Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2014, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


EditTool is now deprecatedEdit

Specifics forthcoming (please be patient) but in the interim...

The old EditTool's position is still possible! Just add the following to your personal common.js file
// CharInsert specific 
window.editToolsRecall = true;
window.charinsertDontMove = true;

Please pick-up this discussion on the relevant talk page for the Character Insert gadget, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-charinsert.js. Improvements, suggestions welcome. Expertise in dealing with specific sets sorely needed as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)


BOT approval requestsEdit


Other discussionsEdit

Tech News: 2013-47Edit

06:50, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Help with a tract added to w:Plea bargainEdit

On Wikipedia, w:User:Tom Januzzi made this fairly substantial addition to the plea bargain article. I am advising this editor that if he is the author, "Thomas A. Januzzi – Oberlin Municipal Court Judge", and wishes to release his published piece into the public domain, Wikisource would be the place to do it. Having not so advised an author before, I would be pleased if someone could walk this editor through the process of filing an OTRS ticket (or whatever is required here). Cheers! BD2412 T 20:24, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

We use the same process as set out at Commons:Commons:OTRS with the obvious difference being that the links would be local to English Wikisource. Jeepday (talkcontribs) has rights to the permissions-en OTRS queue and can be notified to check it through the sign off process. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource Signpost articleEdit

Hello everyone, I'm the editor of the English Wikipedia's Signpost. I'm planning to do a story on Wikisource's 10th anniversary and would like to include comments from you all in the article. I won't be able to use all of them (maybe not even most of them, depending on the number of comments!), but they will factor in as I write. With that said, here are a few prompts. Feel free to answer some or all of them!

  1. What does the 10th anniversary celebration mean to you?
  2. Where does Wikisource go from here?
  3. Where has Wikisource done well, and where can it improve?
  4. What will the proofreading contest accomplish?
  5. What will the formation of the Wikisource Community User Group do to improve Wikisource, and do you think the addition of such an organization will change the site's culture in useful or adverse ways?

Thank you in advance to all editors who comment. Ed [talk] [en] 17:36, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Response #1Edit

Hi, assuming you want replies here, I can start a little bit:
  1. A lot of work that is eating all of my free time. :)
  2. Hard to say. The usual probably: generally building the project, raising awareness and increasing the userbase. I have enough work dealing with the present to worry too much about the future.
  3. Well...
    • Done well: In terms of texts, the Dictionary of National Biography and Popular Science Monthly projects seem the most successful so far. The Proofread Page extension that drives proofreading makes Wikisource possible, with reliable and sourced texts (it wasn't there in the first few years and texts from those days can often be unsourced copy-and-paste works with no way to determine fidelity). As far as I know, we are the only digital library that offers both proofread texts and page scans (ie. Project Gutenberg just has the former and Internet Archive just has the latter).
    • Improvements: More people would be nice but the project seems to actually scare and confuse the Wikipedians that come here (see the coincidentally named "Mentions in the Wikipedia Signpost?" thread above). Others just don't understand what we do here (I've had real-life conversation in which the Wikipedia apparently thought we were something to do with WP citations). De-mystifying Wikisource would be useful, although I expect it to be easier said than done.
  4. It will hopefully engage users, new and old. From my point of view, it's also a learning experience for next time (if there is a next time, which will probably be something learned from this).
  5. To be honest, I'm aware of it but I haven't got around to really reading through or thinking about it in depth to date. I expect it will be useful because regional chapters are not really Wikimedia chapters; they tend to be Wikipedia-and-maybe-some-Commons chapters. It could be a point of reference for Wikisource and something to support or organise Wikisource-specific work and ideas. I don't think it can have any adverse effect; at worst it can just be ignored (like any individual chapter on Wikipedia).
I hope there's something in this that's at least slightly useful. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:08, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Response #2Edit

It would be great if you could give people a proper impression of the scope of WS, as a lead-in. It is not just a library or archive, though it has those repository functions. For example author pages here are not necessarily for "notable" authors in the WP sense: they are nodes where information is collected so that texts are better supported. For works divided into articles, knowing the authors is really helpful (because often quite unobvious to the casual reader). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

Charles Matthews: I'm happy to do that, but I'm not entirely sure what you mean. What else is it? Ed [talk] [en] 07:40, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Text files attract less attention than images, for example; but there is more to think about when "adding value". For example "previous" and "next" in sequential works, hyperlinking, interwiki, annotation, different editions, as well as typical metadata, and classification by category and topic. I gave a talk in 2010 on "Reference Commons", a way of conceptualising the role of reference works here. For the Dictionary of National Biography, there are sister WikiProjects, here and on Wikipedia. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Response #3Edit

  1. Some general background: People who know me, know me as a serial non-joiner. Every inclination I have is not to make this response, as it most certainly is not the view your questions are self-selecting for. Nevertheless I feel it has to be expressed. I neither expect this to be a majority (or even a significant minority) view, but as we never respond to this kind of questionnaire, who really knows?

    Now to your questions:

  2. Not a lot as such. The project activity is good, very good, but how people party (or what excuses they make for so doing)? Meh.
  3. I hope it continues for another ten years, and then decides to continue again. Rinse, repeat.
  4. An interesting set of works, of both literary and technical variety to keep editors challenged, and the ability to import works which are should the current stock ever run short. Oh, it has already got all of that.

    Perhaps the ability to save edit sessions a little more fine-grained than at the "page" level? Got that too.

    The concept is basically right. Please don't break it.

  5. Might recruit a few new people? Meh again.
  6. See response to point 1 above regarding parties/excuses. I know it is asking far too much, but trying to inject some kind of sanity into the copyright strait-jacket might just keep such an organisation occupied forever?

User:AdamBMorgan already put this in the best way possible: "I hope there's something in this that's at least slightly useful." Viewer2 (talk) 06:28, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. What does the 10th anniversary celebration mean to you?

It means several things. One is that I have been here for 6 of those 10 years so obviously I am getting something from and feel that I am giving something to wikisource and the world including the far-away future. I believe wikisource will change to something better in the generations to come both with and without technological advances. I am age 66 of last May and I am retired. Wikisource allows me to do something worthwhile with my time. Since I have always loved books and learning this area is "just my cup of tea". I would rather travel and take photos and write but I cannot afford that in the real world but I can here on wikisource. Most recently I have traveled back in time to the Aztec and Maya and viewed many sketches of temples and idols of long ago as I learned the history of those regions. Then too is the socialization factors here as we get to know openly and privately each other. I met and became friends with another retired man here and we started working on books together. He lives in another country and in due time he started a project of helping people in Chiapas, Mexico. I followed him and have been assisting with money donated and ideas which is now on Facebook. It all leads back here to The celebration you have mentioned is within myself as well. It is one of achievements and honor, of doing good for others as well as for myself. The time I have spent here has been good time used as opposed to nothing to do or nothing worthy found to do. Nothing I leave behind in my life is something worthy on an "everyday" basis is as good as the time I have spent on and en.wp Why carry knowledge to the grave when it, like real life itself, can be applied to building to better the world? —Maury (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. Where does Wikisource go from here?

I have no idea, time will answer that, but I can suggest some situations. The text here, extracted from books and images, can be heard by the blind. My wife is blind and she "reads" here via a professional screen reader. —Maury (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. Where has Wikisource done well, and where can it improve?

Wikisource is just starting! It will grow, and has been growing, as technology grows. People will learn about things they never imagined and will wonder and explore from the impetus started of works done here. Where can it improve?- in time all books should be made into sound files so that people can learn from sound in various situations e.g. a long trip while driving and that's just a start. —Maury (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. What will the proofreading contest accomplish?

Wait and find out. Something is always better than nothing and a contest can bring in new editors as well as get editors to focus upon specific books. If even 1 page of 1 book is done then that is an accomplishment that never before has existed. More pages than that -- well, you get the idea. —Maury (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

  1. What will the formation of the Wikisource Community User Group do to improve Wikisource, and do you think the addition of such an organization will change the site's culture in useful or adverse ways?

Give new ideas a try and what works then keep. What doesn't work then discard. Always try to expand with new ideas and new technologies. "Will it change the site's culture in useful or adverse ways?" I have already cited some examples of useful ways of change and I know of no negative situations. —Maury (talk) 07:10, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Response #5Edit

  • What does the 10th anniversary celebration mean to you?
    • It means that this site has been up and running for 10 years, and that, in that time, we can reasonably hope that several people have gotten access to material which they might not otherwise have gotten. Being myself originally from a smaller town in the northern plains of the US, I know that there can be and often is a serious lack of availability of all sorts of sources in such places, and I think it is a great idea to do what we can to improve the availability of good material in such remoter locations. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Where does Wikisource go from here?
    • Like with most of the WF entities, there is still a lot of good, and sometimes very important, material still lacking here. I hope we can get some effort, and maybe some more help, to get the most essential material for our readers, whether Shakespeare or the Koran or some government documents, included here. Personally, I would think nonfiction works, like reference books and histories, are probably the most important, but I personally would love to see some of the old pulp fiction, like in Argosy magazine, or the Shadow, or Doc Savage, or even my namesake readily available for anyone with access to the net here as that material becomes available. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Where has Wikisource done well, and where can it improve?
    • I'm kinda new here, so I don't think I'm the best person to answer that. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What will the proofreading contest accomplish?
    • With luck, it will at least get those works proofread and verified, and in the process make reliable copies of those texts available. It also might serve as an indicator of how to go about future efforts of the same kind. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
  • What will the formation of the Wikisource Community User Group do to improve Wikisource, and do you think the addition of such an organization will change the site's culture in useful or adverse ways?
    • It can make it easier for us to publicize the group, and what we can do, and with any luck help us to get some of the huge mountains of really useful material available to our readers. I know in the US, where I'm from, there are probably thousands of volumes from local or regional historical societies which could be put here, and a similar number of good histories or texts on any number of other topics. I recently found one highly regarded text we could add on the history of hand made lace, which might not be of interest to that many people, but would certainly be welcome to those who it is of interest to. We also, potentially, might be one of the few places where translations of highly regarded foreign language texts might be available. The scope of this site is, really, only limited to the scope of the printed word and other historic works. John Carter (talk) 17:47, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Article postedEdit

