may be worth mentioning:

• It doesn't match stuff like <span onclick="window. x = 'these quotes are in a tag attribute'"> thanks to the (?<=...) and (?=...) parts, that prevent anything of the form <[not >s][quotes we matched here][not <s]>.
• Normally this should work cross-browser (safari supports (?<=...) since 2023), but we should still test it on all browsers before implementing (you never know). I can confirm it works on Firefox, Chromium and Opera. Testing still needed for Edge and Safari.
• On using JS vs something else: we can't apply lua to the whole site. CSS could be used along with JS, e.g. by adding class .ws-double-quotes or similar to the span instead of directly adding the styles, which would allow customisation (might be a better idea than inline styling, in fact), but these quotes by themselves can't be targeted in CSS. Altering the MW source would take a while, and they might not like it in the end, so I think it's better to do this locally.

— Alien  3
3 3 16:03, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-05

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

Weekly highlight

• Patrollers and admins - what information or context about edits or users could help you to make patroller or admin decisions more quickly or easily? The Wikimedia Foundation wants to hear from you to help guide its upcoming annual plan. Please consider sharing your thoughts on this and 13 other questions to shape the technical direction for next year.

Updates for editors

• iOS Wikipedia App users worldwide can now access a personalized Year in Review feature, which provides insights based on their reading and editing history on Wikipedia. This project is part of a broader effort to help welcome new readers as they discover and interact with encyclopedic content.
• Edit patrollers now have a new feature available that can highlight potentially problematic new pages. When a page is created with the same title as a page which was previously deleted, a tag ('Recreated') will now be added, which users can filter for in Special:RecentChanges and Special:NewPages. [4]
• Later this week, there will be a new warning for editors if they attempt to create a redirect that links to another redirect (a double redirect). The feature will recommend that they link directly to the second redirect's target page. Thanks to the user SomeRandomDeveloper for this improvement. [5]
• Wikimedia wikis allow WebAuthn-based second factor checks (such as hardware tokens) during login, but the feature is fragile and has very few users. The MediaWiki Platform team is temporarily disabling adding new WebAuthn keys, to avoid interfering with the rollout of SUL3 (single user login version 3). Existing keys are unaffected. [6]
• View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• For developers that use the MediaWiki History dumps: The Data Platform Engineering team has added a couple of new fields to these dumps, to support the Temporary Accounts initiative. If you maintain software that reads those dumps, please review your code and the updated documentation, since the order of the fields in the row will change. There will also be one field rename: in the mediawiki_user_history dump, the anonymous field will be renamed to is_anonymous. The changes will take effect with the next release of the dumps in February. [7]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 22:14, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Proposal to adopt the arrangement of presidential documents used on the Federal Register

I suggest we follow the arrangement here: https://www.federalregister.gov/presidential-documents Lists of EOs from presidents who served multiple terms are all put into a single view, with the exception of Donald Trump - who has two lists of EOs, of proclamations, and of other presidential documents, because his terms are/were non-consecutive.

• Donald J. Trump 14
• Joseph R. Biden, Jr. 162
• Donald J. Trump 220
• Barack Obama 277
• George W. Bush 291
• William J. Clinton 364
• George H.W. Bush 166
• Ronald Reagan 381
• Jimmy Carter 320
• Gerald R. Ford 169
• Richard Nixon 346
• Lyndon B. Johnson 325
• John F. Kennedy 214
• Dwight D. Eisenhower 484
• Harry S. Truman 906
• Franklin D. Roosevelt 2023

Also, the Federal Register lists the documents in REVERSE CHRONOLOGICAL order, whereas we tend to list them chronologically. This motivates my recommendation because the recent presidential documents are getting buried and are comparatively hard to find by browsing. However, I think we should discuss/debate that change in a separate topic so as to not overly confuse the two related but separate questions of how to organize these author pages.

See the history of Author:Donald Trump and its subpages the current status of this discussion, which until now has mostly happened in edit summaries and speedy deletion requests.

Notifying @Koavf and @ToxicPea who have been making constructive contributions on this subject matter, and may have informed opinions. Also discussed here: Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_United_States_Executive_Orders#Proposal_to_divide_EOs_into_subpages_by_presidential_term

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:29, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

If adopted, my proposal would result in three new subpages.

Author:Donald_John_Trump/Executive_orders (2025-2029) The President of the United States manages the operations of the Executive branch of Government through Executive orders. After the President signs an Executive order, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The OFR numbers each order consecutively as part of a series and publishes it in the daily Federal Register shortly after receipt. For a table of Executive orders that are specific to federal agency rulemaking, see the ACUS website. Executive Orders are available back through 1937.

Author:Donald_John_Trump/Proclamations (2025-2029) The President of the United States communicates information on holidays, commemorations, special observances, trade, and policy through Proclamations. After the President signs a Proclamation, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The OFR numbers each proclamation consecutively as part of a series and publishes it in the daily Federal Register shortly after receipt. Proclamations are available back through 1994.

Author:Donald_John_Trump/Other Presidential documents (2025-2029) The President of the United States issues other types of documents, including but not limited to; memoranda, notices, determinations, letters, messages, and orders. After they are signed, the White House sends it to the Office of the Federal Register (OFR).

The OFR does not number these documents but does publish them in the daily Federal Register shortly after receipt. They are grouped into four kinds of documents: Presidential orders, Memoranda, Determinations, and Notices. Other Presidential Documents are available back through 1994.

Regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 04:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I think splitting Grover Cleveland and the current president just because they were non-consecutive is not helpful for readers. And listing them reverse chronological is the opposite of how we typically do most lists of works here (in fact, are any lists reverse chronological?), so I'm disinclined to do that, but I wouldn't try to insist that we can't. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

The current list makes it very difficult for me to find recent presidential actions and announcements, and I have almost given up on using Wikisource for the purpose. For reading, I'm now typically using the lists on http://www.Whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions, http://www.Whitehouse.gov/news, http://State.gov/press-releases which all distinguish the 47th presidency from the 46th, the 45th, and all other previous presidencies whose websites are archived, and which all have their lists in reverse chronological order, and are much, much easier to browse. In so doing, I lose the benefit of wikisource annotations, but its much easier to find out what is currently happening. I expect many other readers will have the same experience.

Jaredscribe (talk) 03:34, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

 Oppose for mostly the same reasons as Koavf. Redoing all the executive order lists to be reverse chronological would make them inconsistent with all our other lists and it seems like alot of work for little to no benefit. As for splitting Cleveland and Trump, I also don't feel like it would be helpful for readers plus it might mess with some of our templates like Template:Potus work table. ToxicPea (talk) 22:28, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it is best to keep these lists in chronological order - that's how we normally do things, and to change would mean going back to Abraham Lincoln.

On the other hand, I can see an arguement for separating the two terms - after all, their presidencies have two separate numbers. -- Beardo (talk) 02:17, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Rather than making an all-or-nothing decision, I suggest we separate the two terms into two subpages only for Trump, and revisit the question in 4+ years whether or not to make a Roadmap for systemic change going back to Abraham Lincoln.

