Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in March 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


Wikimedia sites to move to primary data center in Ashburn, Virginia. Read-only mode expected.Edit

(Apologies if this message isn't in your language.) Next week, the Wikimedia Foundation will transition its main technical operations to a new data center in Ashburn, Virginia, USA. This is intended to improve the technical performance and reliability of all Wikimedia sites, including this wiki. There will be some times when the site will be in read-only mode, and there may be full outages; the current target windows for the migration are January 22nd, 23rd and 24th, 2013, from 17:00 to 01:00 UTC (see other timezones on More information is available in the full announcement.

If you would like to stay informed of future technical upgrades, consider becoming a Tech ambassador and joining the ambassadors mailing list. You will be able to help your fellow Wikimedians have a voice in technical discussions and be notified of important decisions.

Thank you for your help and your understanding.

Guillaume Paumier, via the Global message delivery system (wrong page? You can fix it.). 15:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

To note that I have added information to Special:Watchlist, and we can update this as required. As it seems the dominant effect is going to be upon editing, not viewing, it seems tom me that it is a sufficient place to mention. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Work completed. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Picture of the Year voting round 1 openEdit

Dear Wikimedians,

Wikimedia Commons is happy to announce that the 2012 Picture of the Year competition is now open. We're interested in your opinion as to which images qualify to be the Picture of the Year for 2012. Voting is open to established Wikimedia users who meet the following criteria:

  1. Users must have an account, at any Wikimedia project, which was registered before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC].
  2. This user account must have more than 75 edits on any single Wikimedia project before Tue, 01 Jan 2013 00:00:00 +0000 [UTC]. Please check your account eligibility at the POTY 2012 Contest Eligibility tool.
  3. Users must vote with an account meeting the above requirements either on Commons or another SUL-related Wikimedia project (for other Wikimedia projects, the account must be attached to the user's Commons account through SUL).

Hundreds of images that have been rated Featured Pictures by the international Wikimedia Commons community in the past year are all entered in this competition. From professional animal and plant shots to breathtaking panoramas and skylines, restorations of historically relevant images, images portraying the world's best architecture, maps, emblems, diagrams created with the most modern technology, and impressive human portraits, Commons features pictures of all flavors.

For your convenience, we have sorted the images into topic categories. Two rounds of voting will be held: In the first round, you can vote for as many images as you like. The first round category winners and the top ten overall will then make it to the final. In the final round, when a limited number of images are left, you must decide on the one image that you want to become the Picture of the Year.

To see the candidate images just go to the POTY 2012 page on Wikimedia Commons.

Wikimedia Commons celebrates our featured images of 2012 with this contest. Your votes decide the Picture of the Year, so remember to vote in the first round by January 30, 2013.

the Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

This message was delivered based on m:Distribution list/Global message delivery. Translation fetched from: commons:Commons:Picture of the Year/2012/Translations/Village Pump/en -- Rillke (talk) 04:18, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

That idea is like asking a person who loves most everything in life e.g. photographs, art in the National Museum of the USA or any other museum, flowers, books, music and much more, "Which one do you like the best?" Facebook also asks narrow-minded spiritual myopia questions. I think the question is a total absurdity simply because there are too many that are beautiful or fantastic in many ways to pick "one" of anything. "There can be only one (I suppose they mean only one god.) Film: "Highlander". I would prefer that everyone see all of those that are submitted. "Let's Make a Deal", you take the "best one" plus the best "one" book here and I get copyright to all of the other pictures you have submitted. —Maury (talk) 05:19, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
Note that in the current round, you can indeed vote for all of them (well, it would be a bit silly to vote for all, but you can vote for dozens). It's the later rounds that will narrow it down to trying to pick one. Andrew Gray (talk) 11:51, 23 January 2013 (UTC)

Help turn ideas into grants in the new IdeaLabEdit

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

  • Do you have an idea for a project to improve this community or website?
  • Do you think you could complete your idea if only you had some funding?
  • Do you want to help other people turn their ideas into project plans or grant proposals?

Please join us in the IdeaLab, an incubator for project ideas and Individual Engagement Grant proposals.

The Wikimedia Foundation is seeking new ideas and proposals for Individual Engagement Grants. These grants fund individuals or small groups to complete projects that help improve this community. If interested, please submit a completed proposal by February 15, 2013. Please visit for more information.

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Canadian Wikilivres cannot import edit historyEdit

For so many months, Wikilivres:Special:Import has malfunctioned. As non-current versions of pages here are considered archives without requiring compatible licensing with cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, if I recall correctly, cutting and pasting with the source version noted in edit summary there become the last way to transfer works from Wikisource to Wikilivres, without deleting the edit history here, unless the copyright holders defined by American law demand take-down. Chinese Wikisource is doing this method now.--Jusjih (talk) 09:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

When transferring by copy and paste, the correct way to meet the licensing is to copy and paste the edit history to the talk page on the receiving wiki. There is something in Wikipedia or Meta that documents this, but I can’t find it a the moment. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:53, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Found it meta:Help:Transwiki#Begin_transwiki

Aristotle's Organon released todayEdit

Complete unannotated editions of Octavius F. Owen's translation of Aristotle's Organon were officially released today. These include the works Categories, On Interpretation, Prior Analytics, Posterior Analytics, Topics and On Sophistical Refutations. To say this is an epoch-making event is not an exaggeration. Until today no hypertext edition of the history's first work of the science of logic has been freely available to the United States of America on the internet since the U. S. Supreme Court upheld the URAA international copyright treaty.

Now, this nation of 300 million can breathe a collective sigh of relief, that whenever they link to or download a portion of this ancient, influential and esteemed work through the internet, they can do so without the dread of violating their nation's copyright law!

Although the popular use of the internet is a phenomenon that has been going on for about 17 years, there have always been nations with their access to a hypertext of Aristotle's Organon under copyright doubt. Finally this founding author will have a secure seat at today's round table of the sciences of thought.

Several ideas have been exchanged about how best to honor the contributor of these priceless texts including a ticker tape parade, a National Day of Commemoration and their appearance on a U.S. postage stamp. ResScholar (talk) 23:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

I guess this is good news for us too? Sorry - I can't seem to wrap my head around a thing or two on this.
If in 1853 Mr. Owen first a.) translated Aristotle's 4th century B.C. work into English and then b.) went a step further by annotating that translation with additional content and a new presentation of the resulting content (i.e. side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, an index, an annex, an appendix or similar), then what exactly was the problem all this time in producing the un-annotated just-the-translation a.) version or derivative?
In this case, as best as I tell, UN-annotating the "as published" work would be little more than scripting a way to toggle the before mentioned b.) side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, etc. on or off in the final mainspace rendering (assuming Dynamic Layouts gets seriously fixed first that is and templates are applied for each nuance throughout the work at the same time during the proofreading process). The Translation does not carry the same "creative weight" as the further annotating does the way I see it even though both are being done by the same person and in the same publication in this case. So yes, this would be new work - a sub-set of the original Page: namespace transcription & yes, I regard UN-annotating as just another form of annotating overall but this is still far different than patching/adding/editing your own content/annotations or another edition's content/annotations into or over any existing annotations as published then transcribed (the "Frankenstein" thing).
I'm not going to get into the whole copyright thing though that doesn't seem quite right either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
The unannotated versions of the translations were a few days from completion when Adam brought up the Versions discussion on the Scriptorium. I joined the discussion and noticed that the parts of my unannotated edition were patched together differently than the scanned text, even though they matched the text in scans, excluding the commentary footnotes and the translation notes, which were noted to be absent, and I saw the relevance of what I was doing to what Adam was saying.
I pursued that conversation without revealing the existence of this version since Encyclopetey two days after Adam brought the discussion up on the Scriptorium started in on the absent footnotes on the scan's discussion page, and since you had known me as an admin longer I didn't want to seen as asking for favoritism for my particular case. So I joined the Scriptorium discussion and he didn't, and I thought the decision that was rendered would punt my particular case to a later discussion. I wasn't planning to be through with Aristotle: We don't have either Physics or Metaphysics.
No, the unannotated versions copyright-free worldwide are not really a world-historical event, but we have waited 17 years. How much longer are we going to wait for these "Dynamic Layouts"? Another five years? I received NO help with these versions. That doesn't bother me, but it proves some lack of interest in producing them.
How far can Dynamic Layouts take us anyway? Can they move the Chapter descriptions from one place to another? The descriptions aren't in the original Greek manuscripts.
Your original question was: If in 1853 Mr. Owen first a.) translated Aristotle's 4th century B.C. work into English and then b.) went a step further by annotating that translation with additional content and a new presentation of the resulting content (i.e. side-notes, ref-notes, foot-notes, an index, an annex, an appendix or similar), then what exactly was the problem all this time in producing the un-annotated just-the-translation a.) version or derivative?
A better question might be: what exactly was the problem all this time in producing any un-annotated just-the-translation version? Probably the existence of the Oxford translation, a good version, but one whose copyright status is not known for certain by Wikisource investigations, but whose copyright was restored from the public domain (if the copyright is vested in the individual authors or the general editor) by the URAA, which was upheld with regard to the public domain by a recent U. S. Supreme Court case.
But do a Google search on a phrase from Owen's work or even the Loeb Classical Library version: There are no complete hypertext versions available of just-the-translation other than the Oxford version. ResScholar (talk) 08:56, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf9 releasedEdit

The next increment of Mediawiki has been released in the past hours. Please report issues below. I hadn't been watching the release timetable, so when I have had a chance to look at what was in the release, I may be able to give some novice feedback. Not sure if others have had a chance to do so. To note that we have had a report of a change in behaviour of abuse filters, so please be on the alert. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

First cut of the list doesn't indicate anything major that may impact upon enWS, well not obvious that it will. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Scribunto extension roll out planned for February 18Edit

Wikimedia Foundation has been working on improving performance and adding features to template pages within MediaWiki. As a result of this WMF developed a new Scribunto extension for MediaWiki which enables Lua scripting language for templates. The developers are confident about the extension's maturity and it was decided that Scribunto is going to be deployed to this wiki in the first batch. The deployment will begin on February 18 and will simply add a feature. Please be so kind and spread the word about the deployment on your wiki. If you are interested in converting current templates to Lua, please see more information and submit your feedback to Lua page on Meta. Regards, Kozuch (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

To note that this extension has been rolled out, resulting in the creation of the new namespace Modulewith its associated talk (ns: 828, 829). The namespace is for code Lua/Scribunto code, just like Templates, though with heaps more grunt. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 19 February 2013 (UTC)


Changing MediaWiki:NewarticletextEdit

The following discussion is closed:
Some editnotices have been created to inform users about header templates.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:43, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

The following piece of text is fine for all namespaces.