At w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2013-12-04/News and notes, and a bit disappointing. I have left a comment pointing out a misconception. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

"Validation month" & "10th Anniversary" + personal projects clash for attentionEdit

"Validation month" & "10th Anniversary" + personal projects clash for attention

The subject line says it all.—Maury (talk) 17:53, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Personally, there is no clash, per se, as the only thing I've worked on in the last few days is the anniversary. That said, a collaboration, a POTM, and any personal projects a user may have is the normal set up. No one has to work on everything; everyone's a volunteer and everything is optional. Again personally, I do need to reduce the number of things I work on and I've been trying to do so. As a project, however, I don't think there is necessarily a problem; we have about 300 users at any one time, which should be enough. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:23, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Adam, I fully understand your points and I agree with what I read. However, let us look at it another way. Let us say that those 300 users have one hour per day to spend on work here. Only so much can be done in that one hour by any person. True, no one has to work on "everything", but while working on one thing then the other works are cast aside. I like to to Proofreading of the Month. I like to work on my personal project/s. I like the contest. Am I to cast aside something? In a way "no" because I have the time to work on all of my likes. But in another way, then "yes" because I can work only on one at a time. Here is another way of looking at the situation. Whatever time you used to create the contest is time you could have edited a book, including your own book. But still, in creating the contest you may well have multiplied time by bringing others to the challenge with the books you have chosen. Still, remember, for the person who has only one hour per day - must spend that hour on one particular work. If this makes no sense to you then watch a clock as your life ticks away that will never exist again. There is a clash in what we choose but at least we get the chance to choose what we do with each hour of our life. Even now as I reply I could have been working on a book and this amount of time will never exist for me again. Still, I choose this. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 07:36, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
beware of zero sum thinking: i.e. can the 10th bring in new editors? does the growth of transcription projects off wiki clash? ( life is a balance, and we have to find a way of recruiting new editors, for a sustainable project. Slowking4 (talk) 12:45, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1833)Edit

I forget where suggested readings are posted so,The Hunchback of Notre-Dame (1833), 63 pages of short poems. —Maury (talk) 17:55, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that is should be transcribed? If so either Wikisource:Requested texts or Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Monthbillinghurst sDrewth 05:40, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Nay, I say, t'was a mere statement that tis a good book for poem lovers. Thank ye and G'Day. —Maury (talk) 08:58, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

A minor request for the restoration of a featureEdit

Based on my request some months ago, a Mediawiki icon/link was placed on the local File: display pages, facilitating direct access to the original on the commons. (This feature is available on Wikipedia image files which are transcluded from the commons.) This option is now gone. If it is still (technically) possible, could it be restored? — Ineuw talk 08:45, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Weird. The linked icon   is still appearing in the upper right-hand side of File: namespace pages for me. I'm not sure what would cause that to "go away" exactly either. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:03, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Is it a skin-related issue, by any chance? —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 09:16, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
I am using Vector and if you look at this, or any other file I work on in PSM, in my scheme, there is no link where there used to be. But, this is not a major issue and please don't waste your time on this. The reason & the solution will be found inadvertently. I just thought of mentioning it. — Ineuw talk 09:58, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
It is not skin specific, the page calls MediaWiki:Sharedupload-desc-here and that is there and unchanged since 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
hmm, thought that looked familiar…File:Bureau of standards bulding t2.tif, sorry to drift off topic. Slowking4 (talk) 13:02, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the info billinghurst. Out of curiosity I searched the Firefox page inspector of File:PSM V79 D214 Us bureau of standards.png page if there is anything that's blocked (nothing is) and this is what I found.
                        <div class="fullMedia"> … </div>
                        <div class="sharedUploadNotice"> … </div>
                        <div id="shared-image-desc"> … </div>
                        <h2 id="filehistory"> … </h2>
                        <div id="mw-imagepage-section-filehistory"> … </div>
                        <h2 id="filelinks"> … </h2>
                        <div id="mw-imagepage-section-linkstoimage"> … </div>
                        <h2 id="metadata"> … </h2>
                        <div class="mw-imagepage-section-metadata"> … </div>

Ineuw talk 21:51, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

I am not the expert in these things, nor have the right tools, so from an eyeball check there are three open divs in <div id="mw-content-text"><div class="sharedUploadNotice"><div class="Top_icon_raw"> if I based that around that you cannot see the icon and the text "Wikimedia Commons", and I have no idea which is catching you out. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
Its not <div id="mw-content-text">, that is a normal content container generated by all the skins regardless of the namespace or the action in play. My bet is that it has something to do with <div class="Top_icon_raw">. This is our workaround for the previous scheme which stopped working at some point that forced things like the featured text or protected lock icons to the right of the article title and above the title's rule. My further guess would be the workaround needs to be deprecated because the original method to accomplish that positioning has been restored/refined (damn - I can't remember what the old class name was at the moment either). I'll poke all this a bit more when I get the chance. - George Orwell III (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Fixed page widthEdit

see above Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2013-12#Request for div align=center-justify option

See also:

When I posted my comment to DNB I did not realise that it affected more than one project. I am not sure where to centralise this discussion so I am going to repost what I wrote on the DNB talk page, if there is a better place to have this discussion than Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Fixed page width then please place a comment there redirecting the conversation.

As someone who often reads DNB pages on Wikisource, I think that the new fixed page width is less than helpful.

The format forces a line of text to a specific width and on a wide screen device it is like reading a newspaper column. It involves lots of scrolling because my web window is filled with white space which previously contained text. Conversely if I am reading it on a small screen device that is narrower than the text, instead of adjusting the text to fit the screen, it forces the reader to scroll to the width set by the text formatter.

If this format replicated the layout of the physical DNB pages then there would be some justification for it, but it does not.

As far as I can tell from this discussion page, this change in format was not discussed, so please put the format back to how it has been for many years until it is shown that there is a consensus for the change.

I am against this new fixed width format. -- PBS (talk) 13:15, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 13:52, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Umm, you haven't given examples, and I don't see anything different on a couple at which I have looked at. Is this one of the toggled formats? if so which? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 30 November 2013 (UTC)
i also prefer layout 3; why was the "display options" default view changed? where is the discussion when this "feature / BUG" was rolled out? the narrow view #1 appears more phone friendly, why not sense device and layout to match? Slowking4 (talk) 04:05, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The only thing that has changed is that now the layout selection will remember the last one selected for each user in your cookie. Because a few works force the selection, that gets remembered. Just cycle back through the three until you get to your prefered selection and it will stay. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:27, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering what was going on! I assumed it was remembering what I'd last entered, but then I couldn't see why it kept forgetting, but not in a consistent way. Shame it doesn't just remember for a particular work — I often use different layouts for different works. Still, makes sense now! Thanks. — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 08:46, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
To clarify & expand on what Beeswaxcandle said - this behavior of remembering the last layout setting that was applied for the next time you visit a dynamic layout enabled page is actually how it was suppose to work from day one (NOT!). At some point between way back when and now, the feature to force a particular layout on a per-page basis was also incorporated into the layout scheme - largely to get around the previous forgetfulness quirk with dynamic layouts (especially after visiting many DL enabled pages in a session).

So now that its "fixed", when you visit a page that forces a particular layout, the DL routine remembers that layout for next time thinking that you had manually 'selected it' rather than being 'forced it'. Just cycle to the layout desired & keep all this in mind for the next time it happens.

And I don't know about the rest of you, but the hide/show and inline/margin page-numbers feature(s) never ever, ever worked for me right up until the scripting re-write 2 weeks ago by Eliyak. Not only do they work as they were suppose to all along now but the routine also "remembers" the last settings invoked for those selections as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

just goes to number 1 every time for me. this is a "feature" i could do without, where do i go to opt out? if you’re going to fix something, why not discuss it somewhere, and get feedback? & give me a visual editor default. Slowking4 (talk) 03:58, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
Its a feature I still don't want and could have done without for more than 2 years now so I sympathize with your recent issues, but the problem(s) have been discussed, archived, discussed, archived, etc. starting around the time the developer ThomasV left this project (more than 2 years now). And the community decided way back then to let the push-rollout take place without the option for users to turn it off. The only thing we can do is troubleshoot the problem with an aim to reslove it somehow.
For starters, can you breifly describe your OS & browser w/ versions and any wiki specific settings you've enabled. You also mentioned a 'visual editor default' - I don't think you mean the VisualEditor because thats still beta around here so can you expand on exactly what's happening and a specific page that won't let you switch to a desired Dynamic Layout. We'll go from there. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Ah! I had no idea that there were different selectable layouts (first option on the left under display options -- for those who read this and like me do/did not know), but it seems that rather than defaulting to layout 1 it is defaulting to layout 2 as the initial selection. The OS I am using is Windows 8.1 and browser is Firefox 25.0.1. (I have just opened IE ver. 11.09.9600.164381C for the first time ever and DNB pages have the same fixed width layout (option 2) without me being logged in). I think that it would be better if Layout 1 was the initial default option. -- PBS (talk) 11:48, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Wait, let me get this straight... you open a DNB entry. It is automatically displaying the term "Layout 2" in Display options on the left hand menu. You keep ticking on the selection in Display options until "Layout 1" is shown. Then lets say you select the next or previous DNB article in the header and that next or previous DNB article is Not displayed nor indicates "Layout 1" in the left hand menu under Displayed options but is back to "Layout 2"?

Say then you change it back to "Layout 1" and it happens again when you continue selecting DNB articles using prev or next in the header? (and... um... no offense... please don't go back & forth between the same 2 DNB articles - in other words, pick next or previous the first time and then keep going in the same direction to verify every article opens in "Layout 2" even though you left the previous article in "Layout 1". Thank You) -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:29, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

yes, thank you. it was defaulting to "layout 2", not last selected. seems to be stable now on last selected. Firefox and IE. i tend to prefer layout 1 for wide screens. in addition, the Display Options on the tool bar disappears, if no transcluded page numbers (cut and paste article). sorry about the whinging, but notice would be nice UX. this might be better as a user preference / appearance Slowking4 (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
That's great. "Last selected" is the key to remember here - since that is the behavior that was advertised when Dynamic Layouts was first proposed (but never worked up until ~2 weeks ago and is why "Layout 1" was nearly always the layout being automatically displayed all these years). Because another faction of contributors in the interim were unhappy with "Layout 1" always being the "default" (e.g. behavior that was NOT as was advertised in the original proposal), a work-around was incorporated into the scripting that allowed some other Layout to be forced instead of "Layout 1".