Not only do the presidencies have two separate numbers, the presidential websites are separate - 45th is in the archive at https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/

whereas 47th is the current incumbent of http://whitehouse.gov It remains to be seen what the National Archives will do with this in four years, but Obamas two consecutive terms are on one website:

https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/briefing-room/speeches-and-remarks

On all these current and archived websites, the lists are in reverse chronological order, with January 2017 being page one of Obama's archive, and January 2009 somewhere around page 473. This makes it much easier to find things, given the recentist concerns of most people who are naturally more concerned with events recent in time the present than in events further in the past.

Note that the Federal register is also in reverse chronological order, as is any stack of newspapers or magazines found at your local library.

Reverse chronological is how I'm currently ordering Author:Marco_Antonio_Rubio#Works_as_Secretary_of_State_(2025-2029),

breaking my earlier chronological precedent on Author:Antony Blinken (which article I created and primarily contributed to). I don't think there is any fixed policy about this, and sometimes precedents can and should be overturned.

Even if we maintain the current "chronological order" for the Donald and his predecessors' author pages, I maintain that we should separate the subpages of 47th from those of 45th, and give each term its own H1 section on the Author page.

Separating terms is a fairly easy refactor and its low-difficulty will remain constant and is independent of the X-number of presidential works involved, only depending on the number of subpages, which is low and constant.

Reordering to reverse chrono would be considerably more difficult as a function of the number of presidential works, and will only grow progressively more difficult on a polynomial basis. (for that reason I don't advocate re-ordering for any but the current president, and only if we do it in the next few weeks). That said, I will accept the consensus of the community either way, and we can all have four years to evaluate how it works in comparison to the alternative that I hypothesize. The question could be reconsidered again November 2028 and at latest few weeks before 20th January 2029. Jaredscribe (talk) 04:09, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Something you've not given a good reason for, is, why would it be better

1. to split Trump's page, and
2. to list in reverse.

Indeed,

• "They do it like that over there" is not a reason to change how we organize our content.
• "2. would make it much easier to find things for recentists" is not accurate, as they have the brain to scroll down to the bottom of the page, which takes about a second.

Moreover, consistency in the formatting of non-content pages is important. Just like we wouldn't, for one disambiguation page, suddenly decide to list it in reverse alphabetical order, unlike every other disambiguation page, except if a very good reason for it is found, we should not choose list one author page in reverse chronological order, unlike every author page. So yes, consistency requires often "all-or-nothing" decisions.

Could you explain that? Than you, — Alien  3
3 3 06:33, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Splitting would be to have the 45th and 47th presidencies separate. -- Beardo (talk) 00:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

And why would we do that? Splitting author pages is usually not something we do, and a reason for it has not been given. — Alien  3
3 3 08:50, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

I didn't think he was proposing to split the actual author pages. Just splitting some of the sub-pages. We separate Joe Biden's works as senator, as president and as vice-president, why not separate Donald Trump's works as president 45 and as president 47 ? -- Beardo (talk) 14:54, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

What is proposed here, (as far as splitting EOs is concerned) is to separate Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders into two separate Mediawiki pages, Author:Donald John Trump/Executive orders (2025-2029), and the old page for EOs of the first term (possibly moved under another title, this has not been detailed). These pages would be hosting exactly the same kind of works, and would be split on a chronological criterion.

This is not what is done at Joe Biden: if you look at Special:PrefixIndex/Author:Joseph Robinette Biden, you can see that the EOs are not split by date. And splitting by date in general, besides not being our usual way, does not make finding works easier; it's arguably simpler to scroll up or down a page, than to go to another page (and the headings will clearly show what is what). — Alien  3
3 3 15:13, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Biden's works are not actually split by role (see prefixindex); it's only in the headings that they are (not split as in they're on the same pages).

Also, it appears that the VP works, as much less numerous, do not appear in the subpaes. — Alien  3
3 3 16:25, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Exporting to commons and large files

I've started tackling the backlog at Category:Media now suitable for Commons (16). There are in there files, which are too large to use Special:Import, notably the Strand magazine volumes. Using pwb's imagetransfer.py didn't work either. Any ideas on how to move them? — Alien  3
3 3 20:38, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

Give me about 30 minutes to try. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:42, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

c:File:The Strand Magazine (Volume 24).djvu was uploaded by using a chunked upload method. Uploading by URI may also work, but I didn't try. If you don't want to bother with installing the script and uploading them yourself, I'm willing to do the rest. Just ping me and I'll finish them off. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:54, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I know about chunked upload, and I've used it in the past, but oughtn't we actually move the file, as in keep the revision histories, as opposed to merely reuploading it? — Alien  3
3 3 20:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

I guess that's nice if we can do it, but if we can't, I don't think there are any attribution issues. To the extent that there are, I mentioned in the edit summary that I ported it over from here and someone could check the file logs if he really wanted to know who originally uploaded it, but yes, that does mean that the original uploader will have one fewer logged actions locally and globally across that person's SUL account. Maybe there's some other issue that I'm missing here, but sufficient attribution can be made in the edit summary and the talk page if you really want to cover your bases somehow. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:59, 30 January 2025 (UTC)

About catchword

I'm still quite new so I'm not familiar with the consensus here. Should catchword be added or not? After reading Help:Formatting conventions, I thought it's like binder mark, so it shouldn't be added. Then a more experienced editor added it back to the Page that I was editing. Now I'm not so sure. Ivan530 (talk) 14:50, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

Most of us leave them in, even though they won't show up in the Mainspace, because they are a part of the text on the page. The editor who put it in did so automatically as part of other edits they made to that page. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:53, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

The case could be made that they are printer marks. In a way, they are printer marks that include parts of the work, instead of letters and digits. I'd say it's a bit of a grey area. — Alien  3
3 3 17:58, 31 January 2025 (UTC)

I disagree with the comparison. Printer's marks are for the printer and binder to use in assembling the book. Catchwords are for the reader. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to include or exclude them. They exist not for the bindery, but for the reader. Some modern books (especially choral music) still include them because it allows the reader / singer to know what is happening while they turn the page. They do not transclude to the Mainspace copy, so they provide no benefit there, nor is Mainspace harmed by their exclusion. If the transcriber has chosen to include them, and has done so consistently, I leave them there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Squab Culture

There are two indexes which seem to be the same edition - Index:Squab culture (IA squabculture00wood).pdf and Index:Squab Culture.djvu - do we want to have both ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:20, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Since they're the same edition, they should be merged. SnowyCinema (talk) 02:29, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Further than being the same edition, I'm pretty sure it's the same physical book. (Compare the two notches below the "W" of "Wood" here and there.)

