respective contributor blurb in author descriptionEdit

Supplementary. And as a bit of reflection, do you think that we still need the contributor components of DNB, DMM, EB9, EB1911, etc. on author pages? I was playing to see if there was a way to merge them and have them as a set rather than a repetitive noise blocks; then I thought do they still provide value. [Back as we were starting DNB and populating, sure; now, not so sure.] The text in those is getting egregious, and I am not certain of the value any further. There is also a better means to categorise if we properly populate WD using contributed to creative work (P3919) / Dictionary of National Biography, second supplement (Q16014697) pair and inhale those results.unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 08:25, 19 January 2023‎ (UTC).Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: If the Wikidata item for an author contains some property that identifies him as having contributed to the DNB, then it's no problem having {{author}} spit out that blurb automatically. Showing the initials used may be a little more tricky unless there's an actual property for it at WD, but we may be able to hack something up by inverting the data file used for the footer initials (look up initials from name, instead of name from initials). I'm inclined to think it'd make sense to have properties for the initials at Wikidata, but the inconsistency / non-uniqueness you mention above may make that a little complicated. Adding categories based on Wikidata should be straightforward, but I'd need to look into the details to be sure. --Xover (talk) 08:30, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was actually questioning the purpose of the whole blurb in the description section. That was a very early approach that we took, and the template was a means to standardise and tidy. Our author pages are way more developed and actually now have the biographical articles listed, and the pages are interlinked, plus WD exists. So the basic question is does the contributor to text in desc. add value? With regard to the technical question, yes, there has been the journey of adding the contributor information to WD and an example is Marion Spielmann (Q6765371). That is what I am working through now to properly populate WD for 3rd Supp. Is it complete for early series? No, though that is remediable, and yes it contains initials if needed. ALL THAT SAID, I am more thinking that we ditch the contributor text in desc. and just categorise. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 19 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: I don't think I have the foundation to make up a very firm opinion on whether to keep or remove the visible blurb. I've sometimes been annoyed by it (especially the ones with multiple initials), and other times thought it nice to know. The blurb is human readable, which the categories are... only sort of. But bottom line is I have no strong feelings either way. Making the template do just the cats is certainly technically easier than doing both. Xover (talk) 06:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I reckon that we can almost control this from WD. Keep this template as something like {{contributed to}} then leverage contributed to creative work (P3919) <=> Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900 (Q15987216) and pipe in the data subject named as (P1810). If the data is missing, we don't display initials, and list them in a maintenance category. Do the categorisation straight from WD. So we do have the initial hard work of populating WD, however, that is separate issue. If multiple sets of initials, then we just have to do multiple entries in the CCW property. And if the community decides that it is not needed as a notes field, we can just alter the template to kill the text, and maybe we just build that as a trigger now so it is visible and easily flipped. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 4 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: I have created {{contributed to}} and starting the journey of work by work update to migrate to this as a base template. I will look to see how I go with updating the work level data and see what I can do about migrating data to WD. Hoping that will allow us see how we can later develop it, or use it as the basis of an approach. Tap me if things are not going to align to your greater plan. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:49, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User:GrafZahl/AMS-style mathematicsEdit

Another example where the blanked userspace page approach could be applied. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:41, 20 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, just ignore it. It is of zero concern and causing zero harm. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I agree it's not a high priority, but its impact is still non-zero. While most of the lint errors are just fussiness, some do matter to us and they do matter to the devs when trying to progress the parser (which is in dire need of improvement). Getting rid of the noise in the linterrors list is certainly good in that sense.
That being said, we have so many linterrors and so many of them are of so little actual impact, that among the many many maintenance backlogs we have those are very far down my list of worries just now. Xover (talk) 07:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is user: ns, it is irrelevant to readers and is zero to our readability. That the linterrors are checking user ns, and doesn't allow people to ignore these, seems to be the issue, not that there are errors there. Get them to fix/nodify their tools. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It would also be nice if the error counts given on Special:LintErrors reflected 'content' namespaces given the view you express. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 10 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This has an unterminated <p> tag. It should be using {{pbr}} instead?

The page is protected, so I can't implement the obvious reapir.

Also I'm seeing some LintErrors from PortalHeader here - ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Fixed the editnotice. The portal stuff is buried so deep inside twisty template code that I can't untangle it just now. It'll have to wait until I clean up the header stuff fully. Xover (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This is a mess, and I'd like to have the ability to have an infinite number of labelN,datedN pairs.

see: Page:UKSI1964 (Part 3- Section 1).pdf/1336 for the reason why.