Now that the feature works as intended, if you across one of these works that "uses the force" (pun intended), the primary coding "thinks" that forced layout (work-around coding) was manually selected by you and keeps it for the next time you land on a transcluded page. In short, whenever a Layout is rendered that you did not manually select, previously or currently, YOU must select the desired Layout again before you leave that page - otherwise the same unexpected Layout will keep being applied, leading some to believe that something "has changed" rather than "was fixed" as it seems you have.

Second point: Dynamic Layouts were designed at first to only work with transcluded pages. The "proposal roadmap" was to eventually have Dynamic Layouts apply to both 'copy & pastes' as well as transcluded works (minus the embedded page links of course), and the first step on that "roadmap" was to have "Layout 1" (trancluded works) mimic the basic rendering (copy & paste works) in order to better facilitate the planned adoption by a majority of contributors at the time. But before the debate over whether or not to make Dynamic Layouts universal or just for transcluded works reached a true consensus, the entire concept/project - warts and all - hit a major roadblock, was rendered moot in the process and has been the status quo ever since, thanks to the primary developer behind all this "leaving" WS "for good" soon after the initial deployment of DL.

I'm truly sorry that you and some others were inconvenienced by the recent "changin and a fixin" over the past few weeks but after several attempts over the years ranging from politely requesting the advertised behavior be enabled to ranting on & on & on & on about, as you suggest, making this a User selected option instead of a forced feature - with hardly any response nor a sliver of progress to show for it on a myriad of fronts - I Will Not Apologize for the manner in which this has all played out. I simply don't think I have to given all that history (which, frankly imho, is where folks should have started trouble-shooting before entering this venue - never mind the apparent lack of familiarity with the premise itself).

I was so invested by Eliyak's response and attention in this matter after my initial prodding & poking over the many problem(s) at hand, I Admit It : I opted to damn you all and whatever you happen be working on at any given moment to the equivalent of some Editor's Purgatory than take the chance of losing THE ONLY true opportunity to fix even a single facet of a multi-faceted issue, lingering (at the time) over WS for years (not just a week or two).

Regardless, if 'the end does not justify the means' in this case, please feel free to question by admin bit in light of all that has transpired here if anyone remotely feels/thinks that would be an appropriate [re]action. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:21, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Dear GOIII, speaking as one on an unwilling and continuous diet of blood-pressure pills, I can send you a few if you want.

Some of us still love you (for a certain value of "love") and certainly appreciate what you have been trying to achieve.

Oh and the occasional history lesson to keep everyone honest is NO BAD THING.

P.S. Does this mean a "phase II" of the Grand Plan is on its way?

Best wishes, Viewer2 (talk) 02:10, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

In a nutshell, Phase 2 was the partial (or unfinished?) "cover-up" of the failures promised or advertised as initially proposed, only somewhat realized upon the actual push-roll-out (or 'Phase 1' if you like) followed by being fully realized much, much later on when nobody knew what to do about it. I won't touch upon the partial implementation of (what I have come to believe today, conjured up by using the benefit of hindsight & little else,) what the planned Phase 2 might have been but regardless of me getting around to doing that some day or not, one must at come away with at least the understanding of one very important nuance in all this - even though Dynamic Layouts "seem" separate from the ProofReading Extension itself and the proof reading process borne & nurtured from its incorporation into Wikisource ever since (even in today's terms) its really not; don't let the fact PR primarily takes place in Page: namespace & facilitates transclusions while DL primarily affects rendering in the main namespace afterwards fool you into thinking otherwise. DL is but a single piece of that original PR extension's blueprint that had to be "left out" at first, was later revisited, refined then revised to otherwise function [partially] before being re-introduced as a "new" feature that complemented the in-place PR extension rather than reveal the realities that DL was part of the initial PR composition even in the days of PR's first-conception apparently.

That said, there are no "new" plans or phases lined-up for "Dynamic Layouts" (AFAIK). The debate & direction over what to "do next" simply grinded to a halt when the PR project was left "to fend for itself" way back when. I'm not even sure if the "forced Layout" workaround thing needs to be revisited at this point or not in light of the recent fixes either. The only thing looming on the horizon that I'm really, really, really concerned about - that may or may not "break" dynamic Layouts all over again - are the coming changes to the ProofReading extension. Those changes are also an attempt to separate all the bells, bonnets and behaviors originally lumped together & sold under the umbrella of the ProofReading extension. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the further summary/backgrounder. ABM's earlier remarks regarding "run away screaming" are starting to make more and more sense in this context… Viewer2 (talk) 06:35, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
thanks for the documentation / history. seriously, documenting, announcing to user base is more important than fixing code. a Display Options: what is it page would be nice. we need a list of features & code with progress milestones. this "coder left" is all too common, we need a migration plan to provide continuity, so we don’t lose features and tools. but this just fix stuff is the modus operandi this is a systems issue; not a personal issue: non-apology accepted; non-admin resignation not accepted. can’t get out of it that easy. Slowking4 (talk) 17:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

This is driving me crazy. I want Layout 1 on every page I visit. I shouldn't have to click on "Display Options" a hundred times a day to get that. Hesperian 02:20, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

That shouldn't be happening, if I understood Eliyak correctly, unless the pages themselves are forcing Layout 2. The other alternative cause would have to do with your cache settings themselves - do you have 'disable local page cache' enabled in your User: preferences / appearance tab? -- George Orwell III (talk)
"Disable browser page caching" is unchecked. I may be mistaken, but it seems to me that I get layout 2 every time I visit a page that I haven't visited for a long time, or at all. Hesperian 04:14, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Sorry - thats what I meant so that is not it. Its the lack of a cookie for pages you never visited & an expired cookie for pages you haven't visited in a long time.

Looks like this will have be re-visited. In last discussion on this, folks really seemed to love Layout 2 and took "advantage" of the "broken" coding that normally defaulted to Layout 1 instead of the advertised 'last layout applied' by building in the forced Layout feature. Now the question is should we do away with the cookie thing (last layout applied) and just use the forcing of a Layout for those folks who really want to "land" on Layout 2. Either way, better to have Eliyak chime in on this first in case I got something wrong here. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:19, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Seems to me we would cover all use cases with an interface like
  • Preferred layout: Layout 1 / Layout 2 / Layout 3.
  • Allow works to override my layout preference: Yes / No.
Is it doable? Hesperian 08:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Well, hello everyone. The last few weeks have been quite eventful for me IRL. I won't bore you with the gory details, but I am now engaged to be married and also living in a new apartment. Plus my brother is getting married next week overseas. I expect to be unavailable intermittently until the last week of January, when things will calm down a bit for me.

  • Hesperian: Sounds doable, with those settings hidden somewhere in user preferences. I think the default for setting #2 should be to let the overrides work. Default layout for people who don't touch their preferences, I'm not sure about. Perhaps we could take a survey of what layout is preferred by people who have actually chosen one or the other?
  • The whole issue with the overrides taking over was unintended, and I don't think anyone wants that behavior. For that matter, Layout 1 was supposed to remain the default layout. (However, I forgot that '1' is the 2nd index in JavaScript.)
  • A couple additional issues have been brought up by Slowking4:
    1. Changes in the user experience should be discussed first and documented as they occur.
    2. Dynamic layouts are not even available for works not transcluded from the Page space.
    3. Some dynamic layouts could be different (better/worse) for mobile users.
Issue 1 is important. I think we should start a new Scriptorium/Technical subpage (similar to WS:Scriptorium/Help) to deal specifically with issues requiring technical work/help. Certainly this would help bring issues to the attention of people who are able to fix them or otherwise interested. The page would also serve as a forum for discussion of proposed new technical features. If such features seem to be at all controversial, they should be brought to a public vote at WS:S#Proposals. If they are not controversial but are somewhat major, an announcement should be made at WS:S#Announcements. (To be clear, I'm *not* suggesting a new page for proposals or announcements at this time.)
Issues 2 & 3 could be the first issues addressed at WS:S/T.

--Eliyak T·C 06:08, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

While opening a "Tech" page as described sounds like a good idea - one that I'm 100% behind - I must note, that, if I remember correctly, the last time something along those lines was recommended here on en.WS, the old.wikisource types lobbied to incorporate such requests into their existing "wishlist" instead. Please - let's not have that happen this time.

Issue 3 is pretty much moot right now because none of that dynamic stuff works on any mobile device that I've accessed WS with anyway. Anyone? The larger "issue" when it comes to "mobile" is that (for the trillionth time) our namespace headers are still html-table based and do not display very well (if at all) never mind fail gracefully, again, on any mobile device that I've ever seen. A move to an all Div based header framework is sorely needed regardless.

As for which Layout should be the deafult - just turn off java and you'll get your answer (Layout 1, the closest one to not having any DL at all). -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:49, 19 December 2013 (UTC)

Purge all indices?Edit

The problem with headers in the main namespace displaying all broken-like until you manually purge them seems to have worked itself out. But the concurrent problem of indices which don't have colored status page links until you manually purge them is still around. Is there a big red button that purges them all? Prosody (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

No big red button from a user's perspective, so it either becomes a bugzilla request or maybe there is some bot functionality within pywikipedia. Maybe try a request at Wikisource:Bot requests. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 30 November 2013 (UTC)



I noticed that HesperianBot extracts images from scans, and upload them here, and without a license. This is a waste of time and resources. They should instead be uploaded to Commons. Yann (talk) 08:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Hello back,
Did you bother to read the bot's front page to find out what the actual workflow "is" before typing that up or did you just react to a sliver of the facts, extrapolated from some upload log or something, and posted here first instead? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:48, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Yann, there are several reasons why I upload here:

  1. This is a Wikisource maintenance project. These raw page scans promote our mission, not Commons'.
  2. Scans are provided in the highest quality possible, which means a lossless format, which means PNG. But many of these images will need to be uploaded to Commons in their final form as JPG, which means it will not be possible to upload over the top. Uploading such images to Commons offers no "time and resources" benefit.
  3. Even when the final image will be a PNG, the "time and resources" benefit is minimal — one still has to download it to edit it, and then upload it again. And I would expect an upload over the top to be followed by a page move anyhow, since the titles I use are not appropriate for the final image, and also I don't want my upload namespace polluted with final images.
  4. I take copyright seriously and am not willing to run a bot that makes copyright assertions on my behalf. As you have noted, I deliberately and explicitly pass the buck on copyright.
  5. I have not been given permission to run a bot at Commons, and I doubt that this bot would be approved over there.
  6. If I mess up, I like to know I am among friends.