Definitely should move pages of one to another. As the PDF is an overcompressed IAPDF, I'd say move to the djvu. The move would be (as the djvu includes some pages from scanning that aren't really part of the work):

• pdf/1 → djvu/2
• ...
• pdf/76 → djvu/77

Going to try and do that this afternoon. — Alien  3
3 3 06:23, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

@SnowyCinema, @Alien333 - oh, great. I didn't realise that was possible. -- Beardo (talk) 02:19, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

And of course, I forgot. (and then remembered). Should be Done. — Alien  3
3 3 13:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Shāntián Tàiláng

Hello. This is to notify the community that there is an ongoing global ban proposal for User:Shāntián Tàiláng who has been active on this wiki. You are invited to participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Shāntián Tàiláng Wüstenspringmaus (talk) 12:22, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

For the record: threefour wikisourcers, namely TE(æ)A,ea, Cremastra, Prosfilaes, and I, have all opposed the proposed global ban. Duckmather (talk) Duckmather (talk) 23:36, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Although, for the record, my home wiki is enWP since I'm not super active here. Cremastra (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Standardization of encyclopedia based nav templates?

Hey i want to start this discudtion becuse there are many tempaltes that are basicly the same and i am thinking about thes type of templates https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:EB1911, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Template:EB1922, https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/IndexPage. THess templates are basicly the same.

• Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Volume_1
• 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1 A to ANDROPHAGI

Johshh (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Two of those are templates for article headers, but the other is Index formatting in the Mainspace. They are not doing the "same thing". --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Ahhh. I see you are right. I was thinking about this thingy{{:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/IndexPage}}. OK i mean IndexPage like that. Johshh (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm still not sure what you're asking. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:42, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/IndexPage and 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/IndexPage are doing the same thing. Why can't there be a singe template for this operation. Johshh (talk) 22:56, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Because they're separate publications? These are far from the only publications to have such navigation pages.

Why would we want or need a single template? Are you aware of how Wikisource content and goals are different from those on Wikipedia? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:10, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Sure, I know. What is the main difference between these two templates? The only difference is the titles, right?. so why do we need more templates than necessary? Johshh (talk) 23:20, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It's purely historical. The 1911EB template was imported when we were set up as a separate entity to old wikisource. The CE (1913) was brought in by importing all the articles from another repository (we don't allow this any more), but was not organised usefully. The IndexPage template was created to allow for rational organisation by volume. It was modelled on the 1911EB template. There are very few other works like this here in this situation. I did the Grove DMM in a different way and other encyclopaedic works are also being organised differently. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Reminder: first part of the annual UCoC review closes soon

Please help translate to your language.

This is a reminder that the first phase of the annual review period for the Universal Code of Conduct and Enforcement Guidelines will be closing soon. You can make suggestions for changes through the end of day, 3 February 2025. This is the first step of several to be taken for the annual review. Read more information and find a conversation to join on the UCoC page on Meta. After review of the feedback, proposals for updated text will be published on Meta in March for another round of community review.

Please share this information with other members in your community wherever else might be appropriate.

-- In cooperation with the U4C, Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:49, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces/Three Battles

This page comprises three parts. There are three separate pages which transclude the same content as this:

• War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces/High Wood
• War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces/Beaumont-Hamel (Three Battles)
• War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces/Victory and Failure

Two of those don't seem to be linked from anywhere else, and one of them is only linked directly from the author's page. Are these three of any use ?

Tagging @Xover and @Victuallers as creators of some of the pages. (a long time ago) -- Beardo (talk) 20:48, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

• The poems from War, the Liberator, and Other Pieces were all originally stand-alone pages with all-capitalized titles; I moved them under the collection a few years ago, and they were scan-backed some time later. Originally, the three poems of “Three Battles” were separated, but when the work was transcluded it was decided that “Three Battles” was one poem with three parts. I’m not sure which approach is correct in this case. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:29, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's one poem in three parts, as the TOC presents a typical style of sectioned poems within collections for the period. SnowyCinema (talk) 05:05, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-06

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

Updates for editors

• Editors who use the "Special characters" editing-toolbar menu can now see the 32 special characters you have used most recently, across editing sessions on that wiki. This change should help make it easier to find the characters you use most often. The feature is in both the 2010 wikitext editor and VisualEditor. [8]
• Editors using the 2010 wikitext editor can now create sublists with correct indentation by selecting the line(s) you want to indent and then clicking the toolbar buttons.[9] You can now also insert <code> tags using a new toolbar button.[10] Thanks to user stjn for these improvements.
• Help is needed to ensure the citation generator works properly on each wiki.
  • (1) Administrators should update the local versions of the page MediaWiki:Citoid-template-type-map.json to include entries for preprint, standard, and dataset; Here are example diffs to replicate for 'preprint' and for 'standard' and 'dataset'.
  • (2.1) If the citoid map in the citation template used for these types of references is missing, one will need to be added. (2.2) If the citoid map does exist, the TemplateData will need to be updated to include new field names. Here are example updates for 'preprint' and for 'standard' and 'dataset'. The new fields that may need to be supported are archiveID, identifier, repository, organization, repositoryLocation, committee, and versionNumber. [11]
• One new wiki has been created: a Wikipedia in Central Kanuri (w:knc:) [12]
• View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the OCR (optical character recognition) tool used for Wikisource now supports a new language, Church Slavonic. [13]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 00:08, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Questions re #SafeguardingResearch

Hi all - first time posting here. I'm Henrik Schönemann - the one coordinating the efforts of #SafeguardingResearch on Mastodon and beyond: https://fedihum.org/@lavaeolus/113921816307826784 & https://safeguarding-research.discourse.group

We are a team of ~12 core-'members' and more people in the second row. We got a lot of publicly available data backed up already & are working on even more things.

I got 3 questions:

1) Are people interested in contributing/organizing?

2) Is it possible to chat with people on an institutional level? (We're looking at mirroring **a lot** of data.

3) Is this a place to upload parts of our collections? Especially sources/books (not datasets or articles)?

Thanks a lot!

Henrik Schoeneh (talk) 18:01, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

What do you know about Wikisource, and what research did you do prior to asking? Did you look at our FAQ documents and policies? Or are you asking blind?

With regard to question (3), are these sources/books things that your organization published, or that were published elsewhere? Are these original scans, or digitized copies? Are they public domain, or are they protected by copyright?

There are a lot of points that need to be clarified before an answer can be given, because there is a lot we don't yet know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Right now I'm doing dozens of outreach-threads all at once, that's why I'm asking kinda blindly. I know Wikisource for some years now (have used it for my own research), but haven't contributed anything, except for a few corrections over the years (without an account).