My previous attempts proved to difficult to implement reliably solely in Wikitext markup, so the suggestion was that some kind of Lua based generation, be used. I tried to write some skeleton code in Module:Key value table, and realised I was out of my competence entirely. Can you take a look and if you are feeling very generous implement the Module properly? updating UKSI/header accordingly. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:01, 3 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I largely started working on UKSI from noticing your Module:Key value table and this discussion. It looks like you are attempting to recreate an infobox or even Module:TOCstyle (notice your UKSI tables have dot leaders). I recommend you use {{TOCstyle}} in {{uksi/header}} instead of attempting to reinvent your own (if you really need your own just add a new model to it; I was already considering a similar thing for the Appendices section of Page:Report of the Traffic Signs Committee (1963).pdf/8 since there are no page numbers there and I had to add empty ones to the template invocation as a workaround). —Uzume (talk) 12:55, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The module I wrote wasn't just about that use case to be fair, and it may well be redundant if you have better approach.
Dot leaders will eventually be part of CSS, but that's a long long way off. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The issue here is that uksi/header needed to be able to handle a variable number of arguments, whilst suppressing defaults that weren't specified (see the default_idx handling logic). If you can setup up something up with TOCstyle that would allow the dot leaders as needed, but also allowed for the suppression of default labels if not specified feel free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please, please, do not add any more ways to fake dot-leaders anywhere. Until we get real support for them in CSS and web browsers all our hacks to fake them are just going to continue to cause problems, and encourage people to use them such that our cleanup job once we get real support will be that much more insurmountable.
Also, when I see pages like Page:UKSI1964 (Part 3- Section 1).pdf/1336 where everything is wrapped in a twisty maze of templates, nested three levels of subpages deep, my "hideously over-engineered" alarm immediately starts blaring at full volume. If our page source with templates looks more like line noise than raw HTML we're doing something wrong somewhere. It's possible that it's unavoidable, but I'd jump through burning hoops looking for simpler solutions and compromise presentations before accepting that as a given.
That little rant out of the way... Supporting arbitrary number of foon parameters in Lua isn't normally a problem. So unless there's some particularly hairy logic involved that should be straightforward to add. Xover (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you have a better approach to do the formatting, I'd welcome suggestions, as the aim here was to have once consistent style. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The core is {{uksi/paragraph}} which is also a mess, and may well have been written pre templatestyles, like the {{cl-act-p}} module we don't talk about. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: - I've had it with trying to get template syntax to handle certain {{uksi/paragraph}} use cases. I'm considering removing the template entirly and going back to the exceptionaly error prone manual coding of the numbering and anchors, because the template logic to handle something is getting overly complicated. This will break a LOT of pages, but perhaps that will focus attention on getting something that is actually maintainable using a SANE syntax. So much for trying to have ONE consistent approach. (Sigh)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
More positvely, would you be willing to at some point look into making this template into a Module which can handle the various nested numberings without the need to have the /1 /2 /3 and other variants? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Another limitation is that I am not entirely happy with the use of a split parameter, given that elsewhere /s /e versions of templates are used. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The reason for the {{uksi/paragraph}} was to do with including anchors so that specific Regulations, of clauses could be (cross-referenced) as more items of this nature become available on Wikisource.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

File:A Letter on the Subject of the Cause (1797).djvuEdit

I noticed this file is tagged {{do not move to commons}}. Do you remember why? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 22:55, 5 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@CalendulaAsteraceae: I have no recollection of that file now (memory like Swiss cheese it seems), but my guess is that it's something I uploaded on behalf of another user and that the do not move is due to the lack of information template. Xover (talk) 06:32, 6 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Legit; thank you! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 01:47, 7 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

category:Pages transcluding nonexistent sectionsEdit

As per Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Forshall, Josiah and another couple of hundred pages, do you know what is the issue? The identified page definitely doesn't have other untranscluded sections. A quick check doesn't show me where it is applied, so I am wondering whether it is in the code of the extension. Thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 11:06, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: This is probably T329432. Xover (talk) 15:56, 16 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User contributions for

Can you look over these, because I'm not seeing the sort of things that should have triggered the abuse filter which blocked this user?