Happy to answer any questions or attempt further defense of my rationale. Hesperian 12:16, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

I understand that you don’t have a bot on Commons, but it doesn’t change anything in my statement. There are tools on Commons to manage images (crop, rotate, etc.) which we don't have here. PNG is fine, but you could upload JPG directly, it would save you bandwidth, time to upload. If the images come from a file which is in the public domain, there are also in the PD. And I think that uploading them without a license is bad. You shouldn’t do that. Finally, Commons is not the Alien planetoid, and you could certainly apply and get a bot status there. I could support you to do so. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:29, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
The missing factor in your analysis is how much more time and energy I am willing to invest in this. These 'shoulds' and 'shouldn'ts' don't lead to a future where I spend hours manually checking each license, and examining each image to determine an appropriate upload format, so that we can all save some bandwidth. They lead to a future where I throw my hands in the air, declare that too many obstacles are being put in my way, and let the project lapse. Hesperian 12:51, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I will make the points again:
  1. You should not upload images without a license.
  2. If you crop images from a file which is PD, you simply have to copy the license.
  3. The time you save is the time wasted for others. I'd rather like that you upload less images, but that you upload them right. Regards, Yann (talk) 12:58, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I shall of course abide by community consensus on what I should and should not do. Hesperian 13:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
There was no perfect solution when this supporting project was started and there is no perfect solution now. If they don't mind the uploads over on Commons, slap a license into the workflow and upload them there I guess. I'm curious to hear what others have to say first though. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:32, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
I think you don’t even need a bot status on Commons, at the rate of your last uploads (less than 100 images on November 24th, and about 100 on November 10th). At this rate, it won’t even be noticed among Commons uploads. Yann (talk) 13:49, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Hesperian was doing a minimalist approach, and he was doing something about the missing images. It was discussed here by Hesperian with the community to have input, it was described as an imperfect approach at the time, though better than nothing. I would invite the community to read the archives, and I would think that anyone wishing to improve the process will be appreciated by the community. While I would like perfection presented on a plate, it isn't a realistic expectation. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
From Wikisource perspective, there is nothing "wrong" with the current process used by ’HesperianBot’, it adds value here and hinges permission on the licensing for the current work as posted on Wikisource. Anyone who is willing to undertake the responsibility of validating and committing themselves to the accuracy of the licensing is welcome to move the images to Commons and update any links. The bot and it's operator are volunteers, and are under no obligation to undertake any additional responsibility. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 20:23, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
The issue is that transfering the file to Commons is nearly as much work as uploading them in the first place. Yann (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
This assumes that the image will be used as-is rather than fixed, which is explicitly not the purpose of these images. They are supposed to be restored before being used. The moment you accept that these images need to be downloaded, restored, and re-uploaded, the purported savings in uploading initially to Commons vanishes. Hesperian 09:31, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
For 99% of cases, the only possible and/or useful edits are cropping and rotating, due to the quality of the scans. As I said above, there are bots in Commons to do that. Regards, Yann (talk) 17:25, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
These are the full resolution page scans, pulled out of the the jp2 zips. There is plenty that can be done with them. I actively check restored images before deleting the corresponding raw scans, and I assert that for 99% of cases, more is done with them than merely cropping and rotating. Hesperian 01:27, 5 December 2013 (UTC)


I was writing about the Totem Pole in the British Museum for wikipedia when I got distracted by Thomas Athol Joyce. His moment in the limelight was when he got derided for his entry for "Negro" in Britannica. I cannot find that entry here? Do you think the odnb is talking about his entry for "Africa"? Victuallers (talk) 14:20, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

There was an entry for "Negro" in the 1911 Britannica, but it has not yet been transcribed here. When it is, it will appear at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Negro. In the meantime, the article can be read here from the Internet Archive. - Htonl (talk) 16:13, 1 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks Hton1 that was helpful. My article on Joyce now points at and has quotes. I couldn't see how to do "negro" but if any enthusiast for Britanica fancies an article then this one will get some attention in next few days Victuallers (talk) 08:33, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
You can always ask at Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and I would think that it will be in Index:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu and the file would be linkable at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
I've created the article at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Negro, with the OCR text, and I've proofread the first page. In parts it will need a lot of work, where there are tables and so on. The pages containing the article run from Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/362 to Page:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu/367. - Htonl (talk) 10:24, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
OK, I've proofread the whole article. That was a rather distasteful exercise. - Htonl (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Featured texts Source criterion commentsEdit

Wikisource talk:Featured texts#Source criterion, need thought/comments.Jayantanth (talk) 14:39, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Obvious spelling mistakesEdit


What’s the policy when there are obvious spelling mistakes? i.e. suffragates for suffragettes Yann (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Either leave it, or utilise {{SIC}} and this can be with one parameter or two. Generally I will just use one, though I may use two if the error is obscure ... so not often. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:40, 2 December 2013 (UTC)
yep, variable spelling is common for older works, especially primary material. although the republican INTERGITY can be funny. Slowking4 (talk) 23:52, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

List of all abbreviated Wiki Areas (en. es. it. ca - et cetera)Edit

Is there a List of all abbreviated wiki areas and if so then where is it? ( e.g. = ?) I encountered ca. but do not know what it is although I thought French Canadian. —Maury (talk) 12:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

The language subdomains are all based on ISO-639 codes; most can be found at wikipedia:List of ISO 639-2 codes, a few might be on the later wikipedia:List of ISO 639-3 codes. ca is Catalan, a language from the Spain/France area; French Canadian would probably be fr-CA, the country code is in addition to the language although Wikimedia doesn't use that for projects (the closest is probably sco for Scots, see wikipedia:sco: for Scots Wikipedia). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:52, 3 December 2013 (UTC)
Perhaps Maury is looking for this: Interwiki codes? — Ineuw talk 15:31, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
ref: Interwiki codes. I chose en and got en //$1 which does not tell me that en represents "English". I think Adam has what I was looking for. There is en for english, es for spanish (Español), it for italian, and so on. I have often wondered what the many others represent but never knew. I wasn't born knowing them so I figured there must be an explanation of them or a list somewhere on these wiki areas. I thank both of you for helping. —Maury (talk) 16:50, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

ProofReading or Page namespace issuesEdit



  • The editing interface of Page: pages on Wikisource (working with the Proofread Page extension) will soon also work without JavaScript. [4]
Question: would you prefer notes to be made right here or elsewhere (if so please nominate where)?
For the record, right now the wmf version is "1.23wmf4 (49ec115)". Viewer2 (talk) 03:01, 27 November 2013 (UTC)
Previous attempts to proactively wrangle issues to one space or another before they actually materialize has never worked out well so I guess folks should just make the effort to post here (here as in Scriptorium itself in a new section with a good edit summary) and we'll deal with (re)organizing/troubleshooting as they come.

Again, I could be making a bigger deal out of this than it really is - there could no detectable change at all upon that upgrade. History says otherwise. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:32, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

For the further record, right now the wmf version is "1.23wmf5 (e602d2d)". I have had one instance so far of a Page edit refusing to preview before committing to a save (even though it subsequently turned out to be O.K.) For the record, this edit previews… O.K. as well (logically: should not be influenced by changes?) Thus far, appears to be a one-off hiccup. Viewer2 (talk) 21:50, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

List them as you discover them.......

The current list of known bug reports can be found here. It is very welcome and helpful to forward issues in MediaWiki or its extensions (especially ProofreadPage) to Bugzilla with good steps to reproduce; see How to report a bug for a how-to. Thanks to everybody who has reported or worked on issues, and I'm sorry that the wmf5 deployment was so disruptive. --AKlapper (WMF) (talk) 13:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Overlap with sidenotesEdit

See Page:A_Desk_Book_on_the_Etiquette_of_Social_Stationary.djvu/12 for an example. [IE8, XP-Pro]-- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is messed up as stated. —Maury (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Also happening in Chrome on Win 7. For what it's worth, it's being caused by {{sidenotes begin}} which is adding two width declarations to the markup that are much too big. Mukkakukaku (talk) 04:12, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's not just sidenotes. It's also happening with images that are wider than the width of the text column. Have a look at Page:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 2.djvu/111 for an example. Very difficult to do a note for note comparison when checking the score. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:43, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, yours works just fine including the music. —Maury (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Firefox 25.0.1 definitely fails on this page (quite severe overlap between text area and image.) Just to test options I changed the page to use GOIII's dynamic image layout (i.e. {{FI}}) and the overlap problem goes away. (I have backed out the change again on the basis there is no reason you should be forced to do this sort of thing, but the option is there if you need it.) Viewer2 (talk) 11:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Chrome 31 only shows overlap for the sheetmusic image. The text is fine and respects the boundaries of the "page" area. Mukkakukaku (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Maybe it's something to do with Windows, it looks fine with Firefox 25.0.1 and Safari 7.0 on Mac. (Mac OS X Mavericks). --kathleen wright5 (talk) 13:19, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Kathleen, I use Windows XP and Firefox 25.0.1. I see some strange things happen but they disappear. PS.The "Maverick" family (Fontaine Maury Maverick) are my kinfolk mostly out of Texas. Even my shotgun shows "Maverick". All the man did was not brand his cattle! —Maury (talk) 19:35, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Index and Without Text problemsEdit

Take a look at Index:Association Football and How to Play It (1908) by John Cameron.djvu. I had (yet again) the transient error of proofreading status disappear after an edit to a page of the work. This rectified after another edit, but shouldn't have happened at all.