We got publicly available scans from the Digital Collections of the National Library of Medicine for example, including the OCR-text (quality is meh). Books about racism, slavery etc. - all not research but primary sources. Those seem to me to be a good fit here. Schoeneh (talk) 18:27, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

For scans of print publications that are in the public domain in their country of origin, those scans can be uploaded to Commons and to the Internet Archive. If they are in English, we could then create transcriptions from those scans here. Without knowing more about the books, I couldn't say. We do not host self-published works for example, or works published without editorial review. I also can't tell from your response whether you mean scans of books, or some other kind of content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I get that - no worries. But re Wikisource I'm taking about "publicly available scans from the Digital Collections of the National Library of Medicine for example, including the OCR-text (quality is meh). Books about racism, slavery etc. - all not research but primary sources" 185.238.219.108 18:59, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

But "publicly available" does not tell us whether they are protected by copyright, or how they were published, or where they originated. The fact that they are "available" publicly is irrelevant for Wikisource. Many things are available that we would not host here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They would still need to be in the public domain (publicly available isn't exactly the same thing). So works of the U.S. federal government or books printed before 1930 or whose authors died before 1930. If they aren't in English, then they would need to go into the respective language version of Wikisource, which may have different inclusion criteria. —Tcr25 (talk) 19:12, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

They are printed before 1930 and in English. 176.0.131.40 21:54, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Then they are in scope. — Alien  3
3 3 06:25, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Also note that OCR dumps (works where only the OCR has been uploaded and the creator does not intend to correct it) are heavily frowned upon, and are likely to get deleted quite fast. — Alien  3
3 3 20:48, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

I get that, that's why I wrote "meh" - I'm not going to dump not usable things here. 176.0.131.40 21:55, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

"Too many" fonts on page: What to do?

I'm actually working at Swedish Wikisource, but it has waaay fewer active contributors than here, so it's hard to get a consensus. Hopefully you folks on "en" will help me with this.

There's this book I'm considering proofreading, but it has a lot of fonts, and I'm not sure what's a decent way to treat them. Here is a sample page. It's in Swedish of course, but that's not actually relevant. What is relevant is the number of fonts that appear on the page. (1) The book is set in "Fraktur", as were many books from that era (1700's). It is my belief that this is not nearly as common in English-language works, but perhaps I'm mistaken about that. (2) Some words are "highlighted" by using the "Schwabacher" font. That's the somewhat darker and more widely letter-spaced words. The individual letters are mostly similar to Fraktur, but a few are different, especially the capitals. (3) Some words, mostly of "foreign" origin, use a font similar to monospaced text (much like <tt></tt>) but this font is actually proportionally spaced. It looks a lot like "Times New Roman" actually. (4) And some of the text is in Italics.

So my issue is: How should I represent all these? (1) The base font I have no control over, it shows as the usual Serif, and I'm fine with that. (2) The Schwabacher is a problem (for me), from two points of view: a) while it is somewhat darker than the base font, I think that just bolding it makes it too much in-your-face and does nothing for the wider spacing; b) the standard recommendation (in Swedish anyway) is to italicize it, but the text contains other stuff that's already in italics, and I don't want to mess with that. (3) The "foreign" words are actually in something that used to be called Antikva (which I find somewhat ironic, since it basically means "antique", but is now used a lot). But that's the 1700's for you.

So that's the issue I have. And my question(s):

• Does anyone know of a similar issue? And how it was dealt with?
• What do you think I should do to represent all these is a reasonable way?

Thanks ... Bio2935c (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

@Bio2935: If I were doing this, what I would do is

• Use Fraktur for the Fraktur text (make and invoke a template for that if there isn't one already)
• Use Schwabacher for the Schwabacher text (make and invoke a template for that if there isn't one already)
• Use the base font for the proportionally-spaced text
• Italicize and use the base font for the italicized text

How does this sound to you?

Duckmather (talk) 05:55, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

"How does this sound to you?" Do not like it. The whole point of working on these texts is to make them more accessible to a wider audience. Writing it in the same very-difficult-to-read-for-some font as the original feels totally wrong. We're trying to make things more readable. Did I mention that I (personally) am also not comfortable with "overly technical" solutions; especially things that might not work with "every" browser (or your phone, even). "KISS" if at all possible. So, for now, perhaps there will be other opinions later in the day/week. Bio2935c (talk) 06:36, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Or your phone, even? I'm pretty sure that there are far fewer people on phones using archaic versions of browsers than people on computers.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Interesting problem. I would use small caps to represent the Schwabacher font and set the "foreign" words in the opposite to the base font (serif vs san-serif). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmmm. I was going to say that your proposal to use small caps to represent the Schwabacher font felt too hacky, since Schwabacher is its own font after all. Then I realized that my browser (Firefox) doesn't seem to natively support a Schwabacher font. However, there also doesn't seem to be a way to list all the fonts my browser natively supports. We could use JavaScript to piggyback off of someone else's version of the font (by adding in an appropriate <link> tag with a bit of DOM manipulation), but it's unclear how doable or ethical that is.

Until we figure out something, I don't actually know what y'all should do. Duckmather (talk) 06:12, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

If you need fonts, https://fonts.google.com/ will usually do the job, letting you link to any of their fonts from your website, ethically and doable.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:47, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

English / French WS generally don't have much to say on this as we stopped using blackletter for body text in general ages ago so even Shakespeare's First Folio, Hakluyt etc. is printed in Roman type. If it is used it is generally redone in modern editions anyways (such as the King James Bible, or Caxton), or explicitly for effect. English WS readers looking for a text from, say, the 1570s, know it isn't going to take effort. German WS might be reasonable to ask as they I am sure deal with it regularly as it was in common use up to the 1940s. Converting it all into roman type with variants (e.g. using italics and serif / sans-serif) for legibility or keeping in Fraktur / Blackletter and using different font variants. I suspect that going with Roman + variants is better because that is what your readers might be familiar with as opposed to German text where are likely familiar with both forms. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:11, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Executive Orders with annexes

Some executive orders come with annexes. Should these annexes be placed on the same page as the rest of the order or should they be placed on their own subpage? Pinging @Koavf, @Jaredscribe, @TheSubmarine, @KINGDM76, and @TE(æ)A,ea. for comment. ToxicPea (talk) 15:39, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

They should be posted together. I think it's reasonable to make a subpage. See, e.g. how Supreme Court opinions are structured with Dissenting opinions as subpages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:43, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

There's an example of how it would look on Executive Order 14077. Does this work fine or is there anything that should be changed about it? ToxicPea (talk) 17:39, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

I think the "List of Parties" is a little subtle, but altogether good. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:51, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, I think sub-pages are good, but wondering if there's a way to make the annexes more prominent than on EO 14077. Someone reading it would easily miss that there is an annex. TheSubmarine (talk) 14:19, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikileaks

I notice a couple of documents that are sourced from Wikileaks. Is that acceptable ? -- Beardo (talk) 01:26, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

We have classified documents from the US Embassy Tehran, ran them in the monthly challenge and no-one objected... MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:34, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Should be fine as long as the documents in question are public domain which is true of all works by the US federal government regardless of their classification status. ToxicPea (talk) 18:14, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

That was my concern - are the documents public domain if not officially released by the US government ? -- Beardo (talk) 19:16, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

While works from the federal government are generally public domain, there are some exceptions that can apply:

• Congress has the right to unilaterally take anything out of or put anything into the public domain
• A federal agency can redact information and leave it out of the public record for an indefinite period
• A work of the federal government can contain other works which are themselves protected by copyright (e.g. photos embedded in a PDF)

So a lot of Wikileaks document dumps from the United States federal government could be public domain or would be assumed to be public domain, it's not necessarily the case that everything is ipso facto public domain purely by virtue of having been a document from the feds. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:31, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it was officially released by the US government. The copyright law says "A “work of the United States Government” is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties. ... In General.—Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise." w:Copyright status of works by the federal government of the United States should cover most of the gritty details.