This page does not exist yet; you can create it by typing in the box below and saving. If you are here by mistake, just click your browser's back button.

After it, some namespace-specific text may be shown:

Namespace Text
Main (non-subpage) Editing help: Adding textsSubpagesHeaderTransclusionCopyright tagsCategorizationInterlanguage links.
Main (subpage) Editing help: Adding textsSubpagesHeaderTransclusion.
Author Editing help: Author pages.
Index Editing help: Index pages.
Page Editing help: Formatting conventionsPage status. If no text layer is available, click the OCR button. To open and close the header and footer, toggle   under "Proofread tools".
Portal Editing help: PortalsPortal classification.

--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2013 (UTC)

  Support although I might expand "Editing help" a little to make it clearer to a new, casual visitor. Possibly just "If you need help editing, please see:" and then into the list, or move Help:Editing into the list with the other help pages, so: "If you need help, please see: Editing – " etc. (Sorry for the delay, I missed this proposal until now.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:10, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I have actually started adding Editnotice components to provide ability to manually preload templates, and I have done it for main ns and author ns. I have already added those links. As time allows I will add more, and make them available to user pages. You can see more from Template:Editnoticesbillinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
To note that I have now created the editnotices at the Namespace level — Main: Header; Talk: Textinfo; Author: Author; Portal: Portal header; Help: & Wikisource: Process headerbillinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I also added Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal talk. Note that Template:Editnotices/Namespace/Portal preloads the wrong header.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Removing portal review systemEdit

Currently, all portals at least theoretically should be reviewed; it was an idea early in the process. There is a header parameter, a category and a talk page template to facilitate this. However, this has not happened since the portal migration and I don't expect it to happen in the future. Further, there doesn't seem to be any drawbacks from this lack of review. Marking and tracking portals as unreviewed may therefore give a false, negative impression to readers. So, I am proposing removing the parameter and associated category. (The talk page template may be useful in the future for other things, so I am not including it in this proposal.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:32, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Please don't. I am well aware that I have created some tentative portal entries which could benefit from review (if there ever was one!) Would it not be far better to use this opportunity to generate some interest (and share expertise) in actually reviewing a few existing portals, and marking them as such? I am certainly willing to have a go, if given a couple of pointers as to what is expected... MODCHK (talk) 01:42, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Any portals I created, definitely could use a review. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
This could happily sit as a Maintenance of the Month activity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, proposal withdrawn. I will sort something out MotM-wise soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:10, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Nice decision. Some alignment to the LCC for portals is imperative from my perspective. Just wish it was easier to do. We could do with a decent lookup, and some simple dot points to step through (though I will hazard a guess that it isn't that easy and 1000 librarians are lining up to rabbit punch me). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:49, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Add portal ns: to be a default searchEdit


  • I would like to propose that we have the Portal: namespace (ns:100) included in the default search for English Wikisource.

billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


At this point of time the namespaces that are searched by default (users not logged in, or unchanged by users through preferences) are:

  • Main (ns:0)
  • Author (ns:102, WS specific)
  • Index (ns:106, WS specific)

We are now utilising Portal namespace significantly more, and it is one of our feeders into certain articles, I would like to propose that we add a bugzilla request to include Portal (ns:100) to the default configuration. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Comment: SearchEdit

  • Configuration data can be found at InitialiseSettings.php and search for wgNamespacesToBeSearchedDefault and scroll to '+enwikisource'
  • If we did this, we could consider moving the Wikisource:Authors pages collection to the Portal: namespace (leaving xwiki redirects?) so they are found in searches, and to take them from the WS project namespace> (thought bubble)
  • A second proposal will follow about Portal: ns as a "content namespace" — billinghurst sDrewth 13:30, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Discussion: SearchEdit

I believe you are saying that by making this change, default search parameters will find items on portals that are not on main or author pages. Is that correct? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:09, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Proposal: Search — Indication of 'Support' / 'Oppose'Edit

  • support as proposer — billinghurst sDrewth 13:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support, although I'm biased about portals. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support — Makes sense. And I'm OK with changes in the default preferences that come "down from server" (i.e. the .PHP file) more so than something that is set locally for all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:39, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Support. The Page namespace should be added as well, since transcluding pages does not make them searchable.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Community portalEdit

The following discussion is closed:
The community portal has been replaced.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

A quick proposal: I am going to replace the current Wikisource:Community Portal with this new community portal (and change it to sentence case, as it appears in the sidebar, in the process) unless anyone has any objections. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:49, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

I like it, I like it. The colour is friendlier and the layout is simpler and cleaner. — Ineuw talk 22:35, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Looks OK. My only remark is about center alignment of entries in the boxes on the left side. I would prefer left-aligned entries, as they "dance" less when you resize the window.--Mpaa (talk) 22:40, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Ditto, to the Ok and left align, suggestions of Mpaa. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:33, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
  Done --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:35, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
The new Community portal is now live. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:22, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal classificationEdit

Class I: Texts by Country has got six subclasses, but the only widely used one is Subclass IN: Nations and Portal:Nations is a redirect to Portal:Texts by Country. This is a proposal to remove subclasses from Class I. The classification of a national portal would be simply:

 | class     = I

while Portal:Cornwall (and similar ones) would be classified:

 | class     = I
 | parent    = England

If the proposal is accepted, I will:

while Portal:Counties, Portal:States, Portal:Towns and Cities and the {{LCC Class I}} template will need to be deleted.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:01, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I am not certain that it is a good idea, though I will admit to not having the greatest knowledge of the hierarchy. I think that the portal hole to which you refer is more due to us not having done the extra porta page for the sub-national, rather than there not being a need. Portals are slower to mature, and are one where we still could do with some expert guidance, and some excellent organisers. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:58, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

BOT approval requestsEdit

90 day warnings postedEdit

The following bots and owners have not been active on Wikisource for 2 or more years, they have been given notice to demonstrate requirement for bot flag. The 90 days per Wikisource:Bots#Confirmation will expire on or about April 5, 2013.

  • Note in cases where a English Wikisource bot owner account was not readily available, notice is only left at the bot talk page.
    • Closed as failed confirmation, but does not have bot flag so no action taken. Hesperian 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • User:ChessBOT
    • Closed as failed confirmation, but does not have bot flag so no action taken. Hesperian 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
  • User:MediaWiki default
    • MediaWiki default is not a normal bot. It is the default username to which content diffs are ascribed whenever internal changes to MediaWiki, or the running of internal MediaWiki scripts, result in apparent changes to content. It appears that we do have the ability as a community to determine whether we want these flag this account as a bot or not. However it has no owner/operator, so a 90-day failure to 'show cause' means nothing. I think this is a special case, outside our usual confirmation processes, and I would like further guidance from the community before I take any action. Hesperian 01:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

  Comment about process. 90 days seems too long. 60 days should be more than adequate. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:16, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
  Comment second, and we should have not required a vote "unless at least three established users oppose, which will trigger an election with decision by simple majority" when the results where unanimous remove with 3 votes, in the confirmation. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:48, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
I have converted it to a vote, and will just leave it open. To me that just gets closed by a 'crat later. I think that we can review and make suggestions for the next round, after it is closed. It was a good start. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:15, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I suggested a couple minor changes at Wikisource_talk:Bots#Confirmation to the process based on the above. Jeepday (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

Request for approval: Bot run for migration {{edition}} to edition = yesEdit

I have suggested at Template talk:Header that we migrate from using {{edition}} to the {{header}} parameter edition = yes, and I have followed up with a proposed bot notification job at Wikisource:Bot_requests#Migrating from {{edition}} to edition = y. There has been no comment to the contrary. As this will be a significant change (4+k pages), and is a change to how we have instructed people Help:Beginner's guide to reliability, Help:Beginner's guide to sources, Wikisource:Text quality, Wikisource:Template messages/Texts, Template:Textinfo, and of course Template:Header I am preferring to bring this fully to community for their guidance. Examples:

I have run about 50 pages through under my username, and another ~50 through as sDrewthbot, to no observable issues, though happy for others to prod and poke. As I have just found that the template can take a parameter {{edition}}, I will skip all such pages, and they can be part of a different discussion as we would need to updated {{plain sister}} to undertake that. If rhis can be adequately resolved we would then deprecate the template.

