(Redirected from Wikisource:S)
Latest comment: 8 hours ago by EncycloPetey in topic Files missing machine-readable data

The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help.

The Administrators' noticeboard can be used where appropriate. Some announcements and newsletters are subscribed to Announcements.

Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient. For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource. There are currently 396 active users here.





Slight modification of WS:MOS regarding chapter numbering


As per this discussion, it would be helpful if the Style Guide explicitly stated that numbered chapters should use Arabic numbering (as per our usual practice, and as documented at Help:Subpages#Chapters and sections).

To this end, I am proposing the following change:


  • Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named (eg. use [[/Chapter 1/]] and not [[/The Dog Returns/]]). The section name should reflect those in the original work (Chapter 2, Act 2, et cetera). Subpage titles such as [[/Preface/]] and [[/Appendix/]] are fine though.
  • When a work is a collection (e.g. poetry) or a compiled work (e.g. a journal or almanac), then the subpages are works in their own right, and the original title of the work should be used in the subpage title.


  • Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named (eg. use [[/Chapter 1/]] and not [[/The Dog Returns/]]).
    • The section name should reflect those in the original work ("Chapter 2", "Act 2", etc.). Subpage titles such as [[/Preface/]] and [[/Appendix/]] are fine though.
    • The section number should use Arabic numerals ("Chapter 2"), even if the original work uses Roman numerals ("Chapter II") or another numbering scheme ("Chapter Second", etc)
  • When a work is a collection (e.g. poetry) or a compiled work (e.g. a journal or almanac), then the subpages are works in their own right, and the original title of the work should be used in the subpage title.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support, though it may be useful to specify in the first bullet points that it does not apply to collections, else it and the last bullet point may seem contradictory. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Oppose, since this does not provide for the handful of exceptions where the approach runs into problems, and will therefore run us into rules-lawyering. For 98-99% of cases, the above approach is desirable. But there are problems. One such issue is that nearly every citation of Shakespeare uses capital Roman numerals for the Acts, his means that any linking will have to juggle back and forth in two systems, both in the work itself, and in the linking from works that cite. Links from off-site will have to do the same juggling. This is a nearl-universal citing format for his works. I brought up this issue the last time we discussed this topic. Further, the proposed change does not actually specify that the names of subpages themselves should follow any particular rule; this could be interpreted as rules describing display fields in the header or in tables of contents. This vote is premature, because we first need a discussion to decide what it is we want the change to say, instead of jumping directly to a vote. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
WS:MOS already explicitly states that "These are not hard rules, and can be ignored where necessary". This is just a clarification of our usual guidelines to prevent confusion for new users. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Also: last time I submitted a proposal like this with a discussion instead of jumping to a vote, you yourself opposed it on the grounds that I had not explicitly stated what I was proposing to change the wording to. If you have a suggestion for a better wording, provide it yourself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The previous proposal I recall was opposed because the wording kept changing after people had voted, invalidating all previous votes with each change, because each vote was in support of a different wording. There needs to be a discussion first to work out problems in the wording, and then a vote to adopt the new wording. What you have presented here is a support / oppose situation, without room for discussion first. And in the previous instance there was continual revision concurrent with voting. The wording discussion should come first, then support / oppose afterwards. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:05, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm with EP on this one: let's discuss our way to a proposed text first, and then vote on the resulting text as a simple yes/no vote. Trying to vote on a text that is constantly changing in small and less small ways is impossible to do cleanly. Xover (talk) 08:53, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Bot approval requests




The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:

SodiumBot Task #1 (Wikisource stats) and Task #2 (Match and Split) are approved as permanent tasks.

I'd like to request community approval (bot permissions) for SodiumBot to continue Phebot's matchandsplit task (The server for using the match and split service is at I am aware that this is somewhat late since SodiumBot has already been doing this for a bit (since the last Wikimedia Hackathon), however, better late than never :) Sohom (talk) 14:11, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

What is the plan with respect to Phebot and this task? Is SodiumBot going to pass the task back to PheBot or will SodiumBot now take this on as a "permanent" task? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Xover might be able provide more context here about the plans regarding phebot, but my understanding is that this task is going to be hard to setup using Phebot's old architecture (because unlike wsstats a lot of the code depends very very heavily on the now deprecated grid engine). Sohom (talk) 20:39, 13 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
My plan is to try to resurrect phetools at some point when I have the time for it, and at that point I will probably try to fix all of it (at which I may or may not succeed). The likelihood of my finding the time to work on it in any kind of reasonable time frame is very small, and the urgency of doing so is much much reduced now that we have an alternative for the Match&Split functionality in SodiumBot and toolforge:matchandsplit (not to mention the stats that Sohom has also set up). In other words, I wouldn't recommend holding your breath waiting for phe-bot to pick up this task again. Xover (talk) 07:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
In that case, let's treat this Bot Approval Request as a request to change the six-month flag to indefinite provided that SodiumBot remains doing just the Stats update and Match&Split. I'll keep the request open for a week to allow for community input. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:48, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree. Permanent bot flag for the user account, plus authorization for the two specific tasks it is already performing.
@Sohom Datta: It is a bit overkill just now, but it's generally a good idea to document each distinct task the bot is authorized for on its user page, including linking to the discussion where that task was authorized, and to link to the documentation in the edit summary for edits the bot makes under that task. That way anyone that comes across an edit by the bot can easily find out a) what the bot is doing and why, and b) who authorized it to do so. It's convenient for other contributors and staves off unnecessary drama. Xover (talk) 08:05, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Updated the userpage, I'll deploy a update for the match and split server to use better edit summaries in a bit. Sohom (talk) 14:40, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  •   Support, and thank you so much for doing this Sohom! Match&Split is an important tool for the community so your stepping up to the plate here is very very appreciated!
    I've checked some of the bot's recent edits and see no problems. This should also have pretty much the same risk profile as Match&Split in phetools, except that Sohom is actually around and responsive (which Phe hasn't been since 2016). --Xover (talk) 07:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Support Thanks for your efforts here! MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Just realised I have let this run for an extra week than intended. Community approval has been given to add the Match and Split process to the normal functions of this bot and I have changed the bot flag to indefinite. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

  Support. I see no trouble.--Jusjih (talk) 16:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. --Xover (talk) 08:57, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Repairs (and moves)


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

See also Wikisource:Scan lab

Other discussions


Community collaboration


Hey Oh! (Yup, I'm still here kind of, dropped by and decided to poke around and do a couple things, maybe I'll stay a while <shrug>)

A couple issues seem to be converging here.

1. Wikisource:Community collaboration is kind of dead. Nobody has commented (until me today) since January 2021. The last substantive change to the collab posted to Template:CotW was in March 2021 to put Portal:Eminent Women Series back up again, which was first put up in 2017 and replaced with three other projects for less than a year each.
2. Coincidentally, in May 2021, the community collaboration was removed from Template:Collaboration and replaced with Monthly challenge, apparently due to a misunderstanding of what CotW was for (it's neither a Collaboration/Challenge of the Week nor of the Month). This occurred with no apparent discussion.

I say coincidentally, because, the Community Collaboration is now really only advertised in Welcome messages. Community Collaboration was always intended for long term projects involving a lot of research and other work. I think it should go back into Template:Collaboration so that it shows up on the main page. I could easily fix this; however, there is no recent nor meaningful discussion as to what should be on it now. Also, there is a cumbersome process of updating templates that are included in other templates that seems less than ideal. We should have a way for the template to grab the source without having to edit multiple templates. Additionally, Template:Collaboration/COTW is protected with hardcoded text about it being for proofreading a text, which is never what the community collaboration was for. Template:CotW/base contradicts this but is only slightly better, it is protected and hardcoded for collecting works related to the project. The latter is more likely to be true to the purpose of Community Collaboration but not entirely.

So, I ask that

a) Template:Collaboration/COTW be unprotected, it's not even currently used and I'd like to do some interim tweaks to it with an eye towards at least restoring it to the main page.   Done
b) Template:CotW/base be unprotected, it's used in a template that is barely used and I'd like to tweak it further.   Done
c) We toss around some suggestions on a better way of getting data from the various "of the month" type collabs to the main page other than a series of 3 or 4 nested templates.
d) We have a discussion about the future of Community Collaboration. I think it has value, but it has to be advertised and considered in its context.

I'm willing to do some basic maintenance on these to get them into shape and participate in discussions on concept/content, but I will need help from someone with a bit. Honestly, there's a ton of restructuring we might consider (like community collab should be a kind of portal with several subpages/links to all the collabs) but I think we need to start small with just a few fixes and I can come back with some more suggestions later. If y'all want to dive into a big rethink of the structure of all this now, I probably don't have time for that and y'all can have fun. DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 19:56, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

I've unprotected the two templates for you to tweak. Let me know when to re-protect them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks! DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 23:22, 23 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Beeswaxcandle, could you also unprotect Wikisource_talk:Community_collaboration/2007 please, there's an unarchived discussion on Wikisource_talk:Community_collaboration from that year for some reason and I can't archive it.--DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 01:43, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
  Done Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Beeswaxcandle, Thanks. I'm done with it. Since these are archives and nothing else should be added, please re-protect Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2007, and also protect
(there is no 2019, 2022, or 2023). Thanks. - DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 04:59, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
NB, I'm not done with the templates, yet, though. Thanks. - DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 05:00, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

(Interesting, it looks like the last time I posted on Scriptorium was December, 2013! DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 20:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC))Reply

Question from someone who wasn't around last time this was active: Are you sure it's not a proofreading issue? I mean, the page does say Projects typically involve [...] finding and adding relevant texts. What does that mean if not proofreading, and more generally, what would you make of it? — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 09:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alien333, It means actually going and finding scans, if they aren't on commons, then going and finding them on places like or the Library of Congress, or various similar sources, or even finding or writing a bash or python script to scrape them from a university website. Rarely, people even find the physical text and scan it. Then creating OCRs, turning the files (which are usually a set of JPEGs or TIFFs) into a .djvu file for purposes of the Index/Page space, but also pulling out the highest quality (often very large TIFFs) of any pages with images and using tools like ImageMagick and GIMP (or commercial alternatives if you're a heathen) and processing those images to make them suitable for placing on a Wikisource page, removing background interference, etc. Proofreading often makes up zero parts of this work. Proofreading belongs to Wikisource:Proofread of the Month and works that are fully proofread but need to be validated go to Wikisource:Validation of the Month. In general, the Community Collaboration is for quite long term projects, involving a topic or an author, not a single work. - DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 05:14, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the clarification.
WS:VotM is mostly dead, only changes in four years were Inew queing some works. It was apparently proposed five years ago to merge it into WS:WPV, but that is also dead for two years). Works wanted for validation are usually put in WS:MC.
The problem also is that WS:POTM only takes a work at a time, and tries to be diverse (see discussions at Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month), as well in topic as in authors, so we couldn't really fit a group of linked works into that, except if you put them all at a time, but then we'd never finish it, as POTM struggles to finish 200 pages. For such groups, I believe practice is currently to put it, again, into WS:MC.
About the change of {{collaboration}}, even without a discussion (although there probably was one in one talk page somewhere), you can hardly blame people for replacing a project that had at the time been dead for 2-3 years with a new, more successful project. The MC's creation was I think not led by a misunderstanding of what CotW was for but rather by a desire to do something else, with the idea taken from frws's mission 7500.
But, to come back to your point, most of that type of work (finding scans) is nowadays done by WS:RT, and requests may as well go there, which will make reviving Community collaboration, though you're welcome to try.
(Also,to answer your edit summary, answering does send a notice to people).Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 06:11, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Alien333, WS:RT is for a somewhat more specific purpose, both historically and it still seems that way on review. It's for asking someone to help you find a text. Community Collaboration has always been for the much broader purposes I outline above and not normally for individual texts, although sometimes it would devolve into that.
I wasn't really blaming anyone for removing community collaboration from the main page template without discussion, and I don't think this was a bad exercise of boldness, I was merely noting that this was done without a lot of input. But to your suggestion that "there probably was one in one talk page somewhere", you didn't look, because there's not a lot of "somewhere" for it to be hiding, there are 4 discussions on the entirety of Template talk:Collaboration in 14 years (and the edits were commented as "bold", which is generally a straight up admission of edit without discussion - still, no blame but I think they didn't realize what community collaboration was intended for or I think they would've discussed it).
I also wasn't suggesting that the creation of MC had anything to do with a misunderstanding. I know very little about MC.
Most importantly though, it had not been dead for 2-3 years at the time of the edit at all. It had been changed only a two months earlier to put Eminent Women back up, but that was replacing Slavery in the United States, which had been placed up about 5 months prior to that. My point was in fact this, it was taken off the main page template 2 months after it was last updated, it was then, surprise, surprise, never updated again. Likely because nobody saw it anymore unless they happened to see a Welcome message. - DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 07:02, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Alien333, This is several years out of date but the texts linked here are examples of texts that I was particularly searching for at one time. User:DeirdreAnne#Texts_I_am_Looking_For Note that some of those works aren't in English. I was active on,,, and a couple others, not to mention where this is interwiki-transcluded from. Though I haven't been on active on any for almost a decade. - DeirdreAnne(talk contribs) 05:30, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open – cast your vote

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is now open. The Wikimedia Movement Charter is a document to define roles and responsibilities for all the members and entities of the Wikimedia movement, including the creation of a new body – the Global Council – for movement governance.

The final version of the Wikimedia Movement Charter is available on Meta in different languages and attached here in PDF format for your reading.

Voting commenced on SecurePoll on June 25, 2024 at 00:01 UTC and will conclude on July 9, 2024 at 23:59 UTC. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

After reading the Charter, please vote here and share this note further.

If you have any questions about the ratification vote, please contact the Charter Electoral Commission at

On behalf of the CEC,

RamzyM (WMF) 10:52, 25 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

Invitation to join June Wikisource Community Meeting


Hello fellow Wikisource enthusiasts!

We're excited to announce our upcoming Wikisource Community meeting, scheduled for 29 June 2024, 7 AM UTC (check your local time). As always, your participation is crucial to the success of our community discussions.

Similar to previous meetings, the agenda will be split into two segments. The first half will cover non-technical updates, such as events, conferences, proofread-a-thons, and collaborations. In the second half, we'll dive into technical updates and discussions, addressing key challenges faced by Wikisource communities.

Simply follow the link below to secure your spot and engage with fellow Wikisource enthusiasts:

Event Registration Page

Agenda Suggestions: Your input matters! Feel free to suggest any additional topics you'd like to see included in the agenda.

If you have any suggestions or would just prefer being added to the meeting the old way, simply drop a message on

Thank you for your continued dedication to Wikisource. We look forward to your active participation in our upcoming meeting.


KLawal-WMF, Sam Wilson (WMF), and Satdeep Gill (WMF)

Sent using MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

When and why to use running headers


I'm a little confused by the "running header" template. I understand how to use it on individual pages, but not why: if the header has only one item, such as the book or chapter title, or the footer has only a page number—especially if these are centered, and their alignment doesn't vary from page to page—wouldn't it just be easier to use the "center" template, or other alignment as appropriate?

If it's possible to use the "running header" template to populate headers with their contents, then I could see using it instead of alignment templates. But I haven't figured out how to do that, if it's possible, and so far most of the books I've worked on don't use the same header from page to page—of course the first page of a chapter usually doesn't have a header, nor do some pages with illustrations (and both sometimes have different footers, as well), and in poetry collections there's often only a header if a poem continues onto a second page, and then whether it's the title of the book or the poem depends on whether it's the left page or the right. So each page with a header has to have it formatted separately, although the page numbers in the footer are more consistent in the books I've been working on. Is there a particular reason to use the running header template in these cases? P Aculeius (talk) 13:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

First, {{rh}} has been used to make TOCs and for title pages and any other purpose which requires 3 different elements to be displayed in a line. I suspect that the (original) purpose is for the header portion of the edit window. Also, I highly discourage its use for tables of contents because it is making a separate table each time it is used.
Second, and most important, is the way to toss a "fully-loaded" {{rh}} into the header (or footer) of each newly created page. Towards the bottom of the index page are two blanks: "header" and "footer". {{rh}} in that header box will put a left side page number and the book title into the headers of each new page. And better yet, {{rvh|{{{pagenum}}}|Chapter title|Book title}} will put the number on one side if the page is an even number and the other for odd numbers and switch out the printed text for each also. {{rvh}} is a little futzey to get working properly, but is the best thing since sliced bread!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:21, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Here is an example of rvh being installed to the form on an Index page: installing into the form. This diff is actually of a typo capable of breaking it being fixed.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I wasn't aware that "running header" was being used for tables of contents. I've only seen, used, or modified it in the header and footer sections of a page. What I was asking, however, was not how to create headers and footers, or alternate headers and footers on even and odd pages—though that probably will be useful to know moving forward, provided there's a way to skip or override it on pages that shouldn't have headers or footers.
The main question is, why use a running header template for a header or footer that contains only a single item, such as a centered title that varies from one page to the next, or page numbers that always occur in the center? Is there some purpose in having {{rh||3|}} instead of {{center|3}}, and is it worth going through a book that just uses alignment tags and changing them into running headers? Does it make any difference if something uses left, right, or center tags and looks identical to how it would with a running header? P Aculeius (talk) 16:50, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
If there is only a single item, such as the title in the header and the page numbers in the footer, then yes, just use center. I've done so in setting up Index:Margaret Wilson - The Able McLaughlins.djvu. I expect that some people learn the practice of using {{rh}} for headers / footers before learning the reasons, and so it never occurs to them that using {{center}} would be perfectly adequate and less complicated. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:45, 28 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The reason some pople use RH over C, is to ensure consistent formatting. Rh lets you set up CSS 'classes' meaning you don't have to continually add emboldining, smallcaps on each page.
Technically single items header/page numbers should be using {{rh/1}}
ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Even if the page number is nothing more than just a centered number? For what purpose? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:42, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
And you are aware that {{rh/1}} is a redirect, and is not a template? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Redirects to templates work just like the templates themselves; they're sort of shortcuts, like {{c}} instead of {{center}} or {{sc}} for {{smallcaps}}. They're already widely used in the texts I've been validating, and I haven't noticed any issues with those or when I've tried them myself.
As for {{rh/1}}, I'm going to have to experiment with that to do it right, but it could indeed save time and effort when you want to format headers and footers consistently. I found a book that uses this template to make the header title larger and bold, and another that makes the page number smaller. That would be a nice way to avoid accidentally placing them in different sizes or formats from page to page, which was a constant worry on a book that I recently validated. On other books, there seemed to be no special formatting, in which case the template would offer no particular advantage over {{c}}, except that you wouldn't have to edit every page if you later decided that the headers need to be in italics or the page numbers a little smaller. If you already have one or more {{rh/1}} templates in place, you can change how the headers and footers look without editing each page that includes them separately. P Aculeius (talk) 19:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I also see that the {{rh/1}} has no explanation of how to use it. It has a clear warning about how not to use it; and there is information about the syntax. But there is no explanation anywhere in the documentation of why this template would be used at all; nor is there any information about how to apply the CSS in using this template. There is also a note that "if the work only has one kind of centred page number/header, you don't need this", which could mean extra classes aren't needed, or that the template itself isn't needed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That sounds like a good reason to improve the documentation! I'd appreciate more information about how to implement CSS styles, being far from an expert on them. I think I can do it by copying the styles from the book I mentioned, and modifying them. But CSS is a step beyond my realm of expertise, so I'd just be tinkering with it! And as for the "you don't need this", that would be technically true, if there's no chance that you'd want to change the formatting of the header and footer as you go, or in the future. I find myself making these changes fairly often, so if I understand how {{rh/1}} works, it'll be a great time-saver! P Aculeius (talk) 19:37, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Aux Contents table row not green