Yes, Congress has broad rights to take things in and out of the public domain. It doesn't happen in practice, and there's no more reason to worry about it in this case than in any other.

If you have a copy of a Federal Agency document, it doesn't matter whether some other version is redacted, or even if your version is redacted but you can remove the redactions. There is no copyright for works of the United States government. I don't even think there's anything for general security stuff; w:Born secret notes that nuclear information is the only field where it can be illegal to discuss publicly available information. If Wikileaks has released stuff by employees of the US Federal Government prepared as part of their official duties, it has no copyright restrictions.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Even the law you quoted immediately gives preemptive exceptions, which explicitly refer to defense and intelligence, which is exactly the sort of material that Wikileaks published/publishes. Did you even read the law itself? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:00, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The exemption listed grants the copyright of work by faculty at federal universities to the faculty member which has almost nothing to do with diplomatic cables between embassies. Note the State department is not listed. The point is that, say, a professor of history at West Point can collect royalties if he writes and publishes a book just as a professor of history at a non-government university. MarkLSteadman (talk) 08:48, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Which is true about almost any modern PD / free-licensed work that cites any other work, even Wikisource. If someone forwards a news article it doesn't magically lose it's original copyright or includes, same if it is in a free-licensed book. But no-one was arguing that it magically didn't need to remove non-free images or non-free text just like every other government publication or report. MarkLSteadman (talk) 09:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

Presidential pardons

Do we have a standard way that presidential pardons are titled? --RAN (talk) 17:45, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Do we even have any presidential pardons on here yet? ToxicPea (talk) 15:04, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

If it's just a standard proclamation I'd just call it Proclamation XXXXX ToxicPea (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

• Here is the one I want to bring over: File:Presidential Pardon of Charles Frederick Lindauer by Ulysses S. Grant on 21 March 1873.jpg --RAN (talk) 16:03, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Making images available to "Proofread of the Month"

I made the un-watermarked, de-logoed images for the current proofread of the month available at Category:Towards a New Architecture (Le Corbusier) (they are still there). They cannot be uploaded to commons so they are here. Also, the images will be needed for the work. A few are my work, but the originals for those three can be provided if necessary.

What is the correct category name for this? I used the name of the djvu file; but that was apparently wrong.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

The category name is correct, but the category should not be created. We use un-created categories for image sorting. The categories get created on Commons when the Do-not-move notice expires and they are shipped over. We do not use such categories here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:08, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

See this: Category:Eminent Authors of Contemporary Japan, volume 1? That was part of a group effort to categorize all of the images that were here. It seems they were all dumped into Category:Images. User:Xover asked that we all consider helping and some software was also involved (iirc). While I cannot find the entry here (Scriptorium) for this group activity, I can find that you were around then. Does this rule only apply to me? Or is it a new rule?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

New Texts bug?

For some reason, the items in the new text is abnormally spaced. Is there a reason why? Norbillian (talk) 18:20, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

See WS:AN#Template:New texts/item. In a nutshell: after module migration, there were a few styles to be corrected. Everything should be good to normal now. Feel free to comment there if you've got suggestions. — Alien  3
3 3 19:59, 6 February 2025 (UTC)

Potus-eo bug

The template Template:Potus-eo is supposed to put works in Category:Executive Orders of year but is instead putting works in Category:year works. Anybody know why that is? ToxicPea (talk) 21:27, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Ought to be fixed. The issue was that it made the assumption that {{yesno|...}} returns no when ... is falsy, whereas it actually returns nil (an empty string). — Alien  3
3 3 06:51, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Transcluding a part of a work into another work

I've just transcluded some of A History of American Literature into The Wild Honeysuckle. Is this the correct way to scan-back the latter entry, which itself has a redundant, not scan-backed copy at The Wild Honey Suckle. Norbillian (talk) 04:40, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd say that no, putting an extract of a book as a top-domain work isn't the right way to do it. These two non-scan backed ones should be speedied under WS:CSD#G4, and then a redirect may be created from one of these two titles, or another one, to the history of american literature. — Alien  3
3 3 06:53, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the info! Norbillian (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Source book that combines two books

Chinese and Arabian Literature (Commons file) contains two sections, each with its own title page, contents and separate page numbering. Is it fine to have both as one index here ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:41, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Both having been published in the same physical book, I don't see a reason why not. — Alien  3
3 3 06:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I will have a go. -- Beardo (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, one index. Invoke the pagelist command twice, once for each section. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:38, 8 February 2025 (UTC)

Aha ! I will have a go at that. Thanks. -- Beardo (talk) 01:15, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

That seems fine - thanks again @Alien333 and @Beeswaxcandle. -- Beardo (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Index:Englsih and Bengali Dictionary, for the use of Schools - James Sykes.djvu

This has English misspelled in the name - also on Commons. Does that matter ? If so, what is the best way to deal with it ? -- Beardo (talk) 06:22, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Given it doesn't have pages yet, so the move on our end is still simple, I'd say put in a move request for the file at commons, put this work on hold until it's accepted, and then move the index. — Alien  3
3 3 07:49, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

I have made the request at Commons. -- Beardo (talk) 14:54, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Moved it here too, all good now. — Alien  3
3 3 20:13, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Wikisource:Translations is now policy

For information: it now is officially {{policy}} following the proposal, which was archived before being properly closed. — Alien  3
3 3 20:17, 9 February 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-07

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

• The Product and Technology Advisory Council (PTAC) has published a draft of their recommendations for the Wikimedia Foundation's Product and Technology department. They have recommended focusing on mobile experiences, particularly contributions. They request community feedback at the talk page by 21 February.