Accordingly, I proposing that this as a new bot request to the community for its approval as per Wikisource:Bots. Tests have been run, and appear to me do the task as expressed above. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Closing as no objections; any further communications about this matter will be at WS:BRbillinghurst sDrewth 13:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

User:Robbie the RobotEdit

I would like a bot flag for User:Robbie the Robot. I have been worried I might be starting to spam Special:RecentChanges with some AWB-enabled edits. The bot account is just so I can use AWB without this being an issue. At the moment I am moving sister links into the header templates but I intend to use it for other, similiar, maintenance and clean up tasks. Per Wikisource:Bots:

  • Purpose: General maintenance and clean-up tasks
  • Scope: All namespaces, no limitations
  • Tool: AWB
  • Degree of human interaction involved: Semi-automated

Thanks - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:43, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

No objection from me as an RC patroller, but you could just give yourself the flood flag when and as you need it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment I would think that we would want to see RtR in action prior to granting it the bot flag, or some other demonstration that you know how to control it, eg. it has bot status elsewhere. After that, I would think that we would hold you to similar standards for the rest of us using AWB. Major maintenance tasks are documented on the bot page, or a subpage that is what I have been doing with sDrewthbot (talkcontribs)). That
    • for ad hoc minor tasks that they have an adequate edit summary of what is the purpose;
    • beyond minor tasks that they additionally are noted at WS:BR for the community's information, and
    • really significant tasks (major changes) are additionally brought here for community's input, and/or approval
    As a general statements, 1) I much prefer to see bots running on separate accounts, rather than on user accounts, unless there is a rights reason pertinent, even then I still prefer bots to be separate, makes edit review easier; 2) when about to do a run, I have been running the initial changes through as my primary account, as a proof of concept in the scripting, somewhat as an alert of action, and then swapping to the bot account when I see things running smoothly. In short, we don't regulate bots per task per enWP; the consequence is that we wish to be kept informed of and consulted upon their use. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    Fair enough. I've run some edits, which can be seen at Special:Contributions/Robbie the Robot. I ran the same module on my own account for a short time and I saw no problems there either. The current operation is standardising sister links. I will announce this at Wikisource:Bot requests, as described, when and if Robbie is approved. Regarding the flood flag, I thought it would be simpler and clearer to use a separate account for this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Support edits that I reviewed were fine, and believe that compliance with standard protocols, and obvious knowledge of our systems, makes this supportable. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Granted. [1] Hesperian 10:36, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Procedural request for approval, failed reconfirmation, per current rules triggers an automatic vote for continued bot flag approval. Loss of flag does not prevent edits, only impacts recent change visibility. Jeepday (talk) 13:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  • Oppose Owner reports moving on [2], no expectation the bot will function on WS again. Jeepday (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose -- same reasons as given above. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Bot flag removed. [3] Hesperian 10:38, 1 March 2013 (UTC)


Other discussionsEdit


I have noticed a fair number of users validating a page as ’Problematic’ when the only issues is a missing image and the appropriate template is used. As the template {{Missing image}} puts the page in Category:Pages with missing images or Category:Texts with missing images, this does not seem to me to be a problem. I would suggest that a missing image is not a "problem" worthy of the validating a page as problematic. Two key rationals being.

  1. In the page name space, when the page is Transclusioned (Transclusion, sp?) to the main space, the image is only a click away for the reader.
  2. The next validation from ’Problematic’ is ’Proofread’, so ’validated’ requires yet another editor to review the page, for no text based rational.

Per Help:Beginner's_guide_to_proofreading#Problematic_pages "Commons problems include pages with illustrations (if no image file is available), " in the case of scans the image is available, it just needs to be cleaned up, and placed in the work. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:56, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

A practical use case: can this page be marked as proofread then Page:Biographies_of_Scientific_Men.djvu/6143? (changed as img is now uploaded)--Mpaa (talk) 20:12, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
IMHO, yes. The text is correct. You could probably have debate about {{Missing image}} instead of {{raw image}}, but that aside, everything else is image housekeeping. We have the image, there are things that could be done (without end) to make it better. Anyone with the skills and desires can easily find all the similar images (12 of them) in the book at Category:Pages with raw images. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)
In my own works I use Problematic to indicate which pages I need to come back to to do the images. This is because my way of working is to get the text all in place first and then return and do the full-page images. Where the images are needed inline to the text (such as Index:Mr. Punch's Book of Sports.djvu) {{raw image}} can't be used and Problematic again acts as a flag to PotM contributors that the image needs adding in before the page is Proofread. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:41, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
That is how I handle it, and to me the only other means that I would find acceptable would be yet another colour that indicated proofread but image missing. AND I don't really want to go there. I am comfortable that the purple is a significant indicator. Similarly pages with words needing translation, or an illegible word get the same treatment, even when the remainder of the page has been proofread. About the only exception is where [q.v] links have not been added, and I am comfortable with those being marked as proofread, but not as validated. Quirky, eh? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

In my opinion, Proofread should be reserved for pages that are finished; and Validated for finished pages that have been checked. Pages with missing or raw images are not finished, so they should be tagged Problematic.

From a social engineering point of view, I believe that fixing missing images is to many of us an unrewarding task, but that in general we are highly motivated to turn our index pagelists to yellow and ultimately green. I suspect that often we only fix those missing images out of a desire to remove unsightly blue stains from our pagelists. If we got into the habit of promoting pages with missing images, that inducement would be removed, and I think many fewer missing images would ever be fixed.

Hesperian 02:12, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

{{Italic block}} templateEdit

Would it be a pain/is it possible to get italic block s/e templates created? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:46, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Hope this'll do: {{Italic block/s}}, {{Italic block/e}}. Prosody (talk) 21:53, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Worked, thanks! I wasn't sure if, when combined with another template like {{block center}}, it needed to precede the bc template or go after it (I'm not explaining myself very well)... but it doesn't seem to matter. Is there "best practice" however? Feel free to edit the two affected pages as necessary. Thanks for adding the templates. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:10, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
The order shouldn't matter in almost any plausible situation. It shouldn't affect anything, but it's still good form to properly nest the starting and ending templates e.g. ABC [text] CBA rather than ABC [text] BAC, which you're already doing correctly in the linked page. Prosody (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:34, 20 January 2013 (UTC)
Umm, why? You can just have <i></i> pairs for these situations where you need a bigger wrap or need to split it over a page break. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
Would have worked for me, had I not been a template-dependent User by habit; not to mention codus ignoramus :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

* WikiMedia promoted via YouTube *Edit

I love the music and graphics presented at the beginning leading into promoting the wiki site.—Maury (talk) 14:51, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

Copyright status of Vatican worksEdit

What is the status of copyright for Vatican works? In particular Second Vatican Council Documents by Paul VI listed under 1965 works. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 01:54, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Moving to WS:CV as that are where the experts inhabit. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Proofread Texts of the Month awards -- make them unique -- match the booksEdit

Why can we not use better/prettier images for each proofread award of the month? For example, Past Collaborations shows very nice and varied images as opposed to the same old star, or any modification of it thereof. The awards images should look good on people's pages. The same old stars, or any modification thereof, does not do this. It is more attractive including for people looking in at them. There are some such as the tree rings, a face, etc. but I think the award should always be pleasing and match the story itself. —Maury (talk) 00:14, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

Scope of Wikisource, Bibliographies, ISBNEdit


If I can ask a few basic questions...

  1. Does Wikisource allow ANY published work (if copyright is not an issue)? What about digitally created works?
  2. Might Wikisource incorporate templates to collect bibliographic information to build up a comprehensive bibliography (unlike Wikipedia which is limited to notable works), expanding to reference even still copyrighted works?
  3. Is there a way to find books by ISBN number on Wikisource (unlike Special:BookSources)
  4. Also, how about allowing adding of verifiable info per any work's edition, e.g., reporting suspected errata, etc., so there could be a centralized place for this info.

Thanks! Brettz9 (talk) 12:57, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

I placed a welcome template on your talk page it will lead you to some of the answers. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:49, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
And for the ones that doesn't: we use {{authority control}} for external identifiers along with metadata associated with facsimiles in the Index namespace, and other metadata in the main and Author namespaces and in the main talk page of pre-ProofreadPage works. In the flying car future everything will have its facsimile and authority controls and comprehensive metadata will be pulled from that, but right now it's a little bit of a mess. Mass bibliography data and documenting variants in editions are probably outside our scope. Prosody (talk) 06:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. Wikisource:What Wikisource includes plus the other links that Jeepday gave above. In short published public domain works (no notability), and historic documents (notability attached). Appropriately creative commons licensed too.
  2. Sure, we have been attempting to do so in the Index: namespace, and are migrating that way, though we feel that the Wikidata project is probably the best chance we have of standardised data about books, plus what Prosody has talked about above.
  3. To my understanding an ISBN is by published edition, so each new edition gets a new ISBN. As our books pre-date ISBN by a long way, I doubt any (the vast majority) have ISBN. We have some LoC, and other identifiers appearing, though this is more recent move.
  4. Annotations by contributors is problematic in how we do that and retain the original work as published. A recent hot issue for us (again) and one that needs to be readdressed. That said, every work has a talk page, and a notes section. Annotations on a talk page are completely legitimate, and the use of the parameter edition= yes in {{header}} will point users to talk pages. Part of an issue, is what is "verifiable" and whether such an annotation should be in a work. For instance, part of a research approach is to reference a work as is, and comment about it in the article/essay, not to go back and change the reference work from which the incorrect fact is drawn. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:35, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Maintenance of the MonthEdit

Why did User:Erasmo Barresi move his YouTube project to the Maintenance of the Month queue without either suggesting it or discussing it, and to the front of the line at that? Or if he didn't, why did User:AdamBMorgan think he did? ResScholar (talk) 05:10, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

For the latter, this edit. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:22, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Better Question, why does the maintenance of the month this month, not work to restore the mess of unapproved deletions of Wikipedia excerpts from January 2013? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:42, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Alternative Question, in what way is the creation of a video maintenance? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:07, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
The creation of a video is not properly maintenance, but it falls into the "editor recruitment" field. We have covered this when we reformed the main page and the newsletter. They are all things to increase participation to Wikisource. The use of a certain word must not tie down our possibilities to do something towards Wikisource.
We have different opinions about Wikipedia excerpts in author pages. In such cases the best thing to do is—in my opinion—remaining within the ultimate goal of Wikisource. The briefness and "authorshiplessness" of the bio should make any attribution to Wikipedia unnecessary.
I moved that YouTube project to the Maintenance of the Month because I wanted to involve as many people as possible. Moreover, some proposals I've opened have had few or no responses, even after a lot of days (see above 1&2), for several reasons. There is no problem about it—after some time one can assume tacit consent—, but sometimes there is not enough time to start a thread and wait for responses. Nothing was set for February, so I chose this one that was already started.
I obviously dislike disagreement, so I'm sorry if I caused some. :-( Erasmo Barresi (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2013 (UTC)
It's not as obvious to me that you dislike disagreement, as you even resort to falsehoods in your arguments to perpetuate it. I can't help but notice that what you actually did was produce a great deal of agreement—that there was a problem with your maneuver. I am reverting your contrivance to put you and Maury's private project on the front page—which, in the field of project selection on Wikisource, is as rare as a block. ResScholar (talk) 19:54, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
  •   Comment In reply about erronous and offensive statements about me and in support of a good fellow editor (Erasmo):