I am using the exact same syntax that works elsewhere, but on this page it is not working. The Introduction is an auxiliary row not in the original contents, and as I say, I'm using the same auxiliary row syntax as elsewhere, but no green box is generated. What am I missing, and is there somewhere situations like this are explained? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's an example that works? —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:34, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
For now, there is a temporary fix, so I guess that's something. :/ —Justin (koavf)TCM 01:44, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The end of the contents for The Innocents Abroad on page xviii. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Well, your story certainly checks out. As a non-expert CSS guy who hasn't messed around with Web design in a bit, my suspicion is that there's some kind of conflict with the other styles, but I also tooled around with that and could not get it to work with an !important rule either. The only things that worked for me were 1.) directly inserting the CSS which is non-optimal and 2.) converting it to a template that I think works better anyway at reproducing the page. I think the latter is the best solution, but it doesn't resolve why your perfectly sensible approach didn't work. If you need me to investigate or tinker more, let me know, but I think this resolves the immediate problem. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:50, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
{{auxiliary toc styles}} is in the header for your example, but not in the page you're having issues with. Arcorann (talk) 03:01, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That has fixed the issue. Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Newspaper ads


Apologies if this has already been covered; in my search of the archives I found newspaper ads mentioned, but not discussed in any detail (ads in books seem to be addressed as something that can be freely omitted, if I understand correctly). I've been transcribing an issue of The New York Times, and many pages consist partly or mostly of large ads. My first thought was that I needed to transcribe the ads along with everything else, but when I got to the large pictorial ads, and realized how many there were, I had to ask myself: do we really need to add scores—perhaps hundreds—of old ads to Wikimedia Commons just to transcribe the news (mostly without pictures, since these are articles from before 1929)? That seems like it would be a project by itself. Even just transcribing the text—much of which might seem odd without the accompanying pictures—would potentially be complicated and perhaps prevent editors from working on newspaper content. And there will be large sections of newspapers which, although viewable in their original format, are unlikely to be transcribed at all—I'm thinking of pages of daily stock prices and apartment listings.

So the question is this: is it acceptable to transcribe only the articles and ignore the ads, and call the page proofread, or validated? Could a notice be included that ads have been omitted? What about identifying the contents of pages that consist entirely of ads, or financial data, or apartment listings, in the index pages? Is there a practical way of dealing with these pages or partial pages that are unlikely ever to be transcribed, that does not prevent the useful contents of a newspaper being marked proofread, validated, and transcluded to mainspace? P Aculeius (talk) 15:08, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

My approach when working on Frank Leslie's Illustrated Newspaper was to transclude each article/section to a separate subpage. This allowed me to, for example, transcribe most of Issue 450, but not worry about the several pages of advertisements I didn't feel like transcribing. This doesn't address the issue of marking individual pages proofread (e.g. page 126 is transcluded to "Recent Battles in Louisiana" but not marked proofread), but it definitely helps. (I also think it's good practice in general to make subpages for each article, because it's often desirable to link to individual articles.)
IMO it's fine to just transcribe particular articles from a periodical, as long as they're self-contained works. For example, this conversation has reminded me that I'd like to scan-back Fenimore Cooper's Literary Offences, and I don't think I should have to transcribe the entire July 1895 issue of the North American Review in order to do so. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 20:24, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • The practice, so far as I have seen, is to mark pages as “not proofread” if the advertisements have not been added, but that an index whose only “not proofread” pages are advertisements can be marked as proofread. It is my preference to proofread entire indexes, or at least to work to that end, as otherwise we are left with vast swaths of indexes which are abandoned and worse than useless. Pages with content which it is not desirable to transclude may simply be ignored, I suppose. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:49, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It's fairly easy to use section markers to separate out the adverts from the rest of the page (and articles from other articles) - you can then focus on proofreading the useful content then come back and work on the adverts if you really want to! That's the approach I took on the issue of The New York Times that I proofread -
If you look at,_1918-11-11.pdf/7 , for example, you can see lots of different articles + some adverts. In proofreading these are all separated by section markers like
## Our Men Attack on 71-Mile Front ##
I moved all the adverts to the bottom of the page in a section marked
## Adverts ##
In the end-user view of the newspaper I have a single Adverts page - - which includes links to the adverts section of all the pages.
In terms of the page status, I didn't change it to 'proofread' until I'd done at least an initial pass at proofreading all the text on the page (including the adverts). Yes, including all the stock pages :). Having a page marked as 'not proofread' doesn't stop parts of it from being transcluded. Qq1122qq (talk) 22:02, 5 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
That's pretty much what I'm doing now. I'm not marking new pages as proofread until I've transcribed all of the ads, but I'm transcluding individual stories once they've been proofread. Thanks for helping out—I feel more like I know what to do now! P Aculeius (talk) 03:02, 6 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-27


MediaWiki message delivery 23:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Automatic year of publication in the license templates


It seems that a new feature has been added to the license templates: if the year of publication is not given in the template's paramater, it is taken from the Wikidata item of the work. However, this does not work well for translations, because translations are usually published later than the original work, and so the date should be taken from the Wikidata item of the version/translation, not of the work. See e. g. here, where both licenses for original work and translation claimed they were published in the same year, which was not true. I solved this particular case by adding the publication year parameter, but there can be many others. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

This is also affecting lots of editions that are not translations. For example, Love's Labour's Lost (1925) Yale now has a claim that it was published in 1598, which is true for only the play contained in the work, whereas the appendices and notes, which make up one-third of the book, were not published on that date, and therefore that date is irrelevant for judging copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:38, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Okay, the {{translation license}} issue is an understandable oversight, but Love's Labour's Lost (1925) Yale explicitly has the date "August 1925" in Wikidata and the fact that it is failing to use the correct date means the whole functionality is broken —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:42, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've disabled the WD pubyear functionality for now; will investigate this bug when I have time. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 13:46, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've been thinking about this further, and I don't think automatically pulling the date from WD is wise in general. The date of copyright may not be the same as the date of publication (e.g. reprints), nor is it necessarily the same as the date of original publication (e.g. expanded or annotated editions). I do not think it is currently possible to automatically determine which, if either, is the case—even if the work and the edition are modelled correctly on WD, which they often aren't. And that's before dealing with {{translation license}} and other uses of {{License container begin}}/{{License container end}}. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:18, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are explicit properties such as "relevant date for copyright". I think we should distinguish between trying to do things like inferring as opposed to be prescriptive and narrow about when we pull the data from wikidata. However, if we can't agree on a data model in WD, then I suspect we will just continue to have problems here as we argue about what the various dates mean and because WD allows far more information and searching to find and correct issues. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The problem with "relevant date for copyright" on Wikidata is that the property is very is context dependent. Is it the effective date of publication for evaluating US copyright? Is it the date the work enters public domain? If so, in which localities? Is it the date the last surviving author/editor perished? Is it the date of copyright registration in the US? There are many, many things that might be placed into that property. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
the attempt to reduce copyright determinations to date maths is bound to failure. but it is common practice on commons. they want a simple but wrong query to mass nominate works, and the burden will be on the uploader to explain the nuances of formalities, edition publication, and local law. they would do better to follow the logic tree of the experts at --Slowking4digitaleffie's ghost 02:04, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Table continuations (perrenial issue)..


Okay why is this showing up as having forstered content, Page:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices (1973).pdf/515, when I thought I'd followed the appopriate use of {{nopt}}? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:06, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

And here - Mrs._Beeton's_Book_of_Household_Management/Chapter_LXVII#pageindex_1948, The table should be the same layout both sides of the page split and for some reason isn't. (Sigh). ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 05:51, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ShakespeareFan00:: Page 1747, the rule template should use 90% only (or width=90%). Page 1748, the "width: 50%" in the first cell is not included, so the 2 columns had not the required sizes. M-le-mot-dit (talk) 13:27, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
And another NIOSH Hazard Review: Carbonless Copy Paper/Health Effects- Is too much to ask that there is ONE sensible way of setting up continued tables, without having to play hunt the quirks REPEATEDLY? (sigh) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 06:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@ShakespeareFan00: Yes, that's too much to ask, because you're asking for mind-reading software. None of these cases are the same and so they require different solutions, which one is needed is impossible for the software to figure out. In addition, you are not describing a problem here, just venting your frustration.
Judging from a quick and superficial peek at what I think is the revision you're referring to in this thread, you're seeing a fostered content warning because the lintHint script is requesting the content from the API, which does not see the stuff you put in noinclude, meaning the first table cell of the second table is not inside a table row. This is an entirely fictitious problem that only exists inside lintHint and nowhere else. If this is what's set you off on an editing-spree then that was a mistake (I haven't checked your edits, I just saw there were lots of them on my watchlist). Xover (talk) 15:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
It wasn't. It was that had started to fill up again, with pages that I thought with the {{nopt}} was designed to resolve. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for the vote of confidence. If you wanted to rework linthint.js into a local gadget that's Page: aware, I'd certainly be a user of it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:58, 4 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Voting to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter is ending soon

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

This is a kind reminder that the voting period to ratify the Wikimedia Movement Charter will be closed on July 9, 2024, at 23:59 UTC.

If you have not voted yet, please vote on SecurePoll.

On behalf of the Charter Electoral Commission,

RamzyM (WMF) 03:47, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Documented standards for CSS?


Is there any documented standards for CSS used in TemplateStyles or Index styles? I've noticed that many templates using TemplateStyles use the prefix wst- but I haven't been able to find any documentation to ensure that I'm doing it properly when I create new templates or Index stylesheets. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Don't know if it can be called documented, but I was told that "for new code, wst-* is a class added by a template; wsg-* by a Gadget; ws-* is a global style. Per-work styles use _* class names, or __* for once-off styling". — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 16:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Awesome, thanks! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-28


MediaWiki message delivery 21:31, 8 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

DJVU thumbs rotated


When I open Page:The Czechoslovak Review, vol3, 1919.djvu/8 or any other page from this index in the edit mode, the image of the page appears to be rotated 90° to the right. When I refresh the page, it appears correctly for a fraction of a second and then gets rotated again. It does not happen with saved proofread pages in the reading mode, unless they are open in the edit mode too, then the image gets rotated as well, see e. g. here. The problem started today. I have not noticed this problem with any other file so far. Any idea what is happening? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Now I have tried to open the pages in Firefox, and they look correctly. The problem appears only in Chrome. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If you hit the r key does it rotate? you could use that to straighten it out again —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:23, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yes, problem solved :-) Thanks! -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:15, 9 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

U4C Special Election - Call for Candidates

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello all,

A special election has been called to fill additional vacancies on the U4C. The call for candidates phase is open from now through July 19, 2024.

The Universal Code of Conduct Coordinating Committee (U4C) is a global group dedicated to providing an equitable and consistent implementation of the UCoC. Community members are invited to submit their applications in the special election for the U4C. For more information and the responsibilities of the U4C, please review the U4C Charter.

In this special election, according to chapter 2 of the U4C charter, there are 9 seats available on the U4C: four community-at-large seats and five regional seats to ensure the U4C represents the diversity of the movement. No more than two members of the U4C can be elected from the same home wiki. Therefore, candidates must not have English Wikipedia, German Wikipedia, or Italian Wikipedia as their home wiki.

Read more and submit your application on Meta-wiki.

In cooperation with the U4C,

-- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 00:03, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply



Is this the template that should be used for all Persian text (like {{Hebrew}} for Hebrew), or only for some types of Persian text (like {{Polytonic}} for Greek)? I don't know enough about Persian/Farsi to be able to tell. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:37, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

w:Arabic_script#Table_of_alphabets says that Persian is written in Naskh and Nastaliq, and at least at one point Wikipedia says that Nastaliq use in Persian is occasional.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Serialized works in periodicals


I think we should come to some general recommendation how serialized works in periodicals should be dealt. At the moment each contributor deals with them differently, which is imo a problem with periodicals especially, as different attitudes within one periodical sometimes occur.

I have seen two attitudes which make sense in my opinion. The one which I slightly prefer is creating a version/translation page containing one version/translation of the work with links to all parts of the series. Although we usually create version pages only when we have at least two editions of the work, in similar cases it could be acceptable to create it for one edition only. Once more editions appear here, they can be easily added. An example of such a page is e. g. Fame (Čech).

Another attitude which also makes sense is creating a special subpage of the periodical containing just an auxilliary ToC with links to individual parts of the work. An example can be seen at The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48. IMO there is some minor disadvantage: subpages of the main page are only volumes, while articles are subpages of these volumes or of individual issues. With this attitude the subpages with AuxToC would be on the same level as volumes, which is a bit confusing. Besides, not everybody (e.g. me) likes how the pages with pure AuXToC look, but that is very subjective, I admit. Despite these minor objections, I would not have any problem accepting this attitude if more people prefer it, because some unification is really needed.

There are also other related things which might be discussed, like whether and how individual parts should be interlinked from their headers etc., but I suggest leaving such discussions for later or at least making them separate from this one, not to lose the main goal. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Once upon a time, I was working on a magazine which had a Jules Verne short story serialized within. I thought to keep the magazine in tact, but to also make a separate instance where the story was complete (Magazine/Title of story) so that the work could be downloaded intact for my ereader device. That effort was deleted, citing something officious that I did not read. But it was easy to do (set up the separate instance) and perhaps a way to include it in the main toc but exclude it from being downloaded with the whole magazine volume could be found. And the officious document changed accordingly.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
If I understand it right, it was quite close to The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48, only the AuxToC was not used in your case. If this solution prevails, I think the AuxToC should be used. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:04, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Jan Kameníček: I made a Volume/whole_work and transcluded all of the parts to there (as well as how they appeared in the journal), it was crufty, klutzy and overall not elegant, really. Since then, I have come to more understanding of the exporter. To my understanding, The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 would indeed work with the exporter for the purpose of making an epub, etc version of that one specific work. I thank you for putting this all here so I had the time to think about it. And also agree that it is the best, cleanest and most non-redundant of solutions to the need for a recommendation and more importantly (to me), a means to export 'just the work' into other formats.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:15, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I personally think that The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 is the closest to a "good" solution of all the various ideas I've seen. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:22, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • I've worked on a few of these recently, and agree that it would be good to develop a guideline. I had been following Wikisource:Serial works, and creating a separate single-page transclusion in addition to transcluding them as part of the periodical (e.g. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5). I'd also used the versions page approach you described, with sub-bullet points for each part; I'm not against this, but haven't been very happy with it, as it means serial works take up so much more space on these pages than other works, and I also dislike readers having to click through many extra pages to view the work they want to read. Hadn't come across The Czechoslovak Review/A Tale of Young Blood of '48 method before; I understand what you mean that it might seem odd to have subpages that aren't just the volumes, but this does seem like a logical place to put these pages (I personally don't mind AuxTOC only pages, but you could also add the source text's title and date of first publication to the page's header notes if it was a translation, which would make the page a bit less empty). It looks like a good approach to me, as this could be the page you link to on any author/versions/translations page, and would avoid having to link to all the sub-parts on those pages. --YodinT 14:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template:Expand list / Template:Incomplete list


The {{Expand list}} and its redirect {{incomplete list}} were originally developed for use on Periodical pages where the lists of articles were incomplete. See, e.g., The New York Times/1901/08/01 where the template is used in the page's Aux ToC. However, the template is now used on around 300 Author pages, where the template is superfluous. I say superfluous because the vast majority of our Author pages are incomplete, even for works we can currently host, and potentially all Author pages will forever be incomplete because new works about authors are continuously being published. Placing a template onto every Author page that is "incomplete" is therefore superfluous since all Author pages could be described as incomplete. Placing the template serves no useful function, nor provides any useful information.

Either we should (a) officially restrict the use of this template to exclude Author pages, or (b) place the template on every Author page because 99% of our Author pages have incomplete lists of works, and all such pages will forever have the potential for new works about the author to come into existence at any time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Agree with excluding Author pages per rationale above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I didn't even know that template existed, but I agree there's not much point putting it on author pages. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 13:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Established practice is that Author: pages should not aim for completeness (they're not a bibliography); they should cover the texts we have, but with considerable leeway for adding additional text (e.g. to facilitate linking external scans). Given that, {{expand list}} on an Author: page is not appropriate. I also agree with the reasoning above. Xover (talk) 16:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I'm inclined to suggest   Delete these templates entirely, and on pages like The New York Times/1901/08/01 replace it with {{incomplete}} instead —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
A deletion discussion would need to happen at WS:PD, not here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:14, 15 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Based on the above responses, I have requested the Templates be removed by bot from the Author namespace. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:54, 22 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-29


MediaWiki message delivery 01:31, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Categorization of media which cannot be uploaded to Commons


I have been working with some media which cannot be uploaded to Commons. So far, they exist in a category which does not exist. If I were to make those categories: How do books fit into the categories here? For sure, it is documented somewhere, but I would truly appreciate a quick how to so that I (and maybe others) don't overthink the process. Thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Any examples?--Jusjih (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One example are the images for the A. A. Milne Pooh series. The artist hasn't been dead for 100 years (or 70, Brit law has been difficult for me to follow).--RaboKarbakian (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
For what reason can they not be uploaded to Commons? Is it because they're still under copyright (in which case, we can't really have them here either—assuming the claim of copyright is valid), or does it have to do with the type of media they are? Books, which you asked about, certainly can be uploaded to Commons if they're in the public domain, using .pdf or .djvu files. Lots of books, especially older ones, are hosted at Commons and here. The help topics on Wikisource are pretty good for things like file types, how to obtain and upload them (which is not to say that every question is easy to find the answer to), and you can find categories in part by looking up possible category names in the search window, and seeing whether anything by that name comes up. You can also look for similar works, and see how they're categorized. But as Jusjih said, we might be able to provide more guidance if you can be specific about what it is you'd like to upload to Commons or publish on Wikisource, and what specific problems you ran into! P Aculeius (talk) 04:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
P Aculeius: I have often wondered if commons OTRS would work here; you know, get permission from whatever might be left from defunct publishers.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
There are works that are public domain in the US, and so can be hosted here, but are not yet public domain in their country of origin, and so cannot be hosted on Commons. English Wikisource follows US copyright law as the baseline for what can be hosted, because the servers are located in the US. In the past, we've had alternative hosting sites for selected works in Canada, Korea, and Australia. Commons chooses to follow copyright based on both the US status and that of the country of origin for the work. This situation applies to whole works, parts of works, and illustrations for various publications hosted on the English Wikisource.
My experience in the past has been that a lot of that maintenance was organized by Billinghurst, who has not been as active here lately as in the past. I do not know whether his practices have been documented. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
EncycloPetey Thanks for this answer. Billinghurst told me: Don't worry about categorization here, it is different than Commons (slightly paraphrased). I get the feeling that more thought has gone into author cats (by Billinghurst, which now seem to be automatic) than works.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 06:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Proposal for community collaboration


A discussion has been started at Wikisource talk:Community collaboration#Proposals to select a work to restart community collaboration. Current proposal is Balzac's works. Posting here because probably no one noticed that discussion. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 15:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

OPDS catalogs not updated?


There are two OPDS catalogs at (one for English books, one for French books), but it seems they have not been updated since December 2023. They used to be regularly updated in the past. Is there a new location for them?

Thanks. Eric Y Muller (talk) 03:17, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

@Samwilson: Do you know what's up? Xover (talk) 09:41, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eric Y Muller, @Xover: I've replied on the task. Hopefully we'll get things working again soon! Sorry for the failure. Sam Wilson 09:55, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Eric Y Muller, @Xover: So it seems there's some other issues, one of which is T370257 where Keeban (Little, Brown and Company) has an incorrect (but valid) cover image specified. I'll not fix it on-wiki right now, in case anyone wants an easy way to reproduce the bug, but it does suggest that Module:Header should add an error tracking category for non-existent cover names. I've made a patch to fix the problem, will hopefully get it merged and deployed soon. Sam Wilson 11:43, 17 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
At least on the French side, it is now working fine (I don't use the English one). Thanks a lot for your work. Eric Y Muller (talk) 16:03, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
The english one has also been updated. @Samwilson: maybe the task should be resolved. I left a message there, but I'm not very familiar with phab, so I didn't want to mess up. — Alien333 (what I did & why I did it wrong) 18:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Uploading over 100MB djvu to WS instead of Commons


I have some djvus that I would like to host on WS (because they are UK origin) but they are just over 100MB. I can regenerate them at higher compression if needed, but was curious if there was guidance about how to get them into WS, aside from upload to Internet Archive and then import the djvu (since I believe is on the import from url allow list). Commons would not be a problem as it has higher limits, even raising the limit to 150MB would help here. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't think that Internet Archive is generating djvu's anymore—but check to make sure they don't already have one of the work in question! I may be confused by your question, but maybe this is the answer you want: we seem to prefer importing files from Commons anyway, so if you can upload them there (no matter where you got them, as long as they're in the public domain), that would be ideal—Wikisource will simply use the images from Commons, so you don't need to upload anything here. P Aculeius (talk) 03:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Commons and enWS treat PD differently. We accept anything that's PD in the US regardless of its status elsewhere. Commons require PD in US and PD in country of origin. The files that Mark wants to upload can't go to Commons because they're not PD in the UK, thus his question about how to upload them here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@MarkLSteadman: It's not really a limit as such. There's a limitation in the web serving components of Wikimedia's MediaWiki installation (varnish, apache, etc.) that caps raw HTTP uploads at 100MB. For larger files you have to use a custom MediaWiki-specific protocol called Chunked Uploading, in which case you can upload files as large as 2.5GB (IIRC). The difference between Commons and enWS is that Commons has Upload Wizard, which supports and uses Chunked Uploading, while enWS does not (we just have the plain old upload form).
For an occasional need I would generally recommend that you drop your files into Dropbox or Google Drive (or whatever such service you have) and shoot the link my way so I can upload them for you. But if you anticipate having this need regularly and can deal with a relatively high geek-factor, the solution is the tool I use…
…namely commons:User talk:Rillke/bigChunkedUpload.js. There are som docs in that link, but the gist is that you put mw.loader.load('//'); into your common.js and then you get some new "Chunked upload" options in relevant parts of File:-namespace pages. Important thing to remember: bigChunkedUpload starts upload immediately when you select a file. There's no confirmation, extra button click, etc. unlike most other similar tools. So make sure you select the options you want in the dialog before selecting a file to upload. It also has a pretty high geek factor, so it's pretty off-putting to non-technical people, but since it's fairly limited in scope most people should be able to use it in a pinch. Xover (talk) 06:15, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

User translations without scan-backed original: how long to wait?


If someone uploads a user translation of a work, which does not have a scan-backed original on the relevant language Wikisource (e.g. Translation:Does Spring Come, Even to Stolen Fields / ko:빼앗긴 들에도 봄은 오는가), how long of a grace period should we allow for the original to be added before deleting the user translation? Mostly just looking for general thoughts; I feel like it needs more grace than WS:PD would usually allow, but should still be on some sort of time limit or else there's no point disallowing this situation —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:20, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting results

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki. Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

After carefully tallying both individual and affiliate votes, the Charter Electoral Commission is pleased to announce the final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter voting.  