Updates for editors

• The "Special pages" portlet link will be moved from the "Toolbox" into the "Navigation" section of the main menu's sidebar by default. This change is because the Toolbox is intended for tools relating to the current page, not tools relating to the site, so the link will be more logically and consistently located. To modify this behavior and update CSS styling, administrators can follow the instructions at T385346. [14]
• As part of this year's work around improving the ways readers discover content on the wikis, the Web team will be running an experiment with a small number of readers that displays some suggestions for related or interesting articles within the search bar. Please check out the project page for more information.
• Template editors who use TemplateStyles can now customize output for users with specific accessibility needs by using accessibility related media queries (prefers-reduced-motion, prefers-reduced-transparency, prefers-contrast, and forced-colors). Thanks to user Bawolff for these improvements. [15]
• View all 22 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the global blocks log will now be shown directly on the Special:CentralAuth page, similarly to global locks, to simplify the workflows for stewards. [16]

Updates for technical contributors

• Wikidata now supports a special language as a "default for all languages" for labels and aliases. This is to avoid excessive duplication of the same information across many languages. If your Wikidata queries use labels, you may need to update them as some existing labels are getting removed. [17]
• The function getDescription was invoked on every Wiki page read and accounts for ~2.5% of a page's total load time. The calculated value will now be cached, reducing load on Wikimedia servers. [18]
• As part of the RESTBase deprecation effort, the /page/related endpoint has been blocked as of February 6, 2025, and will be removed soon. This timeline was chosen to align with the deprecation schedules for older Android and iOS versions. The stable alternative is the "morelike" action API in MediaWiki, and a migration example is available. The MediaWiki Interfaces team can be contacted for any questions. [19]

In depth

• The latest quarterly Language and Internationalization newsletter is available. It includes: Updates about the "Contribute" menu; details on some of the newest language editions of Wikipedia; details on new languages supported by the MediaWiki interface; updates on the Community-defined lists feature; and more.
• The latest Chart Project newsletter is available. It includes updates on the progress towards bringing better visibility into global charts usage and support for categorizing pages in the Data namespace on Commons.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 00:11, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Before and After at the Department of Education

This afternoon I expanded and improved the Portal:United States Department of Education more than all other wikisource editors combined have done in the last 20 years. Here's my work, and here's how it looked before, and here's the differential.

In the process I also happened to run across Author:Jimmy Carter, and decided to improve and radically reorganize it, having already added one of his notable works last week, the The Treaty Concerning the Permanent Neutrality and Operation of the Panama Canal that he'd signed with Maximum Leader of the Panamanian Revolution Omar Torrijos (7 September 1977).

How's that for efficiency? What did you guys do today?

If anyone would like to help out, you could start by blueifying this link, which now exists on both pages:

• Department of Education Organization Act Pub. L. No. 96-88, which President Jimmy Carter signed into law on October 17, 1979

And then blueify the others. Transparency and accountability are lacking in the US government, in many respects, and we have an opportunity to bring the transparency both to the government and also to the current effort at its radical reform.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 05:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Note that copy of the Panama treaty is proposed for deletion. We need to find a better source. -- Beardo (talk) 00:57, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Phetools-based Gadgets removed (OCR and Match&Split)

Since Phetools went down during The Great Toolforge Grid Engine Migration™ last year, the OCR service and Match&Split service that it provided have been non-functional. I have now removed (disabled) the two respective Gadgets (ocr and robot) so that the user interface artefacts of a non-functional service doesn't show up any more.

This does not affect any alternate or replacement service; only the ones that used the Phetools service on Toolforge. Xover (talk) 07:38, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Help wanted at P:USAID

You may have heard that the D.C. offices of the United States Agency for International Development have been shuttered and its staff furloughed, subsequent to POTUS's * Executive Order 14169 of January 20, 2025 Reevaluating and Realigning United States Foreign Aid.

Nevertheless, we at WikiSource are Hiring[sic] editors to contribute to it's page. We can't pay you, and your contributions will be in the public domain, but your work will improve the transparency and accountability of the U.S. government and its reformers, and you might learn something. :)

There are about 20+ redlinked documents that could be blueified; here are a few notable ones:

• Oversight of USAID-Funded Humanitarian Assistance Programming Impacted by Staffing Reductions and Pause on Foreign Assistance Feb 10, 2025, [1]
• Memorandum: Challenges to Accountability and Transparency Within USAID-Funded Programs Jan 28, 2025, by Inspector General Paul Martin,[2]
• Review and Potential Reorganization of USAID's activities to maximize efficiency and align operations with national interest, 3rd February Letter to Portal:United States Congress from Secretary Author:Marco Rubio
• Advisory Discussion regarding USAID by Elon Musk and associates in the United States DOGE Service, 3rd February, audio discussion held on X.com. Presumably in the public domain, according to the Federal Advisory Committee Act.

Currently overseen by Deputy Peter Marocco of the Acting Director, U.S. Secretary of State Author:Marco Rubio. It's current website is oig.usaid.gov, and it's Inspector General is Paul K. Martin.

• The U.S. Agency for International Development Office of Inspector General was established on December 16, 1980, by Public Law 96-533, an amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.
• Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 by U.S. Congress

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 17:40, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

Many of these documents are cited by the secondary sources which are used on the relevant wikipedia articles. After the primaries are added here, they can be added to wikipedia on articles where secondary sources have already established relevance and notability, and will help to improve the encyclopedic coverage and context.

• w:USAID
• w:Department of Government Efficiency#United States Agency for International Development_(USAID)
• w:USAID#Allegations_of_wasteful_spending
• etc.

If you use primary sources on wikipedia without a secondary source alongside it, you must do so carefully, sparingly, and without w:Template:AEIS "Analytic, Evaluative, Interpretive, or Synthetic" statements that could be considered w:WP:Original Research.

Original Research, non-neutral editing, and forking of articles are allowed on Wikiversity, such as at the research project on the United States DOGE Service, provided that you practice scholarly ethics, as explained on that project.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 18:00, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

JUmp to file script

The script being User:Inductiveload/jump_to_file

This has an issue with IA links as detailed on it's talk page.

It's also apparently not retrieving scans from HT links either examples being the Statutes of The Realms volumes, (that also hit thumbnailing issues due to size).

The script needs re-writing , and InductiveLoad seems to be somewhat inactive.

Perhaps someone here is able to provide an alternate to the back end the script needs, to let Wikisource contributors use the hi-res function of the script as designed with scans from IA and HT again? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:03, 12 February 2025 (UTC)

Portal guidelines proposed as actual guidelines

Hello WikiSource community,

An administrator here has recently informed that that Wikisource:Portal_guidelines are not actually guidelines, but merely an essay by @AdamBMorgan. (This person's user page says that he "organised the Portal namespace into a system based on the Library of Congress Classification system, after migrating them from index pages". I thank him for that, and hope we all do. This is a very impressive and helpful accomplishment that benefits us all.)

Apparently he wrote what was originally an essay, and was then promoted to a guideline by @Erasmo Barresi. I too use the Portal:Library of Congress and its collections, and the Portal:Portals here on wikipedia, and have been contributing lately to the Portal:Federal Government of the United States and its sub-portals, and encourage other good-faith contributors to assist, because alot of work remains to be done, especially since the US government produces public domain documents all the time, and the government changes every four or eight years and the pages need to be regularly updated.

Now in this discussion, User_talk:Jaredscribe#Library of Congress, Portals, and Cross-namespace redirects, @EncycloPetey has twice stated his opinion that the Wikisource:Portal_guidelines are not guidelines and that I am at fault for relying on it.