ResidentScholar, are there not rules for these sorts of things whereby a person [Erasmo]is (1) is supposed have the "benefit of the doubt"? (2) to "be bold"? (3) Are there not rules that state something to the effect of no personal attacks? (4) I will tell you now that there was no "contrivance to put you and Maury's private project on the front page or if there was I never knew of any "contrivance." I think Erasmo did exactly as he states. I would not accuse, or hint, or insinuate in any form about him of being a liar. I do not believe for a moment that he is. What he is though is a hard worker on Wikisource and has been since he joined WS. Erasmo is an Italian struggling through a school to learn higher English and who did what he thought was good for Wikisource. He tried to be bold without knowing all of the rules. Too, the "script" to better Wikisource with a professional video did not come from me other than in statements to better the script for a professional video. It was I who made a statement here in the open to the effect that I prefer not to answer on Erasmo's sandbox page. He followed that comment, I believe, and thus he posted here in the open with hopes as he himself has stated. It gained some speed. It gained some ideas and all of this was, to my knowledge, preceded by AdamBMorgan's excellent video and the comments made by me and others here on that and other videos. Now, regarding my personal video on that wonderful book about all kinds of "Cycles" -- it is strictly my personal work complete with a Disclaimer although not within the video but rather in a comment area below the video. It is a hope of mine that you have not accused a good man to a point that WS has lost an excellent editor who really cares about improving Wikisource. Have you ever conversed about the retention of WS editors or wonder why they drift away? Have you ever wondered why that could happen and do you even really care? Outsiders who read here may think never to edit on WS because of such antics and accusations. Therefore not only are editors leaving but there are not enough editors joining. Add the two ideas together -- editors leave and potential editors do not join. That has doubled, or more than doubled losses for en.Wikisource. On the highly visible subject line you made two obvious statements. They are: Reverted maintenance of the month-private project presented under false pretenses) and removed private project presented under false pretences). You could have simply had your statements on users pages but then there would have been no audience. I found the following:

"Please participate in the discussion, but refrain for caricatures and personal attacks."

—Maury (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

  •   Comment Specifics aside.... I wish I could at least support one position or the other, but in all fairness to both positions - I can't get past the most basic of facts first.

    This page too fuckin' long (again) to actually propose, debate and resolve all but the most simple of proposals without it getting lost in the weeds first for some folks so Erasamo has a point (though unsupported) about consent, scheduling and so on while ResidentScholar also has a point about shit getting passed or implemented without the normal due diligence running it's course beforehand, again, thanks to the amount of overgrowth taking place here moreso than anything deceptive or similar taking place.

    p.s. - I'm just as much to blame for this as anyone else might be; question is what are going to do about it? Tear each other down or work together to move things forward? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

  • The Question of endorsement comes to mind. If the project is presented as a Wikisource-endorsed venture (by the mere fact that it is being developed on WS pages), then more debate/input/involvement would seem to be needed. Or, the project can be developed privately, as Mr. Morris has done for his "Cycle" video; but that would call for some sort of (what do you call it?) written aside in the text of the video that the video is a private project and not endorsed by WS or WM, etc... Mr. Morris & Mr. Barresi and anyone else interested are always free to brainstorm outside of this forum if the latter method is chosen. Seems that what needs to be agreed upon at this point is whether it will be a WS-endorsed project or a private one. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
    • Londonjackbooks, my video shows no endorsement of anyone, any company, nobody but myself in the form of a clear disclaimer. Although the disclaimer is not in my video it is in the comments section beneath the video and there are two videos as my personal projects. If I do more I will insert the disclaimer inside as well. Now, in reference to your comments about "brainstorming outside of this forum", you should recall your own as well as my "brainstorming" (a lot of so-called "brainstorming") including your comments about a lady singing or reading Coats and creating a voice file for your children. That is hardly on-topic of what Erasmo had submitted to better Wikisource using his "script". You also wrote more on Coates and made several statements. A case of "The Pot.."
Re: "The Pot"... I'm not calling anybody anything. Read into my statement above how you will. I will be happy to clarify on my Talk page if you feel it necessary. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Did anyone state that you are calling anyone anything with the "The Pot..."? ["Le Pot de fleurs" ?] Are you erroneously "reading into my statement" with anything, anyone, on any matter? You have already "read into my [own] statement/s". I have no interest at all in making you "happy" in any form (that is your spouse's duty in all forms)on your talk page because I do not feel it is my duty nor a necessity. I do not enjoy being bored. —Maury (talk) 14:38, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  1. "Endorsement": I was referring to adding a disclaimer (the word I was looking for, thanks) within the context of the proposed WS video—not the "Cycle" video (I only used the Cycle video as an example of a private project; that is all)... which I thought clever, actually.
  2. "brainstroming outside of this forum": There was no issue (with me) about the 'brainstorming' that took place here on WS with regard to the proposed video. My statement about Users being "free to brainstorm outside of this forum" was immediately followed by "if the latter method [private project] is chosen" (context again). My "hardly on-topic" comments/statements about Coates were merely a tangent thought about your comment on one's "ability, or lack thereof, of public speaking". Apologies if I strayed from your talking points—I am boring that way (my poor poor husband to have to live with me!).
  3. "The Pot...": I am only too eager to hear how you would have completed that sentence (or how a flower pot would have anything to do with the situation). But it is, of course, not your "duty nor a necessity" to answer.
  4. Methinks you are... (fill in the blank): Unfinished sentences often lead to assumptions. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:46, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

I do not appreciate anyone making assumptions about me or accusing me of something. Neither do I like someone involved in something side-stepping later in a conversation who is not willing to admit that they themselves are, what they state, or indicate in some way, of others. Be fully truthful and responsible for what you yourself do from this point forward and already have done earlier.

'Nuff said only said in self-defense because I was dragged into this starting with my 1st statements of defense above and continued to here below. —Maury (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

ResidentScholar restored the January task and that's fine. I'm going to further develop the video privately—feel free to e-mail me if you'd like to be involved.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Lua scripting implementation (+ templates conversion/rewrite)Edit

Hi guys, I am coordinating MediaWiki's Scribunto extension installations on various community wikis to enable Lua scripting language for templates. If there are some of you interested in learning Lua and converting your local templates to it, please drop me a note on my talk page (because I am not watching this page) so that we can arrange Scribunto installation for you. You can also check demo templates on Thank you! --Kozuch (talk) 18:52, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I encourage any who are template creators to heartily consider Kozuch's offer. This is a migration process that will be taking place, and probably an opportunity for more handholding and kid gloves than will occur at a later time. In short it is meant to be offering more scaling of the limited mw:Help:Magic words and mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctionsbillinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
billinghurst, thanks for adding the important context! It should have been in my original message, but my resources are limited... :-) I would like to ask everybody interested to really not reply here but on my talk page as I am not able to watch this discussion page. Thanks! --Kozuch (talk) 11:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)


I am about to create a new category Category:Waterloo Campaign it will contain a series of letter, decelerations treaties and conventions. The first one of which is nearly ready is the Convention of St. Cloud (the surrender of Paris), 3rd July 1815. I propose to place this category into another one called Category:Hundred Days for which there is already the documents Declaration at the Congress of Vienna and Treaty of Vienna (Seventh Coalition). Into which category/ies should I place the Hundred Days? -- PBS (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal:Waterloo campaign would be better. We much prefer to present documents into formatted portal pages. It provides context, order, formatting, etc. and allows wiki links for missing documents. Not sure about portals, have a look at {{portal header}} — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
Monkey sees monkey does. I'll put the convention in place and perhaps you would be kind enough to add what you think is appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 15:59, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
As an example, Portal:Hundred Days starting with:
{{portal header
 | title     = Hundred Days
 | class     = D
 | subclass1 = -
 | parent    = Napoleonic Wars<!-- Optional, only if you intend to have a Portal:Napoleonic Wars; it can be added later. -->
 | shortcut  = 
 | wikipedia = Hundred Days
 | notes     = 
Subclass D is General History, which seems the best fit. There is an argument for Subclass DC, History of France, if you prefer. Just list the works in appropriate sections after that. Portals aside, I think's worth adding at least Category:Napoleonic Wars to each work and the portal.

Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain worksEdit

I think everyone here should know about this, the link can be found at Supreme Court rules Congress can re-copyright public domain works | Ars Technica --kathleen wright5 (talk) 11:24, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Also, Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2012-02#Golan_v._Holder -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:38, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Walsall Labour Party is Open LicensedEdit

In response to my blog post Politician pin ups – open-licensed pictures, please the Walsall (England) Labour Party have open-licensed their website, including text content. Pigsonthewing (talk) 12:49, 2 February 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr updateEdit

The experiment with a Wikisource Tumblr continues. At the moment, it is limited to announcing PotM and featured texts. I have recently (that is, a few days ago) included the Wikisource:News headlines as part of the cycle. Another recent event is that the blog is now included as part of Planet Wikimedia, a blog aggregator that brings together posts from many assorted Wikimedia-related blogs. This might get more attention from other Wikimedians. We currently have two followers and have had three "likes" to date (two of which were for the announcement of the PotM for The Cycle Industry).