As communicated by the Charter Electoral Commission, we reached the quorum for both Affiliate and individual votes by the time the vote closed on July 9, 23:59 UTC. We thank all 2,451 individuals and 129 Affiliate representatives who voted in the ratification process. Your votes and comments are invaluable for the future steps in Movement Strategy.

The final results of the Wikimedia Movement Charter ratification voting held between 25 June and 9 July 2024 are as follows:

Individual vote:

Out of 2,451 individuals who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 2,446 have been accepted as valid votes. Among these, 1,710 voted “yes”; 623 voted “no”; and 113 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 73.30% voted to approve the Charter (1710/2333), while 26.70% voted to reject the Charter (623/2333).

Affiliates vote:

Out of 129 Affiliates designated voters who voted as of July 9 23:59 (UTC), 129 votes are confirmed as valid votes. Among these, 93 voted “yes”; 18 voted “no”; and 18 selected “–” (neutral). Because the neutral votes don’t count towards the total number of votes cast, 83.78% voted to approve the Charter (93/111), while 16.22% voted to reject the Charter (18/111).

Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation:

The Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees voted not to ratify the proposed Charter during their special Board meeting on July 8, 2024. The Chair of the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees, Nataliia Tymkiv, shared the result of the vote, the resolution, meeting minutes and proposed next steps.  

With this, the Wikimedia Movement Charter in its current revision is not ratified.

We thank you for your participation in this important moment in our movement’s governance.

The Charter Electoral Commission,

Abhinav619, Borschts, Iwuala Lucy, Tochiprecious, Der-Wir-Ing

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:53, 18 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Files missing machine-readable data


Hi all,

The categories…

…have a bit of a backlog that it would be nice if the community helped out with. The two overlap so it's not quite as bad as at first glance (889 + 675), but it's still enough that it's a "dip in, do a few" kind of task that's easy work if enough people help out. Xover (talk) 08:47, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply

105 of the Files with no machine-readable author are volumes of Blackwood's Magazine. What do we even put as an Author for such volumes? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
I would probably simply put "multiple". Or...?
PS. if there are a hundred of them that should all get the same value it's probably better to have a bot add it. Xover (talk) 21:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The same 105 files are also in the other category. Someone who knows what data to add, and can run a bot, could clear those 105 files from both ctageories quickly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 16 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Ok, all the Blackwood's Magazine volumes have now been cleared out of those categories. Xover (talk) 05:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@TE(æ)A,ea., do you still need the images in Category:Millions of Cats images? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 20:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
Another sizeable set of images that could be handled by bot are the illustrations to "The House at Pooh Corner (1961)", and whose filenames start with that phrase. The illustrator (author) for these images is E. H. Shepard. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Pooh Corner ones are   Done. Xover (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
One more bot-suitable task would be setting the author to "multiple" for the DJVUs in Special:PrefixIndex/File:The_Strand_Magazine_(Volume. (The illustrations often have signatures and so should be handled manually.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 21:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
The Strand djvus are   Done. Xover (talk) 09:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
I've done few, and I thought we could make the Maintenance of the Month for July, since it's easy to step in and fix two or three. Cremastra (talk) 11:55, 20 June 2024 (UTC)Reply
@Xover Could you give the files starting with "Whenwewereveryyo0000unse" in Category:Files with no machine-readable description the description {{en|1=Illustration from ''When We Were Very Young''}}? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talkcontribs) 16:18, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
@CalendulaAsteraceae:   Done Xover (talk) 11:15, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There are 46 files with names of the form "FigNNdescription.png" (with or without a space after the NN fig. number) are from the 1910 A Practical Commentary on Holy Scripture by Author:Friedrich Justus Knecht. No illustrator is credited. These files can be exported to Commons, since the work was published more than 95 years ago and the author dies more than 100 years ago. However, the files should probably be renamed to include the source work title. Since there are 46 images requiring a similar rename, addition of the same author and description, and a similar export, this task might be best handled by bot. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
  • There are 56 illustrations with names that begin "File:The Strand Magazine . . . " that might be given basic data by bot. Many of these apparear to be illustrations for Sherlock Holmes stories. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Why is Mainspace now Pagespace?


I've noticed that the tabs that link to Source, Styles, and such at the top of a work now use "Page" for the Mainspace location. That is very confusing because we have a Page: namespace that is separate from the Mainspace. Is this an oversight on the part of the developers for the potential confusion, and what can we do about it? --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

On which page (and implicitly, in what namespace) are you seeing a different text string for the content tab than previously; what text did you used to see there; and what skin are you using?
As best I can recall the main content tab in mainspace has always read "Page" (meaning here, of course, "wikipage"), at least since 2007. It's always been confusing, but with no obvious good alternative. In the Index namespace (which is where you should see a "Styles" tab) the main content tab should read "Index". Xover (talk) 18:55, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply
Yeah, this is the default name out of the box in MediaWiki; it's only confusing for the small handful of projects that happen to also have a namespace called "Page". It's the same confusing nomenclature that you get when you're talking about the "Talk page" and the "Index page" and the "Page page" and so forth. (Yes, I have had to use the phrase "Page page", on occasion.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:46, 21 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Tech News: 2024-30


MediaWiki message delivery 00:04, 23 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Missing maintenance template


{{Improve documentation}} calls {{Dated maintenance category}}, which does not exist. Should we import it, or remove the call from the former template? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

We should get rid of {{improve documentation}}, which you imported from enWP by cut&paste in 2019, because if there is one thing we do not need on enWS it is yet another template to point out the fact we are all aware of (our documentation is inadequate). It adds maintenance (this thread being the case in point) for no added value beyond letting people vent about inadequate docs in template form instead of in a talk page comment. Xover (talk) 11:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

Template bug


{{Plainlist}} does not work for ordered ("#") lists; yet it does so on en.Wikipedia, for example.

Markup (ordered list):

# one
# two
# three

Rendering (ordered list):

  1. one
  2. two
  3. three

Markup (unordered list):

* one
* two
* three

Rendering (unordered list):

  • one
  • two
  • three

The first rendering should look like the second. Can anyone fix it, please? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:51, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

What's your use case for an unbulleted (unsigilled) ordered list? Xover (talk) 11:24, 24 July 2024 (UTC)Reply