Therefore, lest there be an doubt, I propose that the Wikisource:Portal_guidelines be confirmed and established as guidelines and effective policy on Wikisource.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 17:06, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

•  Oppose This is an Essay. I see no reason given to add it to our list of Policies. However, we may wish to confirm it as a Guideline, or we may wish to confirm that it is not. The process by which it was elevated from Draft to Guideline involved one person nominating it for elevation, the same person voting, and then that person elevating it, with no other discussion or votes from anyone else. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  We should not accept @EncycloPetey's criticism of the earlier promotion process, until he provides a link to the discussion; we shouldn't take his criticism on faith. There were at least two people involved earlier, who I've named above and pinged. If many others gave their silent assent, then it is a broader consensus. Also, @EncycloPetey should state particularly what his dispute with the Wikisource:Portal_guidelines are, or propose an alternative essay. Otherwise his opposition is merely argumentative, and he fails to elucidate a positive account of what Portals are or should be.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 17:31, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  The two people you pinged have not been active here in years. One last edited here in 2016, and the other has only a single edit here since 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  I take it that this edit made during this discussion concedes that the page is not an official Guideline or policy, since you have made the edit in your favor during this discussion? In any event, altering such pages during a discussion about their status is bad form. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:57, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  That edit concerned an entirely different, although related Guideline' page. Wikisource_talk:Red_link_guidelines#Portal_Namespace. Both of this and the WS:Portal guidelines are Guidelines, as they claim to be, and I do NOT concede that they are not, as you suggest, and as you continue to maintain. My addition did not substantially change the meaning, I don't think, but expanded and explained it so as to clarify the expectations for Portals, since we are both apparently in need of guidance on what ought to be done. I genuinely did not realize that this was controversial change, but if it is, we can discuss here:

  Wikisource_talk:Red link guidelines#Portal Namespace

  That is a better forum than my talk page or the ANI, because this issue concerns everyone who is involved in the projects of adding public domain government documents, and not just me and you.

  Jaredscribe (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

  No, it isn't. Discussions that general should occur here in the Scriptorium, and not on various Talk pages scattered across the site. Unlike Wikipedia, Wikisource prefers centralized discussions. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:15, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

U.S. Federal Departments, Secretarys, and Annotations of Government documents

See Executive Order 14196 (2025) by President of the United States, A Plan for Establishing a United States Sovereign Wealth Fund addressed to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Commerce.

This raises a question on how to best annotate the documents. I chose to create redirects to the Departmental Portals, as you can observe, because the executive order is not directed to Bessent and Lutnick, per se, but to the Secretary of the Department, including all holders of the office until and unless a future POTUS rescinds the order. (which sometimes happens, other times not).

Before I'd worked out this convention, I had, on some other orders addressed to the Secretary of State (Portal:Secretary of State) linked to Author:Marco Rubio, but I have changed my mind and will correct those in the future, linking instead to the Portal:United States State Department, to where the P:SoS ought to redirect. There do not exist portals such as Portal:United States Secretary of the Treasury, or Portal:United States Department of State and I don't think that such portals need to exist, so I'm adding redirects for such Portal links to the respective departments.

However if other users choose to add those Portals, then I will defer and we could go back and make the necessary changes. They could, for example, include a list of all past office holders, importing and modifying this w:United_States_Secretary_of_the_Treasury#List_of_secretaries_of_the_treasury. That would be a worthy project, it's just not a project I have time for or intend to do in the foreseeable future. Instead, I will list past Secretaries on the Departmental Portal, and probably only on an ad hoc basis.

I encourage other contributors to expand the Portals with the history of these departments, for as "wisdom is more precious than gold", as Author:Solomon says, who was also reported to be wealth. there are many notable works that could be scanned, upload, and linked, some already have, and many of the Author pages already exist. There is more work than I could possibly do alone, although I'm apparently the only one here consistently laboring in this content area, although I thank @Norbillian and a few others for the constructive - if occasional - contributions, and I thank those others working on the WS:USEO project, and invite them to discuss. @Koavf and @ToxicPea and others whose names I can't spell.

Collegial regards, Jaredscribe (talk) 20:41, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Making portals for government agencies is a fantastic idea, but as you point out, a lot to add to and maintain. As for adding internal links, I generally avoid it unless I'm actually making an Annotated edition, e.g. at What to the Slave Is the Fourth of July?/Annotated. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:45, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for that annotated version! Once upon a time in 2021 I cited Author:Frederick Douglass's speech - on the wikipedia article for 4th of July and/or w:United States Declaration of Independence or w:What to a Slave is the Fourth of July. I'll go back someday to see how much remains.

Most of the Portals to government Departments and some bureaus and agencies, already exist. The lists of former Secretaries, Directors, and Chief officers, do not exist.

Portal:Treasury Secretaries doesn't exist, maybe there is a Category:Treasury Secretaries or Category:United States Treasury Secretaries or something, but apparently not. That's why I propose listing them on Portal:United States Department of the Treasury, until and unless someone makes a more complete index list, as a Portal, or categorizes the Author pages. Author:Alexander Hamilton, for starters.

Please add that, if you will. I've been recently arraigned at the Adminstrator's noticeboard over my Portal redirects, and don't wish to incur a block by making controversial edits to the Portal in question, until I've been cleared.

Jaredscribe (talk) 22:08, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Here it is: Category:United_States_Secretaries_of_the_Treasury.

I just threw caution to the wind added this notable fact to Hamilton's byline: and first Secretary of the Portal:United States Department of the Treasury.

Jaredscribe (talk) 22:14, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

Embedding dust jackets in the header template

We have several options on how to handle dust jackets of books, such as: not worrying about them at all, transcribing them with the book, or transcribing them under a different title. I propose another one, which is to just include a picture of the dust jacket in the "notes" section of the header template, like what is done here. I want to do this, but I am afraid of getting reverted. prospectprospekt (talk) 20:41, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think this is a bad idea for three main reasons (1) it pushes content of the book further down the page in favor of the header; (2) it places content that is not part of the scan into the work; (3) it puts potential content into a place that would not be available in the Download. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

1 and 2 are also arguments against transcribing the dust jacket in the main (un-subpaged) part of the book, and I can make it collapsible by default if that is necessary. Also, it would not make sense to attach the scan of a dust jacket to the scan of a book because a book and its dust jacket are separate things. prospectprospekt (talk) 22:38, 14 February 2025 (UTC) edited 22:40, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

On 2, that isn't true if it was included as part of the scan of the book. If the dust jacket is part of the scan, and I believe it should be, then it should be transcribed along with the internal portions. However, a large number of our scans come from libraries where the dust jacket was not bound with the rest of the book, and so is not present in the scan. And for1, that's only true if the dust jacket is placed at the very top of the first Mainspace page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:58, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think including the dust jacket (or cover images, for books without dust jackets) in the Index page would be best. It's part of the work, and should be transcribed along with it. I also think it or any nice illustrative image of the work should be allowed to be included optionally in the mainspace page. Perhaps not in the header notes field, as that results in a fair bit of empty space, but floated to the right as we do for author images. It's good to give readers a visual clue as to what the original worked looked like physically. Sam Wilson 05:04, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

To clarify, you do not mean any nice illustrative image as in "any decorative image which seems to fit the theme of the book", but as in "an image of the physical object that was scanned", right?