They were contributing in a positive manner from the edits I reviewed. (adding in arabaic transcription for a specfic work.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:30, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jan.Kamenicek: Filter 52 is your baby, I believe? Xover (talk) 11:46, 22 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Corrected, I do apologize for the mistake in the filter. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:54, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

User may need some hints..Edit

No issues with what is being uploaded, but they seem to need some help figuring out how Proofread page needs complete files. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:37, 23 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Link curation...Edit

Okay, Your views seem to be clear on this. I've therefore abandoned the current effort, as you articulated your concern clearly. I have however moved the template logic I was using to my user space, so it can be reimplemented in the future if needed.

I don't necessarily agree that relying on IA/Hathi/Google Books is "good enough" as I've sometimes found errors in the metadata supplied, such as given dates for serial publication being misleading, and works that are only out of copyright in the US. Unless someone is actively curating the links, then it's impossible to know which links are in fact problematic, and I felt that a proactive effort to address the concern was better than a reactive one.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:31, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't notice that you'd opened a community discussion about this at WS:S. Do, of course, feel free to pursue that if you want to. I didn't mean to implicitly "veto" this (it was just a bold—revert—discuss revert).
To expand on my reasoning… We're talking about links, not hosted files, so the risk here is a possibility of a very weak form of "contributory copyright infringement" in a very small number of cases. Even linking to clear copyvios can sometimes be "no big deal" (not permitted, but not a big issue if it happens by accident). In addition, both Hathi and IA have massively more PD material than non-PD material, and though I have serious concerns about both their policies and implementation of them, they do have a stated aim to avoid copyvios that they sorta kinda follow. And, ultimately, we police uploaded files and added texts which will most likely catch it if one of those links did happen to point to a copyvio.
The issue is different for files we actually host, or that Commons hosts, but in those cases it is actually the file we're concerned about, and not the link as such. And these templates are used far more on Author:, Portal:, and disambiguation pages than on File: pages.
On the other side of the equation, manually verifying all these links is a massive expenditure of community effort, and the visible artefacts (the icon, tracking cats, etc.) very "in your face" until that manual verification has happened.
In other words, in addition to disagreeing with doing this, my position is that doing so would require at least some public discussion and community consensus before implementing. Xover (talk) 11:57, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Duly noted, Currently, I'd like to request some assistance in converting links into a specfic templated form? The reasoning is that raw URL's are more prone to link rot, and we have templates like {{IA small link}}} and {{IAl}} whereby the URL structure need only be changed in one location. (Aside it also make it far far easy to add silent verification categories to links as needed.). I'd been using AWB to convert from {{ext scan link}} in singular cases, but would welcome your suggestion on how to handle multi-part usage of that template.
This link conversion should also be done for HathiTrust {{HTl}} and {{HTlink}} and Google Books Google Books that have a standardized format. Of course if someone had the time it would be desirable to have one ext scan link module around which the current disprate templates were wrappers, so as to get the multi-volume behaviour in () in all of them :)
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Would you consider adding Babel information to your user page? It is not mandatory, just useful. --Dan Polansky (talk) 09:05, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

No, sorry, not a big believer in user boxes. Xover (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indian Constitution..Edit

User_talk: - I hope this was reasonable. We have scanned back versions of the Constitution concerned don't we? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: 2019 notes to a 1949 constitution are obviously incorrect, so in this case it would be entirely appropriate to revert the changes. In your communication to the user you may want to point out that this is the 1949 document as published, and if they want to add the 2019 version they should do so as a separate text. If the note is the user's own explanation then the talk page might be an appropriate place to do so.
I'm not sure whether we have scan-backed versions of these constitutions currently, so your powers of search are as good as mine on that score. :) Xover (talk) 20:17, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I thought as much, but I was going to let someone with more experience leave an expanded comment for a new user. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:31, 27 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: please also consider the application of {{static version}} — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Author:Mahadev DesaiEdit

Hi, Please undelete that page. We now have at least one work from him: Index:Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments With Truth, vol. 1.pdf. Thanks, Yann (talk) 05:37, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann:   Done. Please note that we prefer undelete requests to be made to the community at WS:PD rather than to an individual. Quicker and for the community to address. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

OKay , I started this in good faith... However, the actual tabular data pages need to be rotated, because the OCR doesn't see them in their current orientation, I get rubbish when I try to OCR them. No objections if you wanted to build a higher quality version of this direct from the original scans, or migrate to djvu by the way. Just so long as you LMK that's what you are doing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I think (I could be wrong) that the advanced OCR interface in the new OCR tool (the "Transcribe text" button) lets you rotate pages before OCR.
But, looking as this scan... Are you sure you want to tackle this? Those tables are going to be monumentally difficult to do, and a large portion of the pages are going to have to be images (and challenging to align between pages). It looks like the kind of project that would be pure torture and incredibly time-consuming.
That being said, if you want me to I can certainly make you a new DjVu from the scans, at the highest quality I can manage. I don't think we'd want to rotate the pages in the DjVu though, since they appear to be "as published" in the scan, but I could explore ways to make the embedded OCR better by rotating the images before OCR but still adding the unrotated image to the DjVu. That's a bit more complicated (takes custom programming) so I can't promise when I'd have the time for it (busy IRL, and my on-wiki backlog is starting to grow downright epic). In any case, just let me know whether you want me to try. Xover (talk) 11:39, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've opted to use images instead. It's just easier ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's a very long term project, and I could just import the tabular data as images. The actual 'interent' formats available seem to an encoded version. What would be REALLY nice, if someone made SVG versions as this is effectively a Vector stroke font. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:47, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply][]=en& No option for scan rotation in the version I am seeing.
Better extraction of tabular data by OCR, would be appreciated... ( Cary's New Itenary stalled on this.).
In the interests of simplicity I'll use images as a stopgap measure, until we can come up with a 'better' one. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maps for Index:The Northern Ḥeǧâz (1926).djvuEdit

Hello. Some time ago you helped me with uploading Index:The Northern Ḥeǧâz (1926).djvu. Later I found out that the book is accompanied with 2 maps on separate sheets placed in a pocket of the book, but the file does not contain scans of these maps. I have scanned them and the pdf files are uploaded here. May I ask for adding both of them to the scan? The best place would probably be just before the back cover, as the original has them placed in the pocket of the back cover. Extracting the images from the pdf files is not needed. There is no hurry, proofreading advances very slowly due to numerous and very unusual diacritics. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Jan.Kamenicek:   Done. File:The Northern Ḥeǧâz (1926).djvu. Please check that it's correct. Xover (talk) 06:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great, thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:45, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Obselete Center tags.Edit

I've just attempted to clean up the remaining unmatched <center>...</center> tags in Page: namespace.

Any chance of applying a tool automated conversion of these over to {{center}} or other appropriate templates? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:41, 8 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I have on my todo list to do another pass on these, I just don't know when that'll be. Xover (talk) 06:48, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Wikisource:WikiProject Transactions NZ InstituteEdit

I've recently initiated the above project as an attempt to get help in getting the thousands of articles proofread and into the mainspace so that they can be cross-cited from both enWP and also various NZ scientific works here. Papers Past got wind of the project and have offered us the opportunity to pick up their "corrected text" and import it in some way. They can provide an xml file per volume. They've emailed me a sample file (for Volume 15) to see if it's usable. I'm not able to utilise xml files myself, so am turning to you to see if such are practical for our purposes. If they are, then I'll need to do some negotiations with the National Library and the Royal Society of New Zealand with the help of the Wikimedia Aotearoa New Zealand society before we go ahead with uploading. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:33, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: Converting XML to wikimarkup and bot-adding them to Page: namespace as "Not Proofread" should in general be doable. It depends on the details of the XML they've used (I'm guessing it's TEI-XML) and how they've coded it, and some things may not be possible to automatically recreate in wikimarkup, but that should mostly be an issue of how much manual fiddling will be needed in order to tag it as "Proofread" afterwards. We'll also need to look at how to match whatever "page" concept they use in the XML to physical pages in the scans so we can automate that as much as possible.
I may have some free time over Easter so if you make the XML file and a scan available somewhere (I can arrange an email if you need it) I can try to take a look. Ideally we should start from individual scan images so we can generate DjVu files ourselves, but we can probably make it work whatever format the scans are in. Xover (talk) 06:47, 30 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've just forwarded you the file and the associated email trail. Stating such here for transparency. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: Thanks. And I agree, keeping stuff visible on-wiki is best whenever possible.
I've had a very quick look and I think it looks promising for being able to do the bulk of the text, with basic formatting (italics etc.). More complicated bits (tables etc.) may not be as easy to deal with, so those'll probably have to be handled manually to begin with. But given the sheer size of this project, we can probably fruitfully get the basics down to start with and then maybe try to iterate on additional improvements.
I'm a little bit concerned about the mapping to physical page numbers in the scan. It doesn't appear to be a straightforward 1:1 mapping, so I'll need to investigate that a little more. Hopefully we can just apply a fixed offset or something.
Anyways, I'll try to dig into this a bit over the Easter holidays and give you a ping if I get to a point that useful to look at. Xover (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Personal toolsEdit