More seriously, look at both page 4 and the first page following the "Adv" pages. The page was "proofread" as "Without Text", but the editor is trying to list that page in Category:Without text, and the Index page for the book is showing the page in pink instead of grey. Something is badly screwed up somewhere, and it's going to really aggravate anyone doing proofreading. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I have looked for a cause for the issue in ProofreadPage but I haven't found anything. I believe (but I have no proof of it) it's somewhat related to the Wikimedia infrastructure as I can't reproduce it on my local wiki. Tpt (talk) 09:02, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's caused by a problem with category name that contains space. I've made a quick fix by adding an underscore instead of a space to [MediaWiki:Proofreadpage quality0 category] and [MediaWiki:Proofreadpage quality1 category]. A purge of each page fix the issue. Tpt (talk) 12:39, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
A clean solution have been deployed. I have removed the quick fix. Tpt (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

TOC field in Index not displaying all its contentsEdit

Index:Du Faur - The Conquest of Mount Cook.djvu should list through to Chapter XXII plus Index. However, it stops at Chapter VII. i.e. it is only displaying the first page of the transclusion. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:47, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

It is quite strange 'cause it was working properly before on this specific page. Zil (talk) 10:18, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
I had a bit of a play with the three pages (15, 16 & 17) and think all is working now (all three needed minor tweaks—curiously the last two initially had all the table continuation code hiding in the footer field. Now how did that happen?) Viewer2 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
It's because there is an issue with "noinclude" tags. A fix for it will be deployed soon. Tpt (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
The solution have been deployed. Tpt (talk) 09:12, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Body field is too long when editing in Page: namespaceEdit

I'm using a 15" monitor on a laptop when editing WS. This means that when I reach the bottom of the 52 line edit box I can no longer see the toolbar, nor the top of the page image. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:49, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Ditto with a large monitor on a desktop machine - with version 1.23wmf5 (e602d2d), the edit box is way way too long as mentioned by User:Beeswaxcandle, and the Preferences setting have no effect.— Ineuw talk 08:16, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
The Preferences setting only affects the mainspace editing box. This is consistent with previous behaviour. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification. :-) . . . live & learn. — Ineuw talk 09:13, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

My thanks to the person(s) who reduced the rows of Page: namespace "textarea1". I was wondering if I could further modify it in my personal CSS to match the settings which existed before the update. — Ineuw talk 14:32, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

ProofreadPage now use the preferences/Editing/Editor settings for the columns and the rows of the body textarea. So, just play with them. Tpt (talk) 09:11, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Tpt Just read your reply and inserted this here to keep the conversation in order. You're my champ. Thanks so much!!!! I no longer have to scroll up and down to get things done.— Ineuw talk 04:52, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I don't know if its related to my loss of the PRP toolbar in wiki-editor but even set at 240 rows, the prp container (left-side) is far shorter height wise than the thumbnail on the right. Also, the text "Summary:" (usually right above the edit summary field) is now right under the bottom of the noincluded footer field - with a huge space between the two. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:17, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Well at least for IE8, the height of #wpTextbox1 is being prematurely fixed at 390px by IE8Fixes.css in the skins/common folder. I think it should also use max-height, min-height set at 100% (same workaround used for width in that same css). Either way, fixing the height in that .css is nullifying the rows setting in User: preferences and causing left side of the edit scheme to be shorter (or larger?) than the right-side image thumbnail. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

I suspect that I'm having a similar problem to George in FF 25.0. The size of the body text box seems to be fixed, so that turning off the header/footer doesn't give that space back. It just hides them and moves the body textbox up, but doesn't resize the textbox. This means that there is currently no point in turning off the header/footer. I regard this "feature" as a bug. Can it please be restored to the previous state (i.e. that prior to this release)? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:30, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
fwiw... there are several issues with the prp-page-container & I can only troubleshoot only so far while lacking the basic toggle on/off & side-by-side/horizontal abilities. Apparently, some folks should be able to manually stretch/shrink the textarea box via mouse click & drag (via a css3 setting resize: vertical) but this is still not a WC3 standard as of yet so some browsers won't recognize this at all - especially when the current UI draft says the element must also have an overflow: ---- atribute set to something other than visible at the same time for resizing to work properly. I guess it is suppose to remember that size the next time you enter edit mode or something? (not optimal imho - should disregard all this sizing stuff unless in side-by-side view & then base resizing on page-scan image thumbnail's size on the right side if anything).

Beyond that there are a few other settings being inherited (like for me) along the way to rendering that we could do with out plus it seems like the prp-page-container is intruding into the standard edit page stuff (an extra closing div after div.prp-page-image (right hand thumbnail) seems to separate the two again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:26, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Gaps in Multi-line braceEdit

When using the {{brace}} template (multi-line braces with tables), Chrome and Firefox have introduced "gaps" between the brace segments. Internet Explorer 11 shows the continuous brace, for the most part. (There's a gap in IE11 between the top "hook" and the next brace segment.) I don't know if it's directly related to the upgrade, however. Mukkakukaku (talk) 13:05, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Try {{brace2}}, I generally prefer it anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 7 December 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I figured that out, thanks. It just seems odd that the regular {{brace}} would behave so inconsistently between browsers when it's the easier to use in tables. Mukkakukaku (talk) 16:54, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Page text completely deletedEdit

I entered in edit in Page:De re metallica (1912).djvu/192; the whole text disappeared and I could not recover it from history (as soon as I try to edit the right version, text disappears again). I removed all personal js stuff but this doesn't seem to solve the issue. --Alex brollo (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The issue is solved now. Tpt (talk) 09:09, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

References tag in index-wide headers and footers replaced with nonsense stringEdit

Check out Page:Sandbox2.djvu/3. Prosody (talk) 00:14, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Prepending /*Not_proofread*/ to edit summary at preview for new pages (?)Edit

When previewing a new page (I think, it doesn't seem to occur with preexisting pages), /*Not_proofread*/ is prepended to the edit summary. Prosody (talk) 00:39, 5 December 2013 (UTC) (correction 00:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC))

It's fixed now I believe. Tpt (talk) 09:08, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Interproject templatesEdit

I don't know if it has any relation to the software update, but {{iwpage}} (e.g. The_seven_great_hymns_of_the_mediaeval_church/Veni_Creator_Spiritus) and {{IwpageSection}} (e.g. at the end of Mexico,_as_it_was_and_as_it_is/Letter_12) now also include the validation status from the native language (time ago, it didn't). -Aleator (talk) 01:27, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Iwpage and IwpageSection are intended to be used directly or indirectly only in namespace Page:, in all other namespace {{Iwpages}} must be used. By indirectly I mean if Page:foo.djvu/132 contains an iwPage you can't even transclude it in main: with {{Page:foo.djvu/132}} but you need to use iwPages. This was described in the doc for iwpage, but not for iwPagesection. I'm unsure if the recent software update shown this bug, but even if it was hidden before, it was not intended to work the way the transclusion was done. — Phe 15:40, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

/*Proofread*/ is not appendedEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Issue apparently unique to version 1.23wmf5; resolved in 1.23wmf6(cc018cb). Thank you Tpt! Viewer2 (talk) 21:02, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

The last MediaWiki update has re-added the old behavior. Viewer2 code is so no longer needed. Tpt (talk) 20:10, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Scan resolution resizing to a standard set width and heightEdit

Working with Index:The Royal Family of France (Henry).djvu.

  • Leaving setting empty gives 1,023px × 1,705px (scaled to 705px × 1,175px)
  • Change scan res to 500 gives an image size 500px × 832px (scaled to 705px × 1,173px)

So finding that the image is resorting to a fixed size. Previously the scan length paired with the text box, and you could scroll the image, rather than scan the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Header & main text clearanceEdit

In this latest software update, in the Page: namespace in read mode, the clearance between the running header and the main body of text has been reduced so that the header looks to be part of the text. Would it be possible to increase the space a bit to separate the two? My thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 05:15, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Not without re-introducing the two or three line-returns ("/n") in the non-included header that previously "collapsed" into a single Paragraph tag start (followed by a BR when the page was saved). This appeared as a "blank" line between the header and textarea body previously. I'm not sure that change was intended because if you go to edit a page proofread before the update, you should see a forced blank line at the beginning and the end of all three edit fields now - header, body & footer. (Well at least that's what is happening for me.)
Aside from that, the core of this problem is that the running header template was never treated as an HTML header (H2, H3, H4, etc.) so there is no margin/padding bottom like there is when those tags are applied normally. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:24, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for this info. However, can't the header bottom be padded? — Ineuw talk 14:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
PS: Perhaps, padding the bottom of the {{Running header}} is possible? I am not a fan of adding carriage returns (CR or BR) either, but I believe that there should be a more pronounced space between the header and the main text. As a note; editing a proofread or validated page removes the previously existing CR/BR as well. By previous, I mean prior to this software update. — Ineuw talk 15:02, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Forcing a blank lineEdit

The new method of saving also adds a blank line at the end of the text. Doesn't this affect the proper continuity of the text in the main namespace? — Ineuw talk 22:38, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Scroll Bar on Scanned ImageEdit

I no longer see the scroll bar on the scanned image when I'm editing text. When the proof-reading side is longer than the scanned text, I can't see some of the text on the screen at the same time. Is there a way I can see the scroll bar again? {posted by User:Susanarb

Thanks for posting this. I have the same problem. This also belongs to one of the series of changes affecting proofreading. I assume that you are proofreading in over/under display? If that's the case, the behavior of the upper window has changed (detrimentally). For now, one must move the scanned image to its proper position to synchronize with the text layer. — Ineuw talk 06:40, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
It happens in side-by-side as well. However, one can just drag the image around without using scroll-bars. If you want the scroll-bars I've found that bumping up the image zoom by one click on the green magnifying glass gives them back as a workaround. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Beeswaxcandle, thanks for the clarification. Side by side viewing is an unknown area for me but the current (and hopefully temporary) solution is identical to both editing views as I must do the same.
To further elaborate, in the currently implemented approach, the mouse pointer has defaults to the arrow cross   which moves the image as the default as well as scrolls. Before, one had to double click the image to switch between scroll and image sizing modes. This method facilitated a rudimentary line by line synchronization between the image and the text. Furthermore, in the upper/lower scheme, the opening of the image (upper window) has been reduced from approximately 185 to 165 pixels.— Ineuw talk 07:49, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you -- dragging is even easier than using the scroll bar -- I hadn't realized that it was an option. Susan Susanarb (talk) 19:06, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
As of today's update, scrolling on the djvu scan makes absolutely no sense!!!!!!! — Ineuw talk 21:55, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

Tab order has changedEdit

Previous behaviour was that tabbing from the body would go to the footer (if present) and then to the Summary, the one or two check boxes and then the coloured radio-buttons followed by the Save, preview and Show changes buttons. Now, however, the Summary and the buttons are skipped over in favour of the "Terms of use" link and then every other link on the page in order. Currently the most efficient way to reach the Summary is to use the keyboard shortcut (alt-shift-b on FF) or to reverse tab 10 times. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

Duplicated. [IE8, XP-Pro]. Alt-b still takes me to the Summary field no matter where my cursor happens to be just like before. Is Summary still right above the field where you type in an edit summary? For me its right underneath the non-included footer edit-box - a good 200px away from the summary field itself. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:09, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

"Paragraph-breaking {{nop}} at the end of the previous page" GadgetEdit

The following discussion is closed.

