Hello, Maximilianklein, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 05:48, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Hey hoEdit

Hi Max. Still seeing the bot in operation into the WS: namespace. How progresses the other components about author pages and the like so that we can look to progress to the remaining stages to get these works into the main ns? Give us a {{ping}} if you are needing some assistance. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

@Billinghurst:, thanks for the notice. Until we are able to find the authority control identifiers for an author, would it work to just make an author link based on how the name appears in the paper. For example if the Author field read "Prugnolle F, Durand P", we would make links to Author:Prugnolle F, and Author:Durand P? CCing @Daniel Mietchen:. Maximilianklein (talk) 00:12, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
We could, or we could look to utilise the | override_author = , and just have them as author names with no wikilinks. We could categorise them for later review. We have done that previously for academic papers as 1) authors are harder to identify, 2) sometimes by the time of the six to eighth author, we are getting down to the lab bottle washer minimal authorship anyway, and 3) they are released to the public domain, so getting dates of life is not requisite for released items. In fact, my personal opinion is that unless we really know who is who, then maybe we are okay with just lead author link/info. There has to be a reasonably practical challenge point somewhere there. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 4 September 2014 (UTC)
The feedback we got during Wikimania was very useful. Now, we are streamlining workflows on multiple ends - header and citation templates, figures, equations, tables - and importing to the WS namespace seems like a good solution for now. As for author pages, I would like to see something like Author:Author's ORCID as a place to redirect author information to or from. We are in discussion with both ORCID and CrossRef about these things, but it will take time to have a prototype, since good information of this kind is not easy to come by. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 20:04, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Modern academic authors are slightly different (problematic?) with how we have traditionally undertaken author pages (primarily focused on life data focusing on date of death for copyright reasons). With your project Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access we do identify that this is not the best fit for modern authors where the work is released into the public domain, and the identifying data for the author is less available, and the reality is that it is harder to find biographical data about the author. We will need to rethink what and how we present author. I will try to get my thinking cap into place, and put something into the community. @Daniel Mietchen: dot points of the difficulties that you see will help me to cover the requisite aspects. I foresee a balanced approach of time, and effort, plus something that we may wish to review to ramp up or down if we feel that we haven't got exactly right. Again, the dot points of how we can help, or how we hinder with regard to authors would be most useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 7 September 2014 (UTC)

We just did a little hackathon around our Wikisource workflows, including {{Header-wpoa}} and {{Citation-wpoa}}. Author pages (and possibly redirects from ORCIDy pages) are part of the picture, but the more I think about them, the more I think this should be set up over at Wikidata and pulled in automatically from there. We haven't worked on the Wikidata part of our pipeline much, though it's on the horizon (see this test item).
As for questions we may have, the second reference in A Report of the Curriculum Task Force of the ISCB Education Committee is available on Wikisource too, which I tried to indicate (I'm open to suggestions as to how to do that best). You said it would be customary here to link the title to the Wikisource page, but for people reading scholarly articles or Wikipedia, the title would always link to the original publication, so having it point to Wikisource would seem a little odd. Also, not sure how to handle cases with many authors (example) - the citation templates do not handle that well. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 00:56, 8 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi. I noticed that the bot has some issues. Please see details at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Recitation-bot_testing. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

Image file uploadsEdit

Hi, why is recitation-bot uploading image files to wikisource and not to commons? Please see WS:IG#Where to upload for our policy on this. The only time image files should be uploaded here is when they are PD under our policies, but not under Commons' policies. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:57, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

@Beeswaxcandle:. In fact both are done. The main "images" of the articles, that display pictures and graphics are uploaded to commons. Small things like rasterized equations, and rasterized table images aren't for commons, but for mediawiki. Would you have it another way? Maximilianklein (talk) 07:33, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by rasterized images being for mediawiki. If you're intending to use them as images in the final text, then they belong on Commons. If you're intending to use them temporarily until replacing them with proper equations/tables, then uploading them here is fine—provided that they are tagged as temporary and will be tagged for speedy deletion once replaced. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:07, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: that sounds reasonable. Are you saying that all equations and tables should be use some sort of temporary category? If so which category? cc: @Daniel Mietchen:. Maximilianklein (talk) 16:58, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
For the category I suggest you create a new sub-category of Category:Temporary maintenance categories. I think there also needs to be an explanatory comment in the Description field of the {{Information}} template. Maybe something like:
This image has been uploaded as a place-holder on page XX in document FOO until the equation/table can be created in wiki-format. You are invited to assist by creating the equation or table in the document.

When the image has been replaced, please tag this file with {{sdelete}}.

Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:11, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for the notification. I set up {{Recitation-bot}}, which puts these files into Category:Files uploaded by Recitation-bot, a sub-category of Category:Temporary maintenance categories. -- Daniel Mietchen (talk) 04:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Recitation-bot formatting errorsEdit

Hi Maximilianklein, your bot has created several pages (Wikisource:WikiProject Open Access/Programmatic import from PubMed Central...) that have invalid HTML5 markup. Are you able to repair the markup on these pages? Are you able to prevent these errors from being introduced in the future? Thank you, — xaosflux Talk 02:05, 31 December 2016 (UTC)