I'm here using a (complex) set of personal tools. I didn't care about documenting them, but some it.wikisource are asking me about, and their interest forces me to add some doc... if you like, you'll find doc here: User:Alex brollo/PersonalTools. Please consider that's a raw WIP by now. Alex brollo (talk) 09:46, 5 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Alex brollo: Thank you, that's very useful! Xover (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Yale - Richard IIIEdit

When you have time, could you please prepare a DjVu from this IA scan? For File:Richard III (1927) Yale.djvu? I've been waiting for a public scan, and this one finally turned up. It's not the first edition, but the only 1st ed. I could find was a Google scan that wound up on HathiTrust, but which is heavily written upon throughout. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey:   Done.
I've mostly only done technical checks on it. Speaking of which, the scan resolution is surprisingly low for what claims to be a 2022 scan by IA's scanners, which is going to affect OCR quality somewhat (but not, I think, any worse than others we've seen). Uploaded locally to enWS so we can tweak it, add info, etc. before transferring to Commons.
Regarding the edition, I see no real reason to fetishise the actual first printing of the first edition to the degree certain others do—whom it would be unpolite to name without being precent, but you know who you are! 😎—when this printing appears to pretty much exactly reproduce the first edition (modulo possibly the placement of the caption for the frontispiece). If the alternative is a crappy Google scan then that's no alternative at all. Xover (talk) 07:15, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Oh, btw, I meant to tell you: I found a copy of Index:Venus and Adonis, Lucrece, and the Minor Poems (1927).djvu that I uploaded and have started on. Xover (talk) 09:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The first editions do have a different title page, but yes, they otherwise do not seem to differ from the later reprints. Part of the care is just being sure we're not accidentally getting something that is a later edition. There were second editions for many (all?) of the series. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Note: The end matter for Richard III is proofread, if you care to make your usual pass through the Notes and Appendices. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:12, 24 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Thanks. The list is a little long just now, but I'll try to find the time for a pass over it when I can. Xover (talk) 08:53, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

RE: "of of": It happens to all of us. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Indeed. :) Xover (talk) 20:56, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Follow up on book scanningEdit

Hi Xover, I wanted to inform you about my progresses in book scanning, after this exchange. My scanner scans at 600x600 DPI max resolution. Thus, I saved the images as tiff, cropped them with Gimp and saved as "tiff no compression", and used tesseract to have a text layer that I exported in a PDF file. The result is visible at File:Scalo marittimo - Raffaele Viviani - 10 commedie.pdf.

The other test was using Cam Scanner with my cellphone. The result is File:Circo_equestre_Sgueglia_-_Raffaele_Viviani_-_10_commedie.pdf. I reckon that the first book is better on Mediawiki (on my computer, needless to say, the image is very clear).

Do you think that it's an acceptable result or should I try something different (e.g. creating a djvu as in User:GrafZahl/How_to_digitalise_works_for_Wikisource)? Cheers! -- Ruthven (talk) 10:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Ruthven: If the resultant OCR is sufficient to proofread the text without too much trouble then it is "good enough". You'll have to be the judge of that.
However, are you sure you scanned this at 300dpi? An A4 sheet of paper (297x210mm) scanned at 300dpi should be 2480 x 3508 pixels, while your PDF is just 956 × 1,352 (less than half). Granted your source (physical book) may be smaller than A4, but from these numbers it looks more like an effective ~150dpi resolution. I also see some compression artefacts in the PDF when I download it (zoom in on, e.g., the "Personaggi" on p. 3 and notice blocking and a halo effect around the letters). These are then exacerbated when MediaWiki reencodes it to JPEG.
The compression is most likely being added when you create the PDF, so you'll want to look there for that. But my guess is that if you can find a way to get higher effective scan resolution the compression artefacts will be much lessened. Could it be that your scanner / scanner software does something weird that causes lower net resolution than what the sensor is physically capable of? Does rotating the (physical) pages 90 degrees when you scan them affect the effective resolution? Xover (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
the format of the book is closer to C5 than to A4 (it's 17x23,5cm). I'll look into what happens right after the scan, e.g. when rotating the page. When you're talking about p. 3, it's the one from this file? Thank you for your support. Ruthven (talk) 12:14, 11 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Template:Wikidata populated categoryEdit

... started use at Category:Albanian authors, thoughts? Probably need a link at the bottom to help:categorization (or maybe another???) that has some context and direction. Once agreed upon, I will run a bot batches through and add it based on the /data page. I will probably need to comment each line of the data page to indicate where created. [Happy for smarter ideas]. I am also looking at the contains interset in items like Category:Albanian writers (Q6102065) to see what smarts might be around to intersect our /data file and categorisation (lower priority) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm curious how this will work (1) when the country/language isn't the best fit, such as an author in the French language who is from Algeria, or a Scottish author who is marked on Wikidata as being from the UK. Wikidata has several different ways to label "UK" depending upon the relevant dates. Or (2) when authors are from countries that no longer exist, such as Prussia, Austro-Hungary, or the Venetian Republic. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:33, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: This is example is just being overt to what is happening in Module:Author/data, this is not about the categorisation itself, that is a long past community action. To the existing arrangement, it is not overriding categorisation that we do, it is complementing. If someone manually puts Scottish authors, then that is still there as it, it is just not automatic. The leveraging of WD is giving more categorisation, not removing any. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:19, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think you misunderstood. I'm wondering whether the categorization will function correctly under these situations, or whether it will generate unsuitable categories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: The template looks good. I would suggest going with {{cmbox}} instead of {{ombox}} despite it not currently having a |small=yes variant since there's semantics attached to the type of box, but it's not a major issue. Help:Categorization clearly needs some love, but I'm not familiar enough with the area to offer much help.
In terms of smarter ideas… It depends on what we're trying to achieve. If it's just housekeeping what category pages are created relative what's defined in /data (and tagging cats used for this purpose) then I think your solution is probably about as smart as can be achieved. If we start thinking more ambitiously about Wikidata, then for example we could think about having {{Wikidata populated category}} pull the property IDs from Wikidata for display (instead of adding them manually) and things like that. But that's probably not a near-term issue since we'd need to think through properly how that would function on the Wikidata side (cf. a discussion we had elsewhere). Xover (talk) 12:29, 25 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I originally went cmbox, but I also wanted small, so while it is in "draft" I was happy to cheat. I have flicked it over, so your commentary on whether it should be small or not would be useful. I will see if I can work out #WTF is wrong with the small--when I have a momnent to analyse--it is not a straight missing css bit of coding. And yes to auto-populating the auto-population template note. For now I will stick a big fat WD=Y per line comment to signify those that I have done. As usual, when you do these things other tasks show up. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 04:40, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No small for cmbox is purposeful in design (by enWP) as allowSmall = true, is not configured. So we can leave it (and continue to align with a sometime template at enWP), or not and fork the config file. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:53, 26 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

On my filesEdit

From “Temporary files”:

From “A Dissertation on the Construction of Locks (1785) (images)”:

From “Temporary files”:

From “Missing license and file information”:

Files which have been superseded may be deleted. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:49, 30 April 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you. I've deleted / exported as directed above. As for the various screenshots, all but File:HGWells4C.png are explicitly tagged as temporary files. Are these still needed? Xover (talk) 10:04, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Ping. All the remaining files lack file description and license templates. Could you check which are still needed, and either tag them for speedy or add the missing info? Xover (talk) 08:56, 13 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Centered" tables...Edit

I was doing a check for a center template wrapped around table syntax. listpages -ns:104 -start:* -grep:"\{\{c(enter)\|(1\=|)\s|{\|"  -intersect -lang:en -family:wikisource -format:"[[{page.loc_title}]]" > Wrapped_table.txt

It's taking a while to run and was wondering if you were able to run it against a dump instead? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:07, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: No, sorry. Xover (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

About Vasari's adventureEdit

First of all, thanks for your help and suggestions. Lives of the Most Excellent Painters, Sculptors, and Architects is going to reach a decent level 1, my aim has been no more than that result; I hope that other users will appreciate my effort to solve formatting & transclusion issues at my best, even if the English text needs revision.

I'm leaving here my personal tools, feel free to test them if you like and to ask me for any detail. Alex brollo (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


More files are at User talk:Xover/Files for speedy deletion. There were a number of anomalies, as well, but I should be able to go through some more batches in the upcoming days. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:16, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thanks. Deleted. Xover (talk) 18:06, 4 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Shakespearean TragedyEdit

Is this work now complete, enough to be listed as a New Text? --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:47, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@EncycloPetey: Not yet. The play excerpts still need to have their formatting fixed, and a few other tweaks. Xover (talk) 17:58, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
OK. For now, I've linked it at Shakespeare's Author page and the Elizabethan drama Portal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:59, 7 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


See, Template_talk:Dent/s for an attempted repair. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I also suspect that the {{Portal header}} related Lint's are to do with a '''{{{param|}}''' type construction, which can be solved by using {{bold}} instead. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:16, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"Stage" scripts...Edit

You might want to look at what I attempted with {{Stagescript/s}} and related templates. If they can be made to be compatible with {{ppoem}} than I don't necessarily need a distinct template :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: I don't think {{ppoem}} can or should be made to support play scripts in general. It'd make it into a "do everything" template, and those tend to be so complicated that nobody wants to use them and they are effectively unmaintainable. The speech prefixes stuff I added is an experiment to see if we can support a few very simple and typical cases without overly complicating its main purpose (poems). I may at some point investigate the possibility of forking off a {{pplay}} based on the same approach, dedicated to play scripts, but I'm concerned that the variability of play script formatting will make that unworkable.
My main philosophy on templates is to make each template do one simple thing well, and be very restrictive with adding complications. If you feel you need ever more complicated features or boundless extensibility (e.g. |style= or arbitrary margin widths etc.) then the problem is probably not one where a template is a well-suited solution. And if you start fighting with MediaWiki or the skin's formatting or what browsers natively support (drop initials, dot leaders, etc.) then a template is probably not a good idea: it'll be complex, frail (prone to break), encourage users to make hacky (ab)uses of it that you'll then have to support (making changes impossible), all the while giving users the impression that this is a supported functionality and something they should be doing.
This has to be coupled with pragmatism and common sense, of course, but my rule of thumb is to be extremely conservative with adding extensibility or new features to simple templates; or to create new complicated templates. Xover (talk) 07:23, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
{{pplay}} was sort of the aim with the {{stagescript}} family. The intent was to have to one common set of templates, but different stylesheets (which could also be defined as an Indexstyle for a given work, or use case.
My initial aim developing it was to enable the conversion of older scripts into different formats merely by changing the stylesheet used. ( 'Scene' vs 'Cue' format for example.). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I expanded a little on it to support some efforts at Wikiversity. -

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

See also, the usages of {{poemspecial}} should be migrated over to ppoem usage at some point. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: I'm not sure how useful this would be for the scripts I've worked with, but "dialogue" is misspelled throughout the documentation --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:44, 8 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

pages missing fixedEdit

Thank you very much for fixing: Bulandshahr- Or, Sketches of an Indian District- Social, Historical and Architectural.djvu Stamlou (talk) 20:08, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Stamlou: My pleasure. Glad I could help. Xover (talk) 20:12, 9 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

What peeves me ...Edit

What peeves me is that you can have the criticism about CommonsDelinker which is working to 95% efficiency, yet the mess that has been made of WS:Works/2023 (and somewhat 2022, and 2021) generates silence. When we converted from a manual list that worked fine to this list that now needs to be converted to a formatted file that is totally and dependent on specialist knowledge, with no instruction, and essentially depends on one person. I asked and asked about it, to little response, and then abandoned maintaining it in frustration, and went to do something else. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:08, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Billinghurst: No, I agree with you. This change should have been discussed by the community before implementing, to make sure we didn't create something that has a worse bus factor than the old way. The mere fact that I can't completely figure out how it works in 5 minutes of looking means it's too complicated for the average non-technical user to grok without some pretty comprehensive guidance (which I didn't see, but that may just mean I'm blind).
It's entirely possible that I would have supported such a change in a community discussion—because the old manual way is very manual and limited and a more advanced technical solution would be better—but the sustainability of any solution is dependent on the community at large's ability to 1) use it and 2) to maintain it. I'd need to spend a lot more time looking at it and figuring out how it works before I'd be able to say anything sensible about its properties along those two axis. Xover (talk) 07:30, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The WS:Works system was reverted last year, and all existing JSON-based lists converted to old-style plain template trancludable lists, as it clearly wasn't working out. I did say so in the Scriptorium thread about it when I did that, removed all reference to it in the edit notice and updated the quick-access links in the table. To archive, copy from Template:New texts to the relevant pages like Template:New texts/2023/01, which are linked from the table. Some archiving has happened since the structured system was removed. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:23, 11 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks Inductiveload, the change back wasn't sufficiently overt, which says that our dropping a note in WS:S discussion is not enough. Seems we longer term admins needs to look to set better example in comms strategy. Yes, we need to simplify or keep simple, or set up simple systems, though we know that this is a complex space with multiple inputs and non-standards. Yes we need to manage when we get jaded or tired from having the same repeated battles with contributors with independent ideas that don't sit with pre-existing works. I have taken to picking my battles as the environment in which we work has become more complicated from mediawiki, wikimedia, wikidata, etc. What we probably fail to do is mentor, train, and set up the next generation of admin up for success, especially when all we want to do is actually edit and generate good content. <shrug> Possibly the same for our fellow admins who have been here forever. I will ponder. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:10, 12 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, There were 3 pages to delete, but not the index. Thanks, Yann (talk) 11:45, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Yann: D'oh! My bad. No idea what part of my brain short-circuited there, but it was clearly not firing on all synapses. Thanks for the heads up, and apologies for the trouble! Xover (talk) 14:31, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh. I see. One of the Page: pages tagged for speedy was transcluded onto the Index: as part of the ToC. I should of course have checked better first, but in the moment I just assumed this was one of the obsoleted/replaced indexes and deleted it based on it having the tag. I'm still an idiot, but not quite as blundering as I first feared. :) Either way I appreciate the heads up! Xover (talk) 14:36, 16 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Before I go full tilt at this, can you take a look at this and come up with some stable ways of doing things like the bracing on earlier pages? I do not want to have to got back and forth on a lot of pages. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Side note , the existing 1877 effort will need a new disambiguated title. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Could you explain the problem you’re trying to solve in a bit more detail? Xover (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Page:Chronological table of the Statutes (United Kingdom)(1950).pdf/28 - this has multiple table row bracing. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: The standard way would be as a table, with a separate column for the brace, that has rowspan on the cell containing the brace. But if those tables are as big as I suspect they are then that could quickly hit transclusion limits. If that's the case it's possible simply don't have any good way to solve it. Xover (talk) 11:30, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the 1877 table I split parts of the table by session and did some tweaks to reduce the transclusion overheads. I can do that again here if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:35, 17 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Center tags..Edit

Amazing.. The edits I was making were follow-ups to cleanup from unpaired center tags mostly. Keep going :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:59, 20 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]


This was assuming a Wikipedia version of {{date}} , The local version is different, which is causing this template to mis-handle accessdate amongst other issues.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:52, 21 May 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Timeline needs adjustingEdit

Hi, Wikisource:Administrators/Archives#Timeline is fine in Preview, but isn't showing on the page anymore. I suspect that it's run out of space after extending the width by another month, as my only other change just now was to end date BethNaught. When you've a moment, could you have a look? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: It looks fine to me now, both on mobile and desktop. Could it be a local caching issue in your browser? Xover (talk) 21:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<shrug> Yep, it's fine now. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:17, 1 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

{{fs90}} and {{fs90/s}} are missing some parametersEdit

The template's original line-height:130%;padding-top:0.50em;padding-bottom:0.50em; seem to be missing. Can it be added to the this template's code. I have no experience of how to add them into the existing code. Thanks. — ineuw (talk) 14:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

P.S: If I am shown, I would like to standardize the rest of the fs family I created originally.

@Ineuw: The templates set all these in its stylesheet. Do you have an example of somewhere they are used but the style rules are not getting applied? --Xover (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No. I just wanted to learn this new style of templates and convert {{fs85}} etc. and others. :-)
— ineuw (talk) 17:05, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Ineuw: The short version is that the <templatestyles src="Font-size90%/styles.css"/> is an extension tag provided by the TemplateStyles extension. So it's one of MediaWiki's special "XML-like tags". What it does is import the CSS stylesheet located at Template:Font-size90%/styles.css (it does a whole bunch more, but for this purpose that's the jist). In the imported stylesheet you can use CSS selectors to target anything the template outputs, but you'll usually do it by targeting a class applied to one of the output elements. For the {{fs90}} example that's .wst-font-size-90 {}.
If you convert more of the templates in the group to use templatestyles you'll want to keep in mind: 1) point all of the templates in the family to the same stylesheet and use different classes to adjust the styling; 2) all template-added CSS classes should have a "wst-" prefix to avoid collisions; 3) templates in the same family should use the same naming convention; 4) the name also serves as a way to identify the template in rendered page output (e.g. when debugging) so should bear a clear relationship with the template's name. Xover (talk) 17:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. I always build them in my sandboxes. Success or failure will lead me back here and will add the info to this post. Thanks. — ineuw (talk) 17:53, 2 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]

WS:AN#Edit requests for Template:RunningHeaderEdit

Speaking of nagging you about technical edit requests/code review, could you take a look at this one? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 06:02, 3 June 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]