Thanks all for checking. I confirm it is working again for me. Viewer2 (talk) 18:40, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Scans from Google BooksEdit


Just a remainder that the first page with an warning from Google should be removed before uploading the scans on Commons. If you can't do it, I can help. Is there already, here or on Commons, a list of files for which that should be done? If not, it should be created. Thanks, Yann (talk) 13:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yann, You have an excellent point that I have not thought about. Typically, I use .PDF files and I own Acrobat XI Pro which will remove and replace &c. any page. However, I only recently uploaded a .DJVU file. I guess I was lucky that Google was not in the pages. So, how would anyone remove Google page advertisements from a .DJVU file? Too, what program do you use to do what you suggest?—Maury (talk) 16:11, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

.djvu filesEdit

Can .DJVU files be edited? I have Windows XP and would like to know of a program that can edit .djvu files -- assuming there may be one. Please assist. I, in return, will declare you a Golden Knight. —Maury (talk) 17:52, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Yes, DJVU can be edited. On Windows, you can use "DjVu Solo" (free, see [5]) or "Document Express 7.0 Desktop" from Caminova (this last one needs a license after one week, but it still works if you don’t have one, it just displays a warning). If you want the best professional software, try Abby FineReader (not free through). Yann (talk) 19:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you oh so much! It is often difficult to get answers. You get pointed to a help page (if you are lucky because we are supposed to know all about it according to administrators who do know about it (WS:HELP) and wander through many materials you are not interested in reading including Linux systems and what to do with those. I believe most people here are presently at work, or learn at work, and apply information over the heads of lay persons. I never had any computer classes nor codes since they came in behind me. I am age 66 years and probably the oldest person here. Youngsters learn new technologies in school and then at work.
I do not mind paying for a good program. I am not poor and I am retired. On vague recall I think Abby FineReader was only about $35 which is nothing for what I like to do. I don't care if it's $600 as long as the program works. I just dislike the aggravation involved on My Adobe Acrobat XI Pro costs around $600 new but I have used that for years and upgraded as desired.
So, if what you have stated will work, I hereby declare you a Golden Knight. You purchase your parachute through the Army Golden Knights team. But caution, do not let them sell you a parachute used over 100 times. Kindest regards to a person with the answers and the willingness to help others. —Maury (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
There is a program I found on the internet called "DjVuToy" which is pretty good at basic tasks like splitting and merging. It doesn't do complicated stuff but it can quickly and easily take a DjVu file apart into its component pages and then put them all back together again (the long way round for removing a page is to split, delete the individual page, then re-merge). A word of warning: I don't know where it comes from nor anything about it, so for all I know it's loaded with malware. Nothing appears to have happened to me yet but download and run at your own risk. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:50, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Adam. However, if a program is not excessively expensive I read the information about it on the product's page, read the requirements, &c. and would rather purchase a program that can do many things, including complicated stuff whether I use that or not, than to even possibly download "malware". So, what do you use to "protect" your computer that you are willing to risk so many things? —Maury (talk) 13:50, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

Author:Srisa Chandra VasuEdit


I have an issue with this author, which is said to be born on 1861 [6], and according to this scan, translated a work the same year. He may have been a genius, but still… ;o) Any idea? Yann (talk) 10:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Oh, it gets worse. On page 97 (second page of "Note from the translator) it reveals he made said note in 1860…
According to Wikidata entry Q15279878, this gentleman was born on 1 November 1821 (Gregorian). Furthermore the quoted source (presumably including this item) is Wikipedia page Srisa Chandra Vasu which no longer contains this information. (in fact I've been through the edit history, and as best I can tell none of them (visible to myself at least) remove a 19211821 date, whereas all revisions of the Wikidata state 19211821 as the birthdate (Oh, and you happen to be the original author. Any chance you might remember what your sources were as at 20:40, 6 December 2013‎? I am of course only only teasing.) Hope this helps a little (but for the life of me I am not quite sure how!) Viewer2 (talk) 19:52, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Viewer2 you wrote 1921 Twice when I think you intended to write 1821 JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 20:24, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
Sigh. You are so right. Damn my clumsy fingers! Viewer2 (talk) 20:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I think there is a confusion with w:Bapudeva Sastri. Yann (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
That makes a lot more sense. I was wondering how the leap had been made from "Pundit B,a'pu' D,eva Sa'stri" (pardon my poor attempt to represent the accenting) to "Srisa Chandra Vasu." Does this mean d:Q15279878 is now complete garbage, or can anything useful still be recovered? Viewer2 (talk) 21:30, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
@Yann: I see you have been performing a quite a lot of cleaning up. May I remind you of Author:Lancelot Wilkinson, which still mentions Srisa Chandra Vasu. Is this correct, or should the entry now read Bapudeva Sastri per Index:English translation of the Surya Siddhanta and the Siddhanta Siromani by Sastri, 1861.djvu? Viewer2 (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
I fixed this last one too. Yann (talk) 06:03, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Page_break problemEdit

Look at

Text is scrambled at places where Template:Page_break is used (Firefox 25, Chromium 30.0.1599.114). However, in the next chapter everything works okay

Is there an easy way to fix it? --D.H (talk) 12:50, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Solved. One only needs to preview the page and then press the save button, without changing anything. Though I still don't understand why this method works, or why the page was scrambled before. --D.H (talk) 14:03, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Another page to be fixed: Essays upon some Controverted Questions/XIII. There are certainly many other pages that are affected. --D.H (talk) 14:09, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-49Edit

16:10, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Other issues arising from recent changesEdit

Template:Ambox has lost its boxEdit

This template used to have a box around the text. Several other templates depend on this one and now some pages look confusing, particularly when it is called several times. e.g. Jane Annie. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:47, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

I checked this using FF, and the frame around the template is there. If I am wrong, can you please elaborate further?— Ineuw talk 18:54, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm using FF and it ain't there. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:20, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Can't reproduce with IE8/XP-Pro; all seems normal. All these "box" based-templates rely on settings defined in MediaWiki:Common.css/Boxes.css (which hasn't been touched since August 31 of this year). The thing with this .CSS as well as most of the others "handed down" from the servers is they frequently employ work-arounds that are not technically compliant with the standards in place at the time. As the standard becomes more and more refined over time, the chances for less and less of these work-arounds remaining unaffected becomes greater and greater. I can't say for sure that is what is happening here, though there is a lot of @noflip type of stuff associated with border settings in the current file(s). So unless something in your local css/js files is conflicting with the site-wide files, the problem, again, is most likely load order related (i.e. not getting to those site-wide settings for some reason). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
There was no border for me in Chrome 31 on Windows 7, but then I did a hard refresh to bypass the cache and it magically showed up. Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:24, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
It's worked for me as well. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:43, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Tenth Anniversary Contest WinnersEdit

I have finally compiled and checked the scores for the recent Tenth Anniversary Contest. I apologise for the delay. Part of the problem was the scoring system that I made up turned out to be more complicated that I initially thought. Then some of the final results were very close, so I re-checked everything just to be sure.

Anyway, the overall winner was easily Slowking4 with a score of 3,256 points (of a total of 5,682.5 points scored by the 25 entrants). The runners up were the next highest (separately) in the the first and the second weeks of the contest. For the first week that was Moondyne and for the second week it was John Carter. Congratulations to everyone.

If there are no objections or challenges to these results, I will contact Wikimedia UK to arrange for the prizes.

If anyone is interested, I have created two pages with some data about the contest: Summary of the contest and Page data. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:45, 13 December 2013 (UTC)

if WMUK dosen’t mind, i’d just as soon have the equivalent prize for a wikisource pub event at wikimania: free beer for wikisouristas. Slowking4 (talk) 23:51, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Likewise. The thought is lovely but I’d be much happier if WMUK used the GBP10 elsewhere, especially if it could direct into the WS sphere somehow. Moondyne (talk) 05:20, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Congrats to winners Slowking4, Moondyne, and John Carter. :D —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 05:04, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Chess DiagramsEdit

I have ported {{Chess diagram}} and its attendant Lua module across from enWP. This will generate 8x8 chessboards and allows for pieces to be placed on the board wherever needed. An example of it in use is Page:Through the Looking-Glass, and What Alice Found There.djvu/11. I haven't, at present, ported the templates and module for other sizes of board mentioned in the documentation. However, if these are needed it's a straightforward task to do. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:06, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Now also {{Missing chess diagram}}, which tags pages into Category:Pages with missing chess diagrams and mainspace texts into Category:Texts with missing chess diagrams. Hesperian 06:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

eBook on Main Page only 6 pages long?Edit

I downloaded the ePub linked on the main page for Vanity Fair and it ended up being only 6 pages long. Is that a bug or user error? unsigned comment by Cneubauer (talk) .