Besides whether it is desirable, we would have the issue that often the closest we have to that is a scan of the cover, with borders cropped, which, well, doesn't bring anything in msot cases. — Alien  3
3 3 07:37, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely! I didn't mean any random apposite image, but specifically a cover or first page (or whatever is most appropriate) of the work. I think especially for manuscripts it could be very useful to give a feel for the work. Sam Wilson 01:02, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

But that's not what the |notes= field in the {{header}} template is for, and adding it outside the header would be an annotation. If the dust jacket is included in the scan it can be treated like any other part of the book (title page, frontispiece, etc.), and if it is not then our readers will have to do without it as with any other lacking element of a scan. And even when the scan includes the dust jacket we should probably generally avoid it as it has limited value in the majority of works, and at the same time takes up space and gets in the way of the content in our texts (unlike in a physical book). General media related to the work can be found on Commons, as linked in the sisterlinks in the header template provided the connection is set up on Wikidata.

Also keep in mind that the actual author in most cases had no or minimal input on the dust jacket. Like other artefacts of the publishing or printing process we very explicitly make the distinction: it is the author's work we try to reproduce as faithfully as possible, and everything else is either of secondary importance or explicitly excluded (library cards, ex libris, letters, clippings, etc.). Xover (talk) 07:40, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

In my opinion, a dust jacket is "information that adds value to the reader" so it fits in the |notes= parameter (edit: and AFAIK we don't have strict guidelines on how that parameter should be used. Some people use it to quote book reviews, which are not part of the book either). I don't see any problem with adding it as an annotation in the body either; then, it could be moved to the very bottom of the page instead of taking up space at the top. Perhaps the best solution is to transcribe it in a subpage, so both its connection to book and the fact that it is a different object is made clear. prospectprospekt (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2025 (UTC) edited 16:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

We have a policy when it comes to Wikisource:Annotations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Third-level headings

I just replaced all h3s by h2s on this page (there were only in bot requests and move requests), because as it stands, the skipping of a level (from h1 to h3 directly) prevents the bot from archiving. Do you have a reason to oppose that? Maybe it was intentional to have only manual archiving there? If so, I'd argue that it reduces efficiency more than it helps. — Alien  3
3 3 07:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Hello and a question

I hope that I am in the right place. I am new, on here, and it looks like a site I would greatly enjoy with my hobby; that is restoring old literature.

On that note, I am currently working on The Count of Monte-Cristo. Your site uses the 1888 version of the text, which is also the version available through the Library of Congress. I have both side-by-side, and I am noticing some discrepancies, mostly due to OCR.

My question is, after I fix these, how would I submit the corrected text? I will have both the Word documents and the PDFs.

I also was able to restore the wood etchings and have restored the initial letters of the chapters.

Furthermore, I also have other works I have done. Most notably I had restored around 60 stories by Lovecraft, with help of his original manuscripts available through Brown University, and I restored 1984 to its first edition, using the original British English. I know there will be copyright issues with some of these, but I am will to work around what I can and cannot submit.

To all, have a great day, and I am hopeful that I am not alone on this crazy endeavor. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 15:46, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Can you please identify specific locations of the discrepancies you have found? Our copy of the 1888 edition is the one published in London, so the differences might be between the UK and US editions.

The 1888 text we have is supported by a set of scans. See Index:The Count of Monte-Cristo (1887 Volume 1).djvu for volume 1. You can there compare the text we have side-by-side on any page with a scan from the 1888 London edition.

As far as Lovecraft, what do you mean by "restoring"? Wikisource hosts published editions, and for some works we host multiple editions, because multiple editions have been published. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Well, I haven't been recording them as I go, just correcting them. I just found one in the first paragraph of Chapter 10. It was supposed to read "Louis XVIII.", it instead it read "Louis XVIIL". I remember quite a few instances, in Chapter 8, that Dantès was just Dantes, without the accent mark. I also believe that it was in Chapter 4, where the word "he" was reproduced as "lie".

Again, these are all common mistakes that come about from using OCR software. I'm used to it. That's why I go through afterwards an check it by hand. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:05, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

That would correspond to page 109, I believe. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:08, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 112

"Most willingly, count; under your auspices I will receive any person you please, but with arms in hand. M, le Ministre, have you any report more recent than this, dated the 20th February, and this is the 3d of March?"

This should read

"Most willingly, count; under your auspices I will receive any person you please, but with arms in hand. M. le Ministre, have you any report more recent than this, dated the 20th February, and this is the 3d of March?" Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

And, I just noticed the Lovecraft question. A lot of his work was altered, mostly after his death. I used his original manuscripts, found the original periodicals that they were published in, and have them as a personal collection. I even used the original covers from publications such as Weird Tales, all the way to finding the cover of Pine Cones, which was only hand published.

That was years ago.

I do these for my daughters and grand-daughters. I am trying to preserve history for them. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:42, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll try to post more errors as I find them. It takes me a while, as I have three screens open and reading each paragraph three or four times to make sure it is correct. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:45, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 113

"I wish to consult you on this passage, Molli fugis anhelitu; you know it refers to a stag flying from a wolf. Arc you not a sportsman and a great wolf-hunter? Well, then, what do you think of the molli anhelitu?"

"I wish to consult you on this passage, Molli fugis anhelitu; you know it refers to a stag flying from a wolf. Are you not a sportsman and a great wolf-hunter? Well, then, what do you think of the molli anhelitu?" Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:53, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 114

"No, but strongly recommends M, de Villefort, and begs me to present him to your majesty."

"No, but strongly recommends M. de Villefort, and begs me to present him to your majesty." Mjhopkins76 (talk) 23:56, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 114

"Noirtier the Grirondin? — Noirtier the senator?"

.

"Noirtier the Girondin? — Noirtier the senator?" Mjhopkins76 (talk) 00:03, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Page 114

.

M, de Blacas returned with the same rapidity he had descended, but

.

M. de Blacas returned with the same rapidity he had descended, but Mjhopkins76 (talk) 00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

I'll wait until someone can look all of these over, as I am finding multiple mistakes on a single, random page. There is no use in posting a new comment every time a C is in place of an E, or a comma is in place of a period. Mjhopkins76 (talk) 00:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Can't you just correct the mistakes yourself instead of making of new comment every time you find a mistake? ToxicPea (talk) 01:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

Am I able to? I thought they were locked? Mjhopkins76 (talk) 03:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)

@Mjhopkins76 - as @ToxicPea says, you go to the underlying page, for example Page:The Count of Monte-Cristo (1887 Volume 1).djvu/129, check that the transcription does not match the scan, then click "Edit" and correct the transcription. I have changed L to I. there, but you can do the rest. I am not aware of any locking. -- Beardo (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2025 (UTC)