Hello, ElDubs, 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 {{Collaboration/MC}} 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.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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! — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Destitute Persons Act 1846 Edit

Hi. I wouldn't recommend subpages for this work, I would think that you would just transcluded all of the 5 pages on the one WS presentation page.

Can I also note that we would not provide active links to the Page: ns pages in a table of contents. It is just problematic to do so, if we did link them we would just do anchors to the respective pages, eg. [[#5|5]]. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi billinghurst, the reason I am doing sub-pages for this one, is because it will become part of an on-going project around legislation of "Welfare in New Zealand". It'll link in with much bigger legislation like the Social Security Act 2018 which is a massive document that definitely needs sub-pages (I'm just getting started on that one). Since this is all related to the same topics and areas, having a consistent formatting approach made sense to me. Would you agree? Happy to take feedback.
Regarding active links to respective pages, it seemed easy enough, what makes it problematic? That said, it's not a major thing and I'm definitely happy to remove those if there are issues. El Dubs (talk) 04:40, 11 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

one header template per page; versions are separate, not subsidiary Edit

Only one {{header}} template per page please. Not this. The issue has occurred as you are trying to do separate editions as subpages of different works. Each version of the work sits as its own edition at the top level. So we should have something like

  • Social Security Act 2018 — this would be a {{versions}} page and list editions that we have
    • Social Security Act 2018 (Version 56)
    • Social Security Act 2018 (Version 58)

To do this we (an administrator to make it easy) will need to move the existing version, so please identify the version that is currently at the root page level. You can get assistance of any admin at WS:AN to assist in the process. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi @Billinghurst:, sorry about that, happy to have the pages with just the one header template. I'd appreciate your help in finding another way to do this. Can I just create a new template called "version-header"?
Using the versions template doesn't seem appropriate in this instance. {{versions}}, "A versions page is a page listing different versions of essentially the same work". The thing with versions of legislation is that an amendment to an act can substantially change the act. Your use of the word "editions" makes sense. The different versions of the Social Security Act 2018 are not just different editions, they're edits to a living document.
By creating the sub-page structure of "Social Security Act 2018/Version 56/Section 8", I've tried to replicate that living document in the best way possible. I'm absolutely happy to work within the standards of how WikiSource works to achieve that end.
When I get around to adding such documents as the "Social Security Act 1964", it will certainly be at its own root level. But within that, it made sense to me to have "Social Security Act 1964/Version x" at sub-levels, otherwise eventually, you're going to see several hundred versions of "Social Security Act yyyy (version x)" uploaded to WikiSource. Not just because I'm dumping data, but because I have real valuable use in having all of them. I'd just like to see that data in an organised fashion.
Any advice you can provide would be appreciated.
The version at the root level is version 56. El Dubs (talk) 23:44, 31 August 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Obviously I was unclear. {{versions}} is a disambiguation-type page, it lists the editions/versions of the same work. Yes, with the naming structure that I suggested we are going to have "... (version 01)" to "... (version NN)" all at root level. That is a requirement as they are all separate publications, rather than a serial publication. We are aligning with all our works on site. Having them all at the root level is not an issue; Wikipedia manages. If we are needing to build a derivative variation of {{header}} for NZ legislation, then we can look at that. Derivatives are known and able to be done. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:23, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Noting that we have static editions, not dynamic versions. I well understand the dynamic nature of legislation through time. The Australian Quarantine Act 1908, had over a hundred year life span. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:26, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:, appreciate the prompt response. RE: one {{header}} template per page, I'm happy to make the change, it's fair to use a template in the way that template is intended. I'll look into creating a derivative header template that just fulfills the needs of documents that may find a second header useful. I'll remove my use of two instances of the {{header}} template once I've done this. Thanks for talking this through with me.
However, regarding having different versions of the legislation at the root level, I think it makes sense to keep this in the format I have created. Yes, Wikisource holds static editions, not dynamic versions; that is retained with what I have done. But it also recognises that the legislation itself is dynamic (even though wikisource is not), and helps make that easier to navigate. While new versions of legislation are reprinted and published as a distinct document, the intent is just to "edit" particular sections. In this way, these edits are sub-ordinate to the act, and I have reflected this in my use of sub-pages.
I think the way different versions work in legislation is unique enough that it makes sense to warrant a unique approach. Yes, it doesn't align with how different versions work in other works, but the nature of legislation itself doesn't align with that either.
In fact, now that you mention it, it really is closer to a serial publication than it is to unique publications. They aren't released on an exact monthly or annual basis, but it is expected that new issues will regularly come out. While you could point out differences, my point here is that legislation lies somewhere between separate publications and serial publications. It's a unique situation, and warrants its own consideration for style. I believe the style I've selected is tidy, user-friendly, and keeps accuracy with the original documentation. El Dubs (talk) 03:08, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legislation is not a serial publication; it is very edition specific, even though its evolution is an iterative and generally small change versions. The issue with how you are producing the work is that you cannot generate epub a single version. Whilst I understand that you would prefer to have the small variations aspects, it isn't possible here at enWS, it isn't what we do. I would comment that it is not usual for us to have multiple editions of a specific legislation, and we are happy to do that, though it does need to align with our schema. Your schema does not allow us to represent the work in Wikidata in line with our recording model shown in d:Wikidata:Books.

I would suggest that we can explore things with Special:ComparePages to clearly demonstrate differences in subpages, though we would need to build something like that outside of the main namespace, and probably site in the Portal: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:02, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst:, I did say it's not a serial publication, but it's also not very edition specific. It's a document that gets very small and very large updates on a regular basis. I believe it is very clearly in-between on this. How many examples of very specific publications do we have here that get the kinds of updates/versions that legislation gets? It's unique, we need a unique approach.
If you can provide a bit more information on the issue with epub generation, then I'd definitely reconsider the way I'd like to build these pages. I definitely don't want to prevent such a tool from working because of a styling decision. I just attempted to use the "Download as EPUB", and produced identical documents on Version 56 as well as the root page. I seem unable to test the "Compile a book" feature on either. So far, the fact that I have a version as a sub-page doesn't impact it, but if there's anything I'm missing, happy to look into it.
"It isn't possible here at enWS, it isn't what we do." I disagree, as I understand it, while the style guide presents widely supported standards, it is not a set of rigid rules. I am making the case that legislation is a unique situation that doesn't fit into just very specific editions, nor is it a periodic publication. It fits in-between. As you pointed out, it wouldn't be usual to upload multiple editions of the same specific legislation, let along hundreds of versions of the same document, as well as hundreds of versions of that document's predecessors. Yes, wikimedia can handle it at the root level, but, it would be cleaner, and better placed in a structured sub-page format.
Would you recommend this issue be raised on a different page to allow a more public consensus? If most people agree I shouldn't be creating pages this way, I'm happy to adjust. I'm definitely open to discussion on this. I understand the need to reach consensus and ensure that however pages are being created, it's in a way that fits as closely to the way things are done here as possible, where reasonably practicable. El Dubs (talk) 05:03, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: I have now removed all instances of double headers from the pages I've made. Thanks for your feedback on this area! I fully understand some systems may currently, or in future rely on the expectation that only one {{Header}} exists. El Dubs (talk) 02:30, 2 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Pages have now been shifted so they are no longer sub-pages. Social Security Act 2018/Version 56 is now Social Security Act 2018 (Version 56). Thanks! El Dubs (talk) 22:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Templates translation Edit


A few months ago you supported a proposal I wrote at mw:Global templates/Discuss. Thank you very much for that!

An essential part of that big project is now a community wish: m:Community Wishlist Survey 2021/Translation/Templates translation.

It would be very nice if you could vote for it by clicking "Support", and then "Support" again. After you vote, invite your friends to do the same :)

Thanks! --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 12:47, 15 December 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]

root page vs subpage Edit

Hi. We will preferentially load year, portal, categories, etc. into the root page of the work, rather than repeat these through subpages. We would push things to subpages when they do not reflect the parent work, eg. if a book chapter is about the South Island, and we have a category for such, then we might categorise like that. Similarly, if you wikidata the chapters of a work, then the main topic used would reflect the chapter, so as such you may different WP links per chapter pulled out of WD. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:41, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

That makes perfect sense. I'll make sure I'm doing this from now on. Appreciate the reminder! El Dubs (talk) 21:03, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

style templates vs size html tags Edit

Similarly, we are trying to keep get html to be css-based rather than the deprecated size tags. You will see template:center and template:larger for some of templates that we have to replace. Fuller listing at Help:Templatesbillinghurst sDrewth 05:39, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Also makes a lot of sense. I'll switch any instances I have to this method. Thanks for letting me know. El Dubs (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for being so understanding. :-) Sometimes the old tags are easier, however, if it helps the output, then I am all for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 18 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What are you actually trying to do? Edit


This generates unbalanced HTML. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Hi there, that if statement simply allows situations like this:
So on subsequent pages, where you indicate that this is a continuation of the paragraph from the previous page, it will not add the text on a new line.
You can see it in action on Social Security Act 2018 (Version 56)/Section 5
Should be no unbalanced HTML where used correctly. El Dubs (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well I am seeing a lot of "Missing end tag" errors. I suggest re-writing the relevant template , so you are SURE it's not generating suprious P tags. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
What you seem to be doing is generating an opening P regardless (unless you are suppressing it with cont=true), but not generating an equivalent closing tag. This generates unbalanced HTML which the parser attempts to clean up), Please ask on the Scriptorium for assistance on how to do this correctly, because your current approach is not a long-term way to do this. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

ah username change Edit

Hi. I didn't recognise the username, now I know why.

Things are a little problematic with moved pages, and so many things all occurring at the same time, plus some of your shortcuts are coming back to bite you in the arse. All things that bit me in the arse years ago, and why I am a little more hard-arsed and stringent myself in practices undertaken.

Transclusions require us to have really good practices, and set up works properly early sets one up for success. Not being particular to these things just means things can break when a condition changes somewhere, and with Commons File:, our Index:, Page: and main ns, it is all tricky. So many latent legacy issues too.

Please have a little patience as this is going to take some nuance and tweaking, and can I say please to always consult the community prior to radical departures. We have the experience and do want to set you up for success, and we do understand many of the quirks and some of the possible solutions. [Noting I am away from home PC for some days, so limited in what I can do.] — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 14 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:Leland Stanford Jr University Library.png Edit

Please add an {{information}} template for File:Leland Stanford Jr University Library.png, and an appropriate licensing template. Please note that to me the claim of PD-textlogo looks iffy for this one, but in any case if one presumes it to be applicable the file belongs on Commons rather than locally on enWS. Xover (talk) 13:15, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Since the file was unused and lacked the requisite information and licensing templates I have deleted it. If the file is truly PD and is needed for something, please upload it to Commons with the appropriate tags. Xover (talk) 09:00, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]