It should be longer. We'll need to poke it. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:28, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Try now, the Table of Contents hadn't been included on the root page, so presumably it was dumbstruck. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:34, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


I just created a batch of PD-40 categories and templates, under the misapprehension that their non-creation was an oversight. However, since then, I have discovered that they were not created because no country had that term of copyright.

So, what should be done now? Keep or delete? Advice, please. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 05:47, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

culled. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:23, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:38, 14 December 2013 (UTC)


Can someone suggest how to turn the remaining redlinks blue?

Some I've not linked because I wanted to discuss which edition would be suited. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:51, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

"Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm" is still being proofread. Mukkakukaku (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
We have Tom Brown's School Days, but the scan is missing pages 344 and 345, so the source file needs to be repaired. Once this problem is corrected, the book could make a good PotM selection, as we have no works by Thomas Hughes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:25, 15 December 2013 (UTC) looks to have some complete scans, albeit different editions. I've no idea how to go about "repairing" a source file anway, but thought I'd mention it. Mukkakukaku (talk) 18:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I thought I had fixed that edition & inserted place-holders for the 2 remaining missing pages already - if so, proofreading can continue regardless. If somebody locates the missing pages, I can repair that too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
For the other two red links, What Katy Did is on Unfortunately, Lassie Come Home has apparently been renewed in the United States, so I don't think it can be hosted here until about 2036. I think it should be OK on Wikilivres, however, which is in Canada. It isn't red but I'm not really sure about Peter Pan and Wendy; it does have a perpetual copyright in the UK but I think it should be in the public domain in the US (plus, it's on Gutenberg). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Well can you get 'What Katy Did' it done in under a year? The original publication I cribbed the list from was bi-weekly I think.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
OK I've tweaked the list. Can someone consider making a Main page showcase for these to start in Jan 2014? with a new work showcased every fortnight? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:18, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
You can nominate individual works to be featured for a month, but showcasing your current list would be premature. Some of them aren't completed yet. For example, The Prisoner of Zenda has no source file and only includes the first few chapters. That's not something we'd showcase on the main page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:38, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
OK Which in that list have issues? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
All of the first six, and after that I stopped checking. Black Beauty was recently featured on the main page, so it's not eligible to be featured again. Of the other five, four have no source file and so would not be considered for featured status. The fifth is a disambiguation page, and we don't feature disambiguation pages. The question then is not "Which works have problems?" but rather "Are any of the works on that list eligible?" --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Can you take another look at the first 24 Candidates? (I partitioned the list.). If the 24 Candidates can become 12 (good) candidates for the main page then I will be happy. (I'm not sure there are 12 though.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:33, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that two more have already been featured, so I moved them. Just looking at the index pages of the rest of first set, the following look OK and are ready to be listed at Wikisource:Featured text candidates (which does need the nominations at the moment: The Water Babies, Jane Eyre, The Story of the Treasure Seekers & Alice in Wonderland. Of the remainder, one just needs to be validated first (Treasure Island) and two need to be proofread (The Call of the Wild & The Lost World). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

link at two pagesEdit

Could anyone pls help me with this little problem: I have a link to a source, but it is partly on one page, and partly on the next. How can I make a proper link of this? It's Malthus' Inquiry into the Nature etc... at this page (and the next, of course). Dick Bos (talk) 18:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

With split italics, for seamless join in the main namespace, I use HTML instead of wiki code and place the ending in the footer and the on the consequent page, the beginning in the header. Check it out. — Ineuw talk 19:02, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I got the link part to work across the 2 pages as well as in the final transclusion - though its a redlink right now. I'm sure you can change to the working-title/inter-link without too much trouble. If not; just post back. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:04, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
Not at all detracting from the solution above, but it might be also worthwhile pointing out the template pair {{linkable phrase start}}/{{linkable phrase end}} also offers support for this precise situation, in an analogous fashion to the {{hyphenated word start}}/{{hyphenated word end}} pairing with which you may be more familiar.

In this situation, the same effect might have been obtained by placing:

<i>{{lps|link=Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent|pre=Inquiry into the Nature and|post=Progress of Rent}}
at the end of page /144, and:
{{lpe|link=Inquiry into the Nature and Progress of Rent|pre=Inquiry into the Nature and|post=Progress of Rent}}</i>
at the start of page /145. Viewer2 (talk) 21:49, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Thanks to all of you for helping me! Dick Bos (talk) 14:32, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Funny "Community collaboration" page formattingEdit

I went over to Wikisource:Community collaboration to see what it's about (based on a 'welcome' message left on my talk page inviting me to look around), and it appears that some sort of custom stylesheets on that page, and that page only, are causing some severe overlapping of elements. Half the tabs are floating where they shouldn't, the left hand menu is inside of the page contents itself, and so on. Hard refresh bypassing the browser cache didn't seem to resolve it, and I have no custom CSS set up for my user account. It's also happening when not logged in at all.

I've observed this on Chrome 31 and Firefox 25 and IE 11 on Windows 7. Is this affecting anyone else? Or am I making some kind of n00bish mistake and overlooking something silly and obvious? Mukkakukaku (talk) 21:01, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

I entirely back you up in your insanity. That page was giving me the same crazy layout you described, but I noticed the prior revision displayed reasonably. I purged the page using the normal menu option and the problem went away for me (please check for yourself.) I am afraid I can offer no satisfactory explanation for this and hope somebody with more background/knowledge chips in. Viewer2 (talk) 21:31, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
I am just seeing a standard gallery there and no issues whatsoever. Checked in FF 25.0.1 monobook (logged in), and Chrome 31.0.1650.63 vector (not logged in). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
After Viewer2 purged, I no longer saw any issues. Not sure what was going on, perhaps the server was serving up some sort of cached version that was flushed when the purge was invoked? (I'm not entirely sure how the purge functionality works.) Mukkakukaku (talk) 03:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello. I just stumbled across Template:Outside demonstrating the same (or at least similar) behaviour User:Mukkakukaku noted earlier on Wikisource:Community collaboration. I have deliberately not purged this one in case anybody wants to see the effect. Viewer2 (talk) 04:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)

2014 Featured textsEdit

Please visit Wikisource:Featured text candidates and nominate selections for 2014. Currently, there are NO nominations open for any texts to feature next year. Please nominate soon, as people often need time to look over the nominations and to help tidy up little bits and pieces. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:30, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-50Edit

08:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Line wrap of paragraphs - a questionEdit

If a paragraph line is not wrapped, how does this affect the printing and/or the various available download formats? To clarify the question, I often come across proofread paragraphs which are only partially wrapped. I know that in viewing HTML this is not an issue, but was wondering about users who print. — Ineuw talk 17:41, 20 December 2013 (UTC)

Index:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvuEdit

Any offers on doing the final chapter? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:56, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

It's unclear what you want. As for images of your project, I took it upon myself to begin uploading the images to commons:Category:Sheet Metal Drafting (book), and inserted the first as an example of how it's coded and how it looks HERE. Since I wasn't asked to do it, use them - or not - is up to you. In all honesty, I would rather explain/show on how to do things which I know how to do, and then you do the rest.— Ineuw talk 17:31, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you. I'd appreciate someone doing a validation second pass and tweaking the image sizing though, that's something I think needs more than one opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:17, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
i did some pf, but would appreciate some free beer prize money in the future. there is always the Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month queue. Slowking4 (talk) 22:07, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
OK The text of the book is now relatively speaking there. - The images are progressing. Thanks..

What I will need some help with is the maths, as I'm not entirly sure how to layout consistently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:28, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Suggestion: Please (try to) make Scriptorium topic names unique.Edit

If you look at the recent Scriptorium history listing you will note that in updates to (say) Index:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu (No! I mean this one!) (e.g. this change), the automatically-generated-pointer-to-the-changed-section actually takes you to the first section of that name, not the one actually changed.

I don't know how "intelligent" the system used to be about this, and whether these links formerly worked correctly (does anybody recall?)—but as they no longer do—if everybody makes some small attempt to choose unique topic names the matter becomes moot. Viewer2 (talk) 02:12, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

  • I don’t know whether you seek supports for this, but…   SupportClockery Fairfeld (talk) 05:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Warning: heavy-handed irony ahead. The sensitive may not wish to read this. Our lawyers inform us you have now been adequately informed.

Let me clarify: I was not intending to invite a vote on this, rather highlight that if you ever expect to use the little "(→‎section)" links automatically generated when a change is saved, then take these precautions or else be prepared to live with the fact they handle duplicate section names, umm (hang it all) *BADLY*, especially when you note that duplicate names can be referenced uniquely is the correct anchor is used, as shown above.

(Oh, and thank you, @Clockery, for the unsolicited support!) Viewer2 (talk) 06:48, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

The reason I did support this suggestion was because I use only those links; no other way of checking for changes on a long page like WS:S unless you use diffs. An uninvited suggestion: when a person is using a heading on a page when it already exists, use (2) or (#whatevernumberitmaybe) after the name of the heading, unless they want to use a different heading altogether…? (Sounds terribly muddled, even to me.) —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Sadly that is the whole of the point! The system appears to allocate anchors for duplicated section names by suffixing a space followed by a number (starting at 2) after the anchor name of the "first" occurrence of the same-named section. So far so good. However, whatever logic generates the links so cutely titled with the tiny little →‎ arrows appears to not be sensitive to this tie-breaker, with the result the destination is always the first section instead of the changed section.