Nice job, can we at the end of the end month(ish) retrospectively note the completed texts from {{new texts}} from the month? Or we could note them when we transfer them to their archive at Wikisource:Works

Currently I am the only person with control over this Tumblr. Some organisation goes on via WikiProject Social media. I missed some things over the last two months as I was having various internet connectivity problems. There may be a problem in that everything we do runs on a monthly cycle, so it all updates on the same day. I am currently postponing the featured text announcement a little to (marginally) spread things out. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Spreading things out sound good, so what else an be considered for a rough schedule through the month. It may be worth looking to get some sort of text from the active projects at one a month, at least to spike some interest. DNB and PSM are always good candidates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Good Job Adam :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)


Per this discussion "both Stewards and CheckUsers have wikis available where passwords can be stored for future recall as needed". I propose we make use of this solution, unless a better idea is offered. The best time for this type of housekeeping is at the beginning, else it gets put off until to late. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:27, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Yep, and I have accounts at both. If you want me to create a page for it, I would recommend CUs. Another alternative is that you email the detail to, and it will be stored in the OTRS system. All of these have other eyes staring at them, so none of it is perfect security. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
In this case, Tumblr doesn't work that way. In order for the tumbleblog to, potentially, accommodate multiple people it is a "secondary blog" (personal blogs are "primary blogs"). The password protection is for the user account and not for any individual blog (the guidance mentions password protection for secondary blogs but this seems to refer to read-access rather than write-access). Anyway, secondary blogs have members and admins. Members can post and edit/delete their own posts; admins can delete anyone's posts, invite new members and remove them. Admins can promote members to admin status but once they have that status they can't be demoted or removed.(Tumblr FAQ).
It would help to have other people posting (if nothing else, just to cover for the semi-annual periods when I randomly lose all access to the internet). This is easy from the Tumblr side of things but the process for arranging this is on the Wikisource side is a little vague. Any such person will need a Tumblr account and I don't think they need to set up a primary blog if they don't want one. Presumably, some Wikisource community approval will be required. There is a voting section on WikiProject Social media but it doesn't get enough attention at the moment to fulfil it's own requirements. Member status should probably be easier to acquire than admin status but this is yet to be determined. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
Well that certainly complicates my proposal. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:40, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
After thinking about this some more, I/we could create a new Tumblr account just for the purpose of recording the log in details somewhere. That way, if I should fall in front of a bus (or whatever), it can be revived, repaired or reclaimed using that account. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:52, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
I looked around at Meta to see if there was anything about this, nothing jumped out at me. Presumably as intended this tumblr is a community asset. In that case it would really belong to the foundation, but there is nothing (glaringly obvious) dictating the management of such at meta. We know there are multiple similar social network accounts, maybe we should look to the foundation for direction? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:52, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
Best resource I could find - JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:57, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Download asEdit

While editing and validating today in several areas I also noticed something I am only partly familiar with. I was working on the present version of Vanity Fair and paused for a break. I saw the following on the sidebar:

Create a book
Download as PDF
Download as EPUB
Download as EPUB
Printable version

I know how to create a book via Wikisource and I understand the PDF and EPUB options. My question is, Why are there two "Download as EPUB" options? Is it because the book is not completed? —Maury (talk) 17:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

There are two "Download as EPUB" options because you have a scripted one in your common.js and you have the gadget turned on. I only know this, because it happens to me. They both do the same thing (access the WSexport tool), so you can choose to leave them both there (my lazy option) or turn one or the other off. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Beeswaxcandle. I too will follow that lazy option but only because I feel that my changing any of it might mess something up. —Maury (talk) 17:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
I have done it for you. If you are still seeing double, please Ctrl-F5 to refresh your cache of you r common.js file. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

New Wikisource relationship with Commons, Wikidata and WikipediaEdit

There is a grant application at Meta that has the potential to significantly impact crosswiki interactions. There is brief mention of it above, the proposal has improved greatly since that time. I would encourage you to take a look at the proposal, if you have not looked recently. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:55, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Broken configuration for template subpagesEdit

I have found that WMF has somehow broken the configuration of the Template: ns, not subpages. This means that the /doc componentry is broken, and doesn't work properly when you edit it, and especially when you have magic words as part of the coding. In short {{Author/doc}} and the template sandboxes and testcases are hosed until they fix it. Bugzilla:44638 and hopefully it will be done in the next couple of hours. In short, don't play with them, they are not broken themselves, it is the system. Fortunately it doesn't effect anything at the mainspace level, as these pages are not transcluded through— billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

The template subpages issue has been resolved, however, we do still have some changed configuration that may or may not be problematic. Index and Page namespaces now have subpages, the implication of this is that any time that there is a forwardslash "/" in a name, then it will not be treated as a character, instead it will be treat it as a subpage. ThomasV in his initial coding was adamant that there should not be, however, I have no idea of the consequences. There are some benefits, it means that we can move subpages collectively, and make better use of magic words. For index: ns it is inconsequential. I am hoping that Tpt can guide us here. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
About page and index namespaces, I think this won't break the code of the extension (but I'm not sure) so it doesn't really matter. But, in these two namepaces, subpages aren't useful because pages are done to be positioned & created linked to match their associated scan-page within a source file. So, I think that we might remove this change but, if there is no bugs, it's not very important. Tpt (talk) 20:57, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There should be no consequences to having subpages available as long as the extension keeps creating page titles where the forward-slash remains defined just as any other simple allowed character currently is. If at somepoint the forward-slash reverts to its normal operation (i.e. a sub-directory in DOS, a sub-folder in the Windows GUI, a sub-page in our Wikicoding and so on), it becomes a huge problem. We can't have both variants and expect them to behave the same - its either one or the other and converting all the existing straight page titles to reflect a main page title with sub-pages would require bulk moves for weeks to accomplish (i.e Page:OurTitle.djvu/403 would need to be moved to ../403 in other words). And as long as Page:OurTitle.djvu is not somehow created, the typical < sub-page link to it's base should not appear along the top for now either ( see Page:4test01.djvu/1 for an example of this). -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:54, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Compulsory headerEdit

I have just gone through a batch of articles with {{subst:DNBset}}, being prompted for a header. Not very convenient having to ask twice to create an article, when you're doing 40. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Not sure what is the issue, DNBset is just DNB00 and hasn't been caught by the filter which is unchanged since July 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
I have brute-forced the filter, and you should now be okay. Uncertain why the change of behaviour, exploring that now. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 6 February 2013 (UTC)
We had mw:MediaWiki 1.21/wmf9 deployed during the past half day, it will be the cause. Still hunting the what, but at least I know the why, and that a temporary fix is in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
In some further analysis it seems to be related to the subst: in the Template not allowing for the transformation and finding the underlying id for which it tests. I tested alternate templates with no issues. That means that the immediate impact is small with the (modified) hack I put in place and allows for us to resolve the problem for the longer term. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)


Wow. I haven't been here in a while, but this page has certainly developed into a monster, hasn't it? Could this perhaps be split up into separate pages for each major section, a la w:WP:VP? It would certainly make the page less intimidating to visitors and, I would imagine, make it easier for users who are only interested in certain types of discussion going on here. (How many users are really intersted in bot requests, for example?) Oh, I see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help already has its own page; is it really necessary to transclude it here? - dcljr (talk) 07:15, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

Agree; I was having much the same thoughts last night. I don't see a great point in transcluding /Help into here - a link is fine. And do we need separate sections for Announcements, Proposals and Other discussions? When I see something on my Watchlist I'm unsure which section I should jump to to read it. I never seem to guess it right. Moondyne (talk) 07:55, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The three sections Announcements, Proposals & BOT approval requests; really don’t get that much activity. BOT approval is extra big this month, because we just started a 2 year recurring confirmation, so in a few days it will mostly be archived. I don’t see any great advantage to move splitting them off. I tend to agree about not continuing the transclude of help, You have to watch the help page if you want to catch the edits, and I don’t see an added benefit to also showing them here. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
It just needs archiving, and we don't have a regular bot (and operator) to do it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
Posted Wikisource:Bot_requests#Archive_Bot to request a bot for archiving. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:53, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Isn't this, and several other posts within this section above, a proposal? What is achieved by placing some of these in a separate section, except ambiguity? The same goes for announcements. Bot requests are really a maintenance issue and of little or no interest to anyone except admins, regardless of activity. A heads up notice here would be fine. (a total of 4 users, all admins, have !voted there) Moondyne (talk) 13:38, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
The bot requests being here reflects the history that the community, as a whole, has discussed and approved the functioning of bots (see Wikisource:Bots). If you wish to suggest a change, go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in favour of getting rid of the three sections, so that every new discussion is posted to the bottom of the page where people automatically look. I don't like the idea of splitting this page: I like that we have a single place where the whole community comes for all discussions. Per Billinghurst, let's just archive more. Hesperian 14:00, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I had introduced a bot section as the requests were getting lost in the body, not being approved nor particularly reviewed. If we were going to merge the sections, it would be worthwhile consider a tag, or alternate means to identify the three sections, be it a little label to be inserted, or a small lead template that formats the start of the section, or that we could do for specific types, eg. announcements and bot requests. A semblance of structure is appreciated by some of us, and I don't mind which, just some means to identify the types. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I deliberately don't have this page on my watch list and I use the page history to find out what's new (and where it is) since I last looked. As a result, I'm not in favour of splitting this page up. Btw, I thought User:Sanbeg (bot) was archiving the Scriptorium. Does it simply need tweaking? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Would something like this be a solution? The Help part is a transclusion, the first three parts are simply collapsible ones. --Zyephyrus (talk) 14:14, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
All that centering makes it difficult to read and understand the flow of argument. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I like having everything both in sections and all on one page, although on some machines I was having serious problems reading Scriptorium before it was recently archived. Keeping on top of the archiving solves part of this. As a potential compromise for the rest, perhaps every section could be split to a subpage and transcluded back in, as with /Help at the moment? Then we would keep the all-in-one-place aspect of the page while people who only wanted to follow one section could do so. A problem with this would be the "Add topic" button. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. Unfortunately, real life has gotten in the way with my coming around as often as I'd like. The script has actually been working pretty well, as long as I remember to run it. I didn't realize it had been so long since I've stopped by. -Steve Sanbeg (talk) 20:11, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

I am in favor of splitting, without transcluding sections back. We can also add other sections, currently handled at separate pages: administrator requests, bureaucrat requests, checkuser notifications (from Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard), bot requests, possible copyright violations, and proposed deletions.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Curious about beginning a relationship between Wikisource and the Ford Presidential LibraryEdit

My name is Michael Barera, and I'm now the Wikipedian in Residence at the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. The Library (and the Museum) has already established a collaboration project on Wikimedia Commons, and I'm curious about doing something similar here on Wikisource because so many of the materials that have been donated so far are documents. I'm a newcomer to Wikisource, and I don't yet understand all the protocols and guidelines, so I'd love to have some assistance in this project. I've just finished proofreading our first document on Wikisource, but I'm not quite sure about things like categorization and formatting here. Any help or advice you could give to me and the rest of the participants in the Ford collaboration would be much appreciated. It may be easier to contact me on either my English Wikipedia or Wikimedia Commons talk page. Thanks so much and take care! Michael Barera (talk) 16:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome and thanks for adding the work. I left a message on your Wikipedia talk page but if by some chance you see this first, I took the last step and transcluded your work to Carter Interview with Harry Reasoner in the main namespace. Regarding Wikisource and the Library, a collaboration project can be arranged. It would need community agreement but the main Wikisource:Community collaboration might be possible too; its a subset of the current one anyway. There already seems to be enough on Commons to be going along with (although more can't hurt if you can upload it). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
I've set up a WikiProject to co-ordinate transcribing material from the library. There are many documents already on Commons ready for proofreading and transclusion. See Wikisource:WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library for more (a list of a lot of the works is on the /Works subpage). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:24, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Other than Phe-bot (for Match and Split duties)Edit there an active bot that can generate OCR pages these days? Almost every one whose contributions I've checked has gone AWOL for months or even a few years. See also #BOT approval requests for a glimpse of what's going on. --Slgrandson (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Either make your request on WS:OCR or use the Internet Archive process (Help:DjVu files#Internet Archive) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Phe is around. Bot operators, like users and admins, come and go as RL interrupts. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. Then again, can you suggest some kind of JS/CSS script to pull in all those red blocks? --Slgrandson (talk) 04:20, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
??? Do mean a bot to apply the text layers? Generally we don't encourage for a bot to just apply the text layers, though for some works which are biographical notes, eg. DNB, it has been done, though it can have specific issues. We haven't seen a lot of value in just having the layers from the djvu extracted and applied. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Addendum, The text layer should be applied automatically when you edit the page for the first time. If that is not happening it means that the text layer is not present in the work OR it needs to be shaken loose from the DjVu, and a purge of the file via the link on the Index page will usually loosen that. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with BWC & billinghurst on this but there is a chance you've been misunderstood so I'll expand a bit on the two most likely points related to your question(s)...

If you are looking to do a bulk-creation run where all the Page:s in an Index: are created by pulling the source file's embedded text-layer and dumping it UNedited into each new Page: created & saved.... As mentioned above, this practice has fallen way out of favour over the years - mostly becuase issues with the source file (missing or duplicated scan pages for example) will not be discovered until someone happens across them by chance & not diligence. Correcting the issue in those cases becomes reactive rather than proactive and can be labor & time intensive to resolve properly. Trust me - imho, unless your source file has been manually tweaked and verified beforehand, bulk creation creates more problems than it solves; but if your source file is known to be without issue, then the above can of course does not apply & you can go about running/locating that script.

If you have a source file but it lacks the embedded text-layer normally dumped into the edit box for you so you can edit/create a Page: for the first time... Run the source file through the online-services provided by (PDFs) or (DjVus) and then create/replace the finished file on Commons before creating any [more] Page:s in the Index.

There are many variants to the above but without knowing the specific file(s) in question, its hard to provide you with any more detailed guidance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again! (And of course, bulk creation of proper DJVUs is what I initially meant. You may as well take a look at A Princetonian and The Young Visiters for an idea, what with the dozens of red links that haven't been coloured. And yes, I'm thinking of a script to apply the OCR text into those pages. Say, am I acting like Sniffles or what?) --Slgrandson (talk) 03:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
Well in those two cases the pagelist matches-up with the scanned page progression so it doesn't look like there are any duplicate or missing pages and that's the primary concern with bulk creations. A spot check of Page:s in both shows OCR'd text of good quality (though no OCR is absolutely perfect; fair to light editing is still needed) but the second concern of the bulk-creation of nothing more than chicken-scratch or stoner-poetry doesn't seem likely in those two works either. The third yet-to-be mentioned concern has little to do with OCR, scripting or maintenance but more about intentions. I know at one point in Ws history it was "OK" to transclude everything -- including unproofRed pages like that -- to the mainspace just to fill-out or preset the entire basepage/subpage framework. We've come to call this "pre-mature transclusion" and strive to avoid the practice as much as doing so remains within reason or without review. We're really looking to transclude complete chapters or sections that are all at least statused Proofread in the Page: namespece. Now that I've mentioned & you've become aware of "pre-mature transclusion", its unlikely that you're going to attempt it (not that you would to begin with) so go on and hunt down that script or bot - I don't see any problem with doing those bulk-creations. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:51, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Works appearing within headersEdit

I recently uploaded this index, which is a collection of poems. Spanning multiple pages is (I believe) a single poem that appears in the header. I would like to transclude it somehow but I am unsure of the proper way. Any ideas? For a quicker flip-through, check it out at IA. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

There are quite a few examples of poetry spanning pages existing already. Use of &ltsection ...> tags; wrap it in <poem>, if a stanza break is at the end of a page then ensure that {{nop}} is inside the close tag. Note that poem tag has to open and close on the same page. If you are going to use {{block center}} then you will need to consider the start and end variety if doing it within the Page: ns; or enclose it when you transclude it. I think that there is a style guide. LJB is our local champion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:21, 10 February 2013 (UTC)
Good question: How to transclude(?). I also believe it is a single poem. I found two instances where three of the stanzas in the poem are used in later publications to make up a smaller poem entitled "Where Love is King". Billinghurst, I think Theornamentalist knows the basic transclusion formatting options for poetry, but is unsure of how to deal with the poem in the "header" of the pages throughout about 1/2 of the text—it is that poem that seems to pose the problem (or challenge). As of right now, I don't know how that could be tackled... but I'm sure someone out there might have an idea. I'll keep it in the back of my mind, however. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Some public domain material about work: ...At The Gate Of Dreams. By H. E. Harman. Atlanta, Ga. Price, $1.00. This is Mr. Harman's second book of poems, his first, "In Peaceful Valley," having appeared some four years ago. The work is profusely illustrated with fine half-tone cuts, more than half the poems having special illustrations to assist in interpretation of the text. The typographical work contributes to the further daintiness of the volume. The hopefulness that pervades the work can be seen from these lines from the poem, "If Love Were King:" How would new blossoms by the roadway spring!... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:49, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
My opinion: Transcribe exactly as is with framing (as image) and text—and all on the same Mainspace page; I think the readers will "get" it. Good thing is each poem (other than the one in the header) resides on its own separate page. MODCHK might have some ideas for formatting so that the text fits neatly within the bordering. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:56, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Ah, you had to be on the relevant pages to understand, they don't appear in the latter half of the book where I was looking. I don't think that having them in situ works as they will be blobs down the page, and when you get poems that carryover, or images, it isn't going to be as easy with vertical scrolling rather than horizontal page turns. This looks one of the rare occasions that we look to use old-fashioned mw:Extension:Labeled section transclusion, and not <pages>. It has the ability to include, or to exclude sections. So for the work, label the top section poem something like <section begin="toppoem" /> and keep that name running through each page and keep it in the body. For the individual poems utilise another section with a different name. Transclusion becomes a little trickier but not impossible. I would suggest transcluding the spread poem separately. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:37, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
I rather suspect you two are at cross-purposes. To clarify, do both of you propose either preserving or eliding the "frame" around each page? Because the work is short, it might be worthwhile incorporating it (assuming a good clear scan can be extracted); but I think you will be surprised how quickly it loses its appeal when repeated so frequently?
And overlaying text and images upon an image as implicitly called for here might be ... virtually impossible
technically challenging
... MODCHK (talk) 22:35, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Maybe create a single image with the "frame" and the image as one image. That would work. As to cross-purposes, it's probably good to get lots of ideas on the table. I'm not sold on my opinion above, and your point about "losing its appeal" after a while makes some sense. I'm anxious to see what's decided upon. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:04, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
Thank you all for weighing in. Without a proper TOC, I was thinking of using the auxiliary table on the lead page. I initially thought to create a page for each poem, hoping to somehow transclude the collected pieces of the work appearing in the headers, named (identified by LJB above) "Where Love Is King" on a single page. I will look at the LST provided by Billinghurst. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:49, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
I was in fact just on the verge of suggesting this work might lend itself to a mainspace page-by-page version (if you chose to go with the framing approach), and only held off thinking everybody would be horrified. I think it might rather fit the "gate" motif? Has anybody thought about what a mess mashing the "header" poems together might produce? Maybe they need to be presented in small bursts. I haven't really looked into this, but there may be thematic conflicts between the stanzas? MODCHK (talk)
Just a thought... In case the author purposed each stanza (in italics) to go along somehow with the poems, then maybe an approach like this(?) Then you could transclude all poems on the same Mainspace page, and have the "side" poem follow along as per the author's assumed "intent" (which we can only guess at present). I might add, that where I found the three stanzas making up the poem entitled "Where Love is King" online, the last two stanzas do not follow in successive (albeit broken) order as they do in the longer work... The last stanza of the three comes before the middle stanza (in the longer work). So MODCHK might have a point where a "thematic" element might be at play. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:57, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

DNB milestone blog (for Wikimedia UK)Edit

Here is something I wrote to mark the DNB WikiProject's posting of the Dictionary of National Biography; of which the first supplement was also finished a little while ago. The second supplement is also public domain, and there is a huge amount more to do to add value to the DNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:47, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

A place on WS?Edit

Wanted to get some opinions as to whether there was a place for an annotated guide to Mrs. Coates' poetry as an Author:subpage on WS or WP. I started a "for example" in a sandbox. Historical background of the poems could be provided as well. Or is it too much of a personal project that should be pursued elsewhere? I would keep it simple and of course, public domain.unsigned comment by Londonjackbooks‎ (talk) 18:14, 13 February 2013.

Maybe. We need to relaunch the debate over annotation. It would be in the main namespace, however, rather than the Author namespace. The other alternative is Wikibooks. (It would be deleted as Original Research on Wikipedia.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Taking a look at Wikibooks:What is Wikibooks?, I noted the following: "As a point of overlap between the two projects, Wikisource also allows the inclusion of annotated texts. If you would like to write an annotated text with sparse annotations, or a critical edition of a text, consider hosting your work on Wikisource instead." Not representative of current WS community opinion, I don't think(?) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:35, 13 February 2013 (UTC)
Something along these lines, maybe? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Got something started at Wikibooks. I wish they had all our templates; it's like starting from scratch for me! :( Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:36, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You should be able to create the same templates there that are here. meta:Help:Transwiki#Begin_transwiki describes the process for transwiki and attribution. You should check to see if they have the same template but with a different name before creating it. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:37, 15 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks. I have already inquired over there about the availability of a similar template, and nothing conclusive so far. Do you maybe know someone here at WS who is familiar also with WB who could create the same {{Block center}} template over there using the guidance from the page you linked to above? and then any subsequent requests for similar templates in the future I could do myself by copying their procedure(?). I wasn't sure about the "copy and paste the original page's history log under a new heading" part... Would that history be pasted to the template's Talk page in a separate section from the original 'Talk'? Should it be placed at top or at bottom? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure who your best resource would be for recreating them over there. As for the history, I usually just but a section like ==Wikisource edit history for copy and paste transwiki== and put the details there. Here is one I did at Wikipedia w:Talk:List_of_Jewish_deportees_from_Norway_during_World_War_II. Jeepday (talk) 14:11, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Okay... I'll give it a shot. No better way to learn, I guess! Thanks for the direction. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:13, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Hoping I did things correctly (Template page | Talk page)... It worked, at any rate. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:33, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Annotations, Comparisons and TranslationsEdit

I have just started a proposal about derivative works; this section is intended to draw extra attention and explain it a little. Derivative works, such as translations, already exist on English Wikisource and are mentioned in Wikisource:What Wikisource includes. However, there is no agreed policy, I'm sure there have been deletions, and there was a serious conflict of opinions about annotation last year. Even the bit that does seem semi-agreed, translations, is still just a proposed policy seven years later; despite having its own WikiProject.

I will be making the proposal in two parts. First, just to decide clearly whether we will accept this or not. I see that as a big problem with the previous annotation issue. Having a simple yes/no question will hopefully get everyone on the same page and clarify our basic position as a community before moving on to the details. If the first part tends towards support for derivative works I will make a second proposal to haggle over the details. This proposal might actually work more like a "Request for Comment" on other projects, where different options can be laid out in series and each discussed separately before coming to a consensus. We will need to at least outline in what circumstances, and how much, we will allow the various types of derivation.

There are lots of ways to handle derivative works. Oldwikisource:Wikisource:Subdomain coordination gives a look at some of the different approaches. Hebrew Wikisource, for example, has a separate namespace for derivative works; the only example of this in any Wikisource as far as I am aware. On the other hand, Italian Wikisource bans both translation and annotation (and, presumably, comparison or any other form of "value-added" text). We could go either way or somewhere in between. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:55, 13 February 2013 (UTC)


I am afraid we have to delete St. John's Eve (Kochanowski). It's a 1928 translation of a PD work, but the translator only died in 1999 (Author:Marjorie Beatrice Peacock). PS. I see there are some exceptions, can anyone verify it is indeed PD? --Piotrus (talk) 11:10, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Moved to Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#St._John.27s_Eve_.28Kochanowski.29. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 12:06, 14 February 2013 (UTC)


This item with a long table appears to cause the transclusion to brak with a node limit error.

This is possibly salavagable by subst'ing the template concerned. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 12:08, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

You'll need to split the transclusion up into subpages with links from the Main page. I suggest you put the first schedule into its own page: Short Titles Act 1896/First Schedule. As the second schedule is much longer it will need to be split further, maybe by alphabet? I see that there are a large number of pages (>50%) still to be proofread for the second schedule and thus it would be premature to transclude it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I was going to do that but trying to edit the page causes a 'Wikimedia Server can't cope' error.For whatever reason Short Titles Act 1896 Cant be directly edited at the moment. Delete and start again, with the split? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

Good news - got some material for us!Edit

I succeeded in convincing a translator of public domain Polish poetry, Author:Jarek Zawadzki, to relicence his work under CC-BY-SA. It is at . I will see about transferring his work here (although if anyone feels like doing it before I get around to doing so, go ahead), but a quick question: what should be added to Author:Jarek Zawadzki? --Piotrus (talk) 13:12, 14 February 2013 (UTC)

RE: His author page. For the moment, I've just added the licence you mention and set a question mark for the birthdate (so he is categorised as a living author). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:14, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
OTRS will need to be done ... prcoess similar to Commons:Commons:OTRS just substitute the sister wiki stuff. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I don't think any OTRS is needed since the linked page clearly states the new, free license (Creative Commons license: Attribution-Share Alike 3.0). --Piotrus (talk) 16:19, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Yeah but all the files are still those derived from 2009 and have a 2007 Copyright notice secured for the English translations right in the scans. Plus, the scans are double-paged, which is great if you want to read the book at IA in single page mode, but for transcription and proofreading here on en.WS double-page introduces a problem or two. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:02, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Ok, you lost me. I don't understand the problem? The book is published on under a free license. Where's the problem? I see the old copyright notice on the scans, but that's for 2007, as of now the author decided to use a CC-BY-SA which can be seen clearly in real time on (do I need to upload a screenshot of a free license on that page?). Also: should I just start copy and paste of the work from the files at, or will there be some djvu/OCR magic? --Piotrus (talk) 17:09, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
Not quite.... the web page linking to the file(s) states CC-BY-SA but the password-protected source PDF file states Copyright secured for the English translation (as the Polish content is old enough to be in PD). The license claimed on the web page hosting the links to the files should match the license actually stated in the files, No? How long before somebody at Commons sees the copyright notice and deletes the file? You must put yourself in our position when it comes copyright status & verification. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:32, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I have asked the author to upload an updated version; he has uploaded some correct files already, so I hope we will get this ironed out soon. --Piotrus (talk) 18:13, 14 February 2013 (UTC) PS. And he has updated the PDF to display the correct licensing. --Piotrus (talk) 20:47, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
That sounds sufficient to me as long as it can be demonstrated that it was the copyright holder who uploaded and released. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:26, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think we can trust w:Internet Archive about as much as ourselves. They do have good reputation for respecting copyright topics, I believe. --Piotrus (talk) 14:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

I added the first work based on his translations, it's at Bogurodzica. Please let me know what I can do better next time! --Piotrus (talk) 14:17, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Picture Posters imagesEdit

All images for Index:Picture Posters.djvu have been uploaded to the commons. The link to the images is on the Index page. I will keep on inserting the full page images, and if anyone is interested in proofreading a small project, then this is it. — Ineuw talk 11:03, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Delete requestEdit

For whatever reason this page is uneditable- Short_Titles_Act_1896, as it's too long. Delete and start again once its been split. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:16, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done sort of. Please don't make requests and then fiddle so that the request no longer applies as written. We prefer not to delete mainspace pages if possible as it loses all the history. All that needed to happen to make the page editable was to reduce the range of pages in the <pages> tag. This I have done. I then undid your out of process page move. I leave it to you to add the links to the sub-pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:10, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
OK, but earlier when I tried to click Edit to do that, I was getting no-sense out of Mediawiki. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 18:45, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

search brokenEdit

When I search for "Bergson" it is not finding Author:Henri Bergson in fact it is saying "There were no results matching the query." on both default and author only searches.

Actually looks like all searches are broken searching for "Wikisource" gets this:

There were no results matching the query.

There is a page named "Wikisource" on this wiki.

Jeepday (talk) 11:36, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
Now OK--Mpaa (talk) 15:00, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Random grey blocks in a PDF from IAEdit

In File:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu

Pages: 78, 91, 94, 100, 108, 122, 167, 178, 214, 228, 237, 278, 286, 503, 512, 547, 560, 734, 754, 770, 773, 781, 796, 806 some pages have very well defined missing blocks (white in the Djvu scan), a quick check of the comparative PDF indicates that the "missing" portions are in fact present in the original PDF, but as 'grey' blocks in an otherwise B/W scan.

Does anyone have a technical explanation for why a PDF would have random 'grey-blocking' ? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:07, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

This file is incorrectly defined and uploaded to the wrong place. Please wait until I check this file on IA. — Ineuw talk 00:14, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
I checked the file on IA. It's a Google PDF and every page is watermarked accordingly. At this point in time, I refer this to User:George Orwell III, who has not yet shared with me into the secrets of watermark removal. Once he gives his OK, I will handle processing of the file, upload it to the commons and create the Index page for the djvu. — Ineuw talk 00:28, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
Not following you guys. What exactly is needed here? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:21, 23 February 2013 (UTC)
Check the pages I mention in the DJVU against the PDF :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:03, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a symptom of the original scanning - instead of a "picture" taken of an entire page as whole & in one shot, the software mistakenly isolated the area in question as if it where a page itself. In the resulting PDF this is usually not an issue since a picture (scan) of the "false" page on top of the picture (scan) of the full page is displayed as whole and not as the layers they really are. Newer versions of Acrobat allow for the flattening of mistaken layers back into a single page image. What happened here was at somepoint in the conversion from PDF to DjVu, the "background" of the mistake layers (white box, gray box, etc.) were kept instead of the foreground stuff (the image of text in a transparent field). The PDF needs to be optimized first using some more current software than used back in 2009 and it should rederive as expected but I can't guarantee that . -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:30, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Index:Ford manual 1919.djvuEdit

This is very nearly complete, barring one page that has a low quality scan I can't read, anyone here able to read truly awful scans? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 21:50, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

Which page in particular? (to save me looking through all the not-proofread and problematic pages)Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Page 46 in the running order. I typed this up manually by going back to the PDF at Internet Archive which was slightly clearer, and I was able to recover. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
Still to do are the images Sfan00 IMG (talk) 09:00, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I volunteer.— Ineuw talk 09:42, 19 February 2013 (UTC)
I've uploaded the images to commons:Category:Ford 1919\Owners manual.— Ineuw talk 06:29, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
All images now present in the work, but need to be sized and captioned. Let's get this finished:) Sfan00 IMG (talk)
Congraulations, This is now complete! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:04, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please comment on Individual Engagement Grant proposals until February 21Edit

I apologize if this message is not in your language. Please help translate it.

The Wikimedia Foundation is considering Individual Engagement Grant proposals from community members. Please join the discussion and share your thoughts about these ideas, until February 21. The following proposal may be of particular relevance for this Wikimedia project:

Thanks! --Siko Bouterse, Head of Individual Engagement Grants, Wikimedia Foundation 01:01, 20 February 2013 (UTC) Distributed via Global message delivery. (Wrong page? Correct it here.)

Reading this, I saw that there is an Internet Archive (import tool). I was not aware of it, so I share the info here. Has anyone tried it?--Mpaa (talk) 08:06, 20 February 2013 (UTC)
I've just tried it. Fairly simple to use. However, it tells me that it's uploaded the file onto Commons, but I can't find it. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:54, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
In case you have not found it, it is uploaded by commons:User:IaUploadBot--Mpaa (talk) 23:52, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential LibraryEdit

There is a new WikiProject for material from the Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library. This was mentioned in #Curious about beginning a relationship between Wikisource and the Ford Presidential Library (above) but I thought it could do with some explicit advertising. I've added a subpage loosely based on WS:NARA to list a lot of the works on Commons. A few works have already been proofread but attention from more users can't hurt. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:12, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Suggest to slightly restructure this page for WMF deploymentsEdit

I would like to suggest that as WMF is now having fortnightly mini upgrades, and look to be keeping to schedule, that we spin out to a level ONE heading =WMF deployments= and then have a running list of the upgrade with a date of local impact, and to note any forthcoming significant changes that may be of note, and to enable to better capture any issues.

To note that we were updated last Wednesday to wmf10, nothing stimulating from brief glance. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Can I suggest that such notices be incorporated in the existing = Announcements = section, and as these are likely to have a very narrow audience, perhaps as a collapsible level 2 section. Moondyne (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that the general user is more likely to come across a problem introduced in an update. The purpose was more to alert people to the change dates, and to be alert us of weirdness. I wasn't looking at burying people in detail, it is all Greek to most of us. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:32, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Bad scansEdit

Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol1).djvu

For some reason the last few pages of this got corrupted. Does anyone know of an alternate scan source for the missing and clipped pages towards the end of the document? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Did you trace the source files back to their original source? If you did, you'd see the PDF pages for those thumbnails clipped at the top probably just need the overlaps at the bottom trimmed out of the PDF before PDF conversion to DjVu. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:49, 15 February 2013 (UTC) needs re-conversion to djvu,

I don't have the tools to do this to hand, but the PDF version of that document DOES have the full scanset :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Do you know of a GUI Imaging tool for Windows that would enable the document to be fixed? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:02, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Procedural Delete: Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol1).djvuEdit

Djvu with scan issues that needs careful re-conversion from source PDF.

Same for - Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol2).djvu

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

  Not done. The correct process is to replace the damaged files on Commons with the amended files. This is done by using the link Upload a new version of this file found in the File history section. This way you won't lose the work you've done already on the earlier pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
If you can FIND an 'undamaged' version, good luck, The current Djvu is from IA , and the flaw in the scans appears to also exist in the source PDF from Google Books (bad clipping) :(. If you can find undamaged scans, Good Luck, but at the moment I've exhausted 'convenient' sources. Sfan00 IMG (talk)
Fwiw... I'm too busy this week but by next weekend I should have some free time to trim the excess out of the source PDF files at Google Books (now linked in the File: summary section btw). If you can wait that long and stop creating new Page:s until then, you should have the replacements in 10 days or so (save any unforcen forced errors that is). Agreed? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:50, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
I can wait, Thanks. What seems to be the problem, is that the page layout the PDF assumes is the "page" boundary is not thescan image boundary which overspills the page. I suspect that the Djvu convertor then got confused ,leading to the clipped pages. Question, is there a tool which can patch the PDF page boundary metadata to be the image scan margins instead, because this, followed by an appropriate new conversion to Djvu, Should solve the issue. Shame about loosing the text layer..Sfan00 IMG (talk) 17:36, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

I started from scratch straight from GoogleBooks and the same thing keeps happening no matter what or which way I try to manipulate the file - the clipping effect always returns. Sorry. The earlier versions seem fine but I know this was the last edition before 1923 & kind of nice to have saved. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:05, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hmm Looks like It will have to be manual extraction of the image stream directly... We need a PDF guru! Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:52, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Second that! My dealings with Acrobat & PDFs are limited to tweaking/fixing the basics (usually by trial & error) -- something like the anove clipping seems like it has to do with a problem in the original compiling of files into a PDF and not so much the files themselves. There is sooooo much other crap that is going in most PDF files that it would be nice to have somebody around who has dealt with it all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:11, 25 February 2013 (UTC)
In the PDF - the entire page scans ARE present, (because I did a test copy-paste into Ifranview), but the page boundaries

are badly set in places.. ;) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)


What is best practice concerning applying errors shown in an Errata page into the Pages? Also, what about author's hand written notations? eg. here and here.Moondyne (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Usual practice for errata is to put them in the notes field on the relevant mainspace page. For the two hand-written notes you link, I wouldn't include them because they're not part of the book as published. We also don't have evidence that the two notes are in the author's handwriting, it could be the librarian's hand. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:58, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I would not presume to call it 'best practice', but an example of thoughtful handling of an Errata can be seen at History of botany (1530–1860)/Book 1/Chapter 4. Hesperian 03:10, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Thanks both. Moondyne (talk) 07:12, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Devil's advocate on speedy validationsEdit

So much has been posted on various Talk pages on this subject that I am not sure exactly how this has all played out, but thinking while driving (still legal, but more expensive now) it seems to me that the main issue at hand is the following in a nutshell:

Do you assert that you can competently validate a page in [five seconds]? Hesperian 01:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

The evidence would suggest otherwise ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:17, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is, unless a large number of pages (tabs) were opened up in an editor's browser while they worked on them before saving all of them en masse. Granted, "163 pages" is a lot of open tabs in this case. So, in the absence of "evidence", it would seem to me (in this case) that an interesting 'probationary' measure might be to challenge the editor(s)-in-question to a validation spree of sorts. Heaven knows we have lots to validate around here. Pick an agreed-upon time to run the validation challenge, choose a comparable work (or smaller works) to the validated work(s)-in-question to be validated, and see if the editor can duplicate their feat (minus the mistakes). But do not let the editor know what work will be chosen until the agreed-upon time. Just a thought. Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:27, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Interesting idea, but no. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:55, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
Not so interesting... I was half serious, and it took another drive and a bagel to realize that there was a flaw in my 'logic' somewhere anyway... Anyway, we may only guess the reason behind the rapid validation—only what we can figure technically, if even that—absent an editor's clear explanation. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:09, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
I am not sure that it is helpful to take one sentence out of the context of the argument, and especially to bring it here in a provocative sense. If you really want the conversation, maybe take it to a talk page somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:30, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Wikpedia links in Emily Dickinson poemsEdit

Hi. I noticed that in all the poems of these series, see e.g. Great Caesar! Condescend there is a link to wikipedia. But all the several links I tried had no corresponding page. Does it make sense to have a "red" link to WP to be prepared for? Considering also that as the link appears blue, the reader will assume its existence?--Mpaa (talk) 22:06, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

If the page doesn't exist, there shouldn't be a link; the links are there to provide more information, and if there isn't anything to provide, it just becomes confusing. EVula // talk // // 22:48, 27 February 2013 (UTC)
Links are supposed to add value if we link off-wiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:59, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
A search of Wikipedia only found w:List of Emily Dickinson poems, as a potential link to location, and it just has a link back to us. I removed the Wikipedia link on article pending creation of an article about the poem (which seems unlikely). JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Oh my, there are almost 2000 poems, many with the problem. Could they be remove by bot? or do they all need to be removed by hand? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday)
Can be done by bot. Another option is nullify the parameter in {{EDheader}}. Not future proof as we will have problems when there will be a wikipedia page.--Mpaa (talk) 12:34, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
I would think removal would be the preferred method. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:22, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
Once removed, the following, at least, are WP articles: [4] unsigned comment by Londonjackbooks (talk) .
I was going to leave those that had articles in place, however, I noticed that there is a capitalisation issue with at least one I think it probably best to consider that we just relink afresh. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 28 February 2013 (UTC)
  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 04:47, 1 March 2013 (UTC)