Presumably, if you were to manually name sections in the above suffix-style, the same wrong behaviour will affect the result similarly (I have not put this to the test yet.) In short, to make it operational as the system is behaving at present choose either a completely different name; or perhaps prefix a tie-breaking number? Viewer2 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

I didn’t notice this before, so I tested it on the best testing ground you could ever find. But I digress. Actually, what I meant was that from now on, this can be implemented. Thus, no other section would have the heading Thank you (2) or whatever it may be, meaning that the system no longer needs to give these numbered disambiguators, removing confusion. Hopefully I make sense, but that’s up to you… —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
(I find I’ve forgotten to mention the point I've wished to make. What is this?!?) I think it’s best to make this a recommended guideline or whatever you call those whatchamacallits, if only for our own convenience… If that's the case, then we can move this discussion up to #Proposals. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Happy to go along with this. Or maybe it is merely a transient glitch? Which is pretty much why I am trying to raise visibility of the matter. Viewer2 (talk) 09:25, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Nope, no transient glitch. I’ve been noticing this for some time, but I thought I had gone bananas. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 11:14, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Index:A Christmas Carol.djvu - Proofread in under 48 hours?Edit

Noticed this was uploaded the 22nd. Any takers to get this rapidly proofread? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:57, 22 December 2013 (UTC)

Index:Christmascarol1843.djvu as well, please. The first is a facsimile copy of this one, which is the original 1843 edition. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Addendum: Images will be uploaded by me. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 08:08, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
The facsimile edition is now proofread, I'm doing a validation pass on the pages I can. (It should be possible to take the facsimile pages and copy-paste for the original?) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:53, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Seeing as both are the same (or nearly so), I think that shouldn’t be a problem. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:10, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Within reason, Apart from the images, it's almost something a bot/AWB task could do) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:41, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Done. A second pair of eyes is however welcome.--Mpaa (talk) 23:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Both have been fully transcluded and added to Template:New texts. God bless ye, merry gentlemen, and wish you all a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 07:58, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
For the sake of the incurably curious: Are there any actual gentlemen here? Certainly moderately well-behaved; and not-found-out-yet; and ladies (of course)—but gentlemen?

—give me a break!

Oh, and in every other respect, let me echo the spirit and intent of the Season, so aptly expressed by our own dear Clockery… Viewer2 (talk) 03:10, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

I am a gentleman but I am busy working. Find another gentleman and you will have "gentlemen" I don't smoke, drink, use profanities nor chaw. I drink Tea. Quite the opposite of my youthful self although I have never liked drinking alcohol or smoking tobacco. Happy Holidays, like, Viewer2 dude. Amen. —Maury (talk) 04:30, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
That, with respect, is not my problem! Failing your finding another proven gentleman-or-men; you must concede my premise remains un-refuted. Or you may be one of the as-yet-undiscovered… (fun-lovers?) Either way, I don't mind. Or, indeed, losing this "conflict." Teasing surely isn't meant to be this easy! (B.T.W.: Not that much younger than you, Grandpa!) Viewer2 (talk) 05:20, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Aaarrgh! <pulling at hair> Here we go again.   (As an aside: Looks like the sole beneficiary of this template will be yours truly against You-Know-Who…) If you want, call me a gentleman and get it over and done with—even though I am not. Just for argument’s sake. :D —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 05:55, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see it's getting a fair work-out.   I just hope nobody thinks any of this is meant in any way seriously. Viewer2 (talk) 06:26, 25 December 2013 (UTC)
Very sorry. :D I could just have called you a gentleman (even though I’m not sure) in that time. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 07:56, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Addendum :I will be absent for a few days because I’m travelling to an Internet-less place, see you all then. —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 07:59, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Tech News: 2013-51Edit

08:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:New textsEdit

Should books be placed in the area, Template:New texts, when they are not completed as proofread and/or validated? They often are transcluded, then placed in Template:New texts area and the Index area are just left (for a long time if ever) as unproofed and especially as not fully validated. —Maury (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2013 (UTC)

IMO, only after proofread and transcluded into main space. Validated is not required here.
On a related matter, I recall a proposal to split new texts on the main page to fiction and non-fiction. Whats up witn that? Moondyne (talk) 02:59, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
I have always believed that books should proofread and validated before being listed here. Okay, when should books be validated, in the here after? :0) —Maury (talk) 03:22, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
  • Proofread to the point that the index can be changed to proofread and fully transcluded those pages. The purpose of 'new texts' is to show content, and to encourage people to read or to contribute. It is not a demonstration of perfection. Re fiction v non-fiction, it must have been a light suggestion, not one that I remember. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:30, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Who broke EditTool?Edit

I did. -- George Orwell III (talk) 14:03, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

The old EditTool and the traditional character sets "loaded" under it still exist! To restore your previous state &/or configuration prior to the site-wide switch to the Character Insert gadget, all you need to do is go to your User preferences, navigate to your Gadgets tab, disable CharInsert in the edit-tools section at the top and enable EditTools in the last section (developmental-tools) at the bottom of your User preferences Gadgets page.

Please pick-up this discussion on the relevant talk page for the Character Insert gadget, MediaWiki talk:Gadget-charinsert.js. Improvements, suggestions welcome. Expertise in dealing with specific sets sorely needed as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)

Appropriately contextualEdit

Seasons greetings to all. If I seem always to be whining at unexpected software changes, I hope the following will somewhat alleviate such opinions:

Blessed are those who implemented the

legends on the Watchlist, Recent changes,
and View history pages. It's about time

I know what they all mean.

But then, old dogs are difficult to re-train, thus I must ask that someone activate the hiding/revealing of the list in 'View history' as well. Thanks again. — Ineuw talk 23:16, 25 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Histlegend. I just gave up on trying to figure out why I couldn't get that legend to collapse... the others are coded as part of the common skins -- at that led me to wonder why are there 2 separate routines just to collapse elements & tables and one discovery kept leading to another question to another realization so I sort of walked away from it (next year maybe?) -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:12, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Good enough for me. :-) — Ineuw talk 03:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Multiple navigationsEdit

Hi all,

I would like to start a discussion about how we handle pages with multiple "prev" and "next" values in the header.

A while back I created versions pages for several books of the bible, providing "prev" and "next" values for the various biblical canons:

Versions of Song of Songs include:

As you can see, it worked, but it didn't look great.

Now I have a similar problem with a story published in magazine instalments. The final instalment is the first article in an issue, so I have a "prev" for the story but not for the magazine, and a "next" for the magazine but not for the story. This is the best I can come up with:

Looks pretty awful, huh.

I have a vision of a header template where I can add as many navigation "ribbons" as I need, just above the notes. Something like:

Again, it looks yucky, but I think you get the point. And it would need to be in the footer as well. Does it have potential? i.e. can it be made to work and to look nice? What do you guys think? Hesperian 00:04, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

The Faux Title of Some Book

by E. F. Hutton

Vaandorn House, 1888.

Division B

◄  Title I (pages 7832-8033) Part II  ►
◄  Part II (pages 7762-7833) Chapter 1  ►
◄  Section 7 . Clause 9  ►
    78 FR 2112
I wish to clear myself of a possible charge of plagiarism. You smile. Ah! but you don't know. You don't realise how careful even a splendid fellow like myself has to be.

Sounds familar. The need to move (run) away from the current table based navigation header to an all-div based one would solve this and many other future "navigation issues" that are going to come up. It can still use tables but they should always be no more than a single row, again, wrapped within a single div. The divs stack up - or can be pulled out --like bricks in whatever configuration thats needed.

I think I [false] started on doing just that once or twice under Template:Header/dyn and the last attempt can be found at Template:Heeder. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:42, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

That looks jolly good. I do declare I may just find the motivation to explore this all-div rewrite notion of yours this holiday season. Hesperian 03:07, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
Please do & feel free to rip as needed. Two things to keep in mind - the first being the 'only single-row tables wrapped in a div' thing (trust me on that one) - and the second is to observe the border hidden/none/transparent scheme laid out in {{Heeder}}. Without it, you will find it difficult to add and remove "bricks" as needed and still have the final rendering look as clean as the above (Please note: font sizes, line-heights and padding was not the major concern at the time in the above so of course those settings still need to be tweaked to render in some sort of logical proportion to one another).

And (in theory) the same scheme would also allow for the ability to "collapse" bricks as well as smoothly hide or lock them (e.g. parameters in the new template could serve to hold/import/export microdata in a more metadata-like fashion than we currently have but render only the needed title, author, date, prev & next nav-like stuff like we do now). There is no reason something like Common's Book or Information template can't be completely mirrored here parameter-to-parameter and still only have the familiar portions display themselves.

Either way, the point I hope everybody takes away from this is that what we have now is going to be less and less dynamic as the delveloping wmf code becomes more and more intuitive. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:38, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Duh!... forgot one of the most important selling points on developing this further... it looks like a header should in mobile view. -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)

Idea for Wikisource - Partnership with Google Cultural Institute to create virtual museums for documents on WikisourceEdit

I've just received an idea for Wikisource from an Admin I know at wikia:Biblicalapedia by the name of User:Superdadsuper. He says 'Wikisource, perhaps can partner with Google (this might need input from the Wikimedia board) with the Google Cultural Institute to create virtual museums pertaining to documents on Wikisource. This can allow multiple museums to be created or even better Wikimedia with the help of donations or sponsors can start actual museums on various topics using information from Wikipedia, Wikisource, Commons and all the Wikimedia projects'. He would like to be involved as much as possible and can be contacted on his Message Wall at Biblicalapedia or This has also been posted on Billinghurst talk page on 20th November. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 00:54, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

I like the concept, but there are a lot blank spaces on actually making it work. Also there are potential pitfalls in joint project between Wikimedia and Google, you might want to run the idea past them, before going to much farther. A previous idea some of our better works on Amazon, Smashwords and/or other ebook sites did not get approval. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 11:54, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Possible partnership with German UniversitiesEdit

For some reason (I think) apparently Internet Archive does not maintain collections digitised from German Universities. So I think it is in the interest of both the Universities and Wikisource (and other Wikimedia Foundation entities) to partner with each other. Example a book I was looking for [Sambhu Chandra Mookerjee (1871). The Prince in India, and to India, by an Indian: A Description of His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh's Landing and Stay at Calcutta, and a Commentary on His Visit and Reception in India, and on His Farewell Address to India, Given in Extenso : with an Inquiry Into the Political Uses of Princes and Pageants, and the Nature and Contions of Loyalty, Particularly the Loyalty of India, Under Mogul and Briton, the Company and the Crown. Berighy. ] was digitised on 24 May 2013 (PDF 39Mb) by University of Heidelberg (Savifa Virtual Library South Asia) and is not available elsewhere on Internet. The institution also maintains a Partners list. This has also been posted on User talk:George Orwell III yesterday. Solomon7968 (talk) 12:17, 26 December 2013 (UTC)


Pease add your comments below: