Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2018-04

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in April 2018, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Other discussions

Categorical labeling of laws

I've noticed that much of Wikisource's legal content seems to be haphazardly categorized, with a number of categories that seem to overlap or duplicate other categories, and have little broad usage. There are only 24 pages tagged with Category:Law, 7 pages tagged with Category:Laws, 6 pages tagged with Category:Legal_Documents, 5 pages tagged with Category:Legal, and 1 page tagged with Category:Legislation. This suggests to me that they are either misused, and these pages should be recategorized in more specific ways, like Category:Copyright Law, or they are underused, and many other pages should be added to them. I haven't been able to find any guideline as to how these should be handled; is there any consensus already which I'm just not able to find? Qwertygiy (talk) 02:21, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

@Qwertygiy: A couple of things. Firstly, in our experience at enWS, categorisation for works is not overly effective, so we tend to be more likely actively curate collective pages, either on Author: or Portal: namespace pages. So your observations are not particularly surprising, and as law reproduction is often less sexy and often typographically more difficult, it is simply less featured in people's endeavours, so people tend to drop in and drop out of such work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:41, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-11

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• 3D models can now be uploaded to Commons. [1]
• Page Previews has been updated to use HTML for previews. This has fixed many issues. An A/B test was done on English and German Wikipedia to measure how it is used. Other changes were also made. [2]
• Some edits have to be checked against too many conditions before they can trigger an abuse filter. If that is the reason no filter is triggered the edit will be tagged for review. [3]
• Auto-saving has been added to the visual editor and the 2017 wikitext editor. Right now it is meant to help if your browser crashes or if you accidentally close a tab. [4]

Problems

• The abuse filter did not tag all edits that should have been tagged after last week's MediaWiki version had come to the wikis. It was fixed on 9 March (UTC). [5]

Changes later this week

• You can notify users in edit summaries. They will get a ping just as if they had been mentioned on a wiki page. This was originally planned to happen last week. [6]
• It is now possible to specify the block parameters for each filter in Special:AbuseFilter. The parameters include block duration and if the user should be blocked from editing their own talk page. The block duration is separate for anonymous and registered users. [7][8]
• A hundred Wikimedia wikis will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 13 and 14 March. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Tidy will be removed in the middle of 2018. [9][10][11]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 13 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 14 March. It will be on all wikis from 15 March (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 13 March at 19:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 14 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:44, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Page history stats links need revision — Template:Histlegend

Hi. I was just looking at the stats links we give on a history page, and truthfully they are well past prime

• Template:Histlegend
  • example

We probably should be looking at a tool like

• articleinfo
  • example

as a replacement for history, and I wonder whether of the usefulness of that complete list. Do others use the history links much? — billinghurst sDrewth

Tech News: 2018-12

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Problems

• On March 12 early morning UTC, the number of 503 error messages increased due to an issue on esams datacenter. It has been fixed. [12]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 20 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 21 March. It will be on all wikis from 22 March (calendar).

Meetings

• There is no Editing team meeting this week.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 21 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• From April 4, the autopatrol status of edits will only be accessible in the Recent Changes database table, so only for 30 days. [13][14]
• In-Context Help and Onboarding is a new project, aiming to improve retention of new wiki editors. The goal is to give them short tutorials and other training experiences based on their activity. Collaboration team is expecting feedback and comments on the project talk page, especially from people working with newcomers.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:03, 19 March 2018 (UTC)

@Trizek (WMF): Any reason why "Updates for this page [Special:WantedPages] are currently disabled." and "Data here [at Special:WantedPages] will not presently be refreshed." on various wikis? A cursory search of Phabricator didn't turn up any open issues on the subject. Mahir256 (talk) 23:46, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

It does get refreshed, just less often, last done 12 March 2018; presumably system intensive so just less often. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:09, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Nested footnotes

I think I’ve cracked the nested footnotes problem:

This is normal text.<ref name="outer" />{{#tag:ref|This is the outer footnote.<ref>This is the inner footnote.</ref>|follow="outer"}}

{{smallrefs}}

renders as:

This is normal text.^[1]

1. This is the outer footnote.^[2]
2. This is the inner footnote.

This method does not rely on making arbitrary new footnote groups, it displays the footnotes in the expected order, and it correctly numbers them. If there is no objection, I’d like to update the Help section with this method. χ_chi (talk) 21:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Question: Will this method (or the previous one, for that matter) work if one of the footnotes spans more than one page? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

It’s already been tested when the outer footnote spans two pages and the inner footnote is either on the first page or the second page only. I could test other scenarios. Are there sandboxes in the Page namespace? χ_chi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Also tested when both footnotes span two pages and when only the inner footnote spans two pages. χ_chi (talk) 11:37, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Comment: There are some cases where this new method would definitely be of great help (assuming no one finds technical problems), but most nested footnotes I've had to work with had two separate sets of footnotes in the text. So, it would be useful to rretain the other method, with footnotes in separate groups, for those sorts of situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Good point, the method using grouped footnotes can still be used in those cases. However, I remember reading that we do not have to faithfully reproduce the footnote style of any work. While it’s true that nested footnotes are often shown separately on individual pages of some works, I don’t see the advantage of grouping together all nested footnotes of a given work or chapter when transcluded in the Main space. In fact, I would prefer that all footnotes that come from a same page follow each other in the reflist. χ_chi (talk) 21:44, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it depends on the work. There are works I've edited where the entire work has two separate sets of footnotes throughout. I wouldn't want to combine those sequentially if the author went to the trouble to make a distinction between them. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s right, in those cases the footnotes should remain separate regardless of nestedness. Do you have an example I could have a look at? χ_chi (talk) 11:19, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:Romeo and Juliet (Dowden).djvu is an example where there are two sets of footnotes throughout the text of the play. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment missing a closing ref — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

No, the first ref is an empty tag. Notice the /> at the end of it. χ_chi (talk) 09:20, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-14

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Template Wizard script available for testing. It will show up as a puzzle-piece icon in the 2010 WikiEditor. You can click on the icon to insert a template.
• The Wikimedia Communities and Contributors survey is to be sent to participants around the world this week. If you are volunteer developer, and have contributed code to any pieces of MediaWiki, gadgets, or tools, please take 20 to 40 minutes to complete the survey.

Problems

• MediaWiki deployment train has been rolled back to version 1.31.0-wmf.26 on week 13, due to a multiplication of lost connections during MySQL queries. Some of the recent changes may have not been applied. They will be deployed next week. [15][16][17]
• The Notifications badge icons were overlapping other links. This has been fixed. [18]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 3 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 4 April. It will be on all wikis from 5 April (calendar).
• User subpages ending in .json will now be protected from other people editing them, like .js and .css pages already are. If you have a tool that stores static configuration, you can now use a subpage like User:Example/mygadget.json to do this without concerns. [19]
• Tidy will be replaced by RemexHtml on the next set of wikis. On April 4, we plan to turn off Tidy on all Wikiquotes (except frwikiquote) and Wikimedia chapters and user groups wikis. 23 wikis will have Tidy replaced this time. [20][21][22]
• AbuseFilter will transition to use OOUI starting April 4, and the rule editor will also be changed to a CodeEditor (ACE) similar to what is found on user JavaScript pages. The move to OOUI will continue over the next few weeks. [23] [24]
• In Special:Preferences, the preference "Reload the watchlist automatically whenever a filter is changed (JavaScript required)" is now only visible for users who have opt-out the New Filters for the Watchlist. [25]
• You can see names of individual abuse filters in Special:AbuseLog. Now if the name of an abuse filter contains some wikisyntax like links, it will not change to a link when displayed. [26]
• You can now search through filter patterns at Special:AbuseFilter. You may specify either a plain string or a regular expression and the matching filters will show a snippet of their pattern with the match highlighted. [27]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 3 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 4 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• If you're using, creating or improving Lua modules, you can give your feedback to help harmonizing the modules across wikis and add more useful functions.
• On April 11th, we plan to turn off Tidy on all wikis with less than 50 entries in all high priority linter categories. About 60 wikis will have Tidy replaced. Currently about 600 wikis have had Tidy replaced and we have another 300 wikis to go. We plan to finish this transition from Tidy to RemexHtml by end of June 2018. Please follow T175706 to monitor progress of Tidy replacement. [28][29]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:28, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

Anniversary works

November will mark the anniversary of en-Wikisource. A proposal has been made to feature one or more works in celebration (see WS:FTC#Kipling's If— for more). --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Collected Physical Papers

I would like to have this work featured in Nov, to coincide with the author's birth-cum-death month, along with other works (by others) to celebrate WS anniv (this multi-featuring has come up in FTC for discussion, but not yet decided). This contains most of the important papers by this scientist, including those pertaining to the invention of the radio and the papers on plant research. Is anybody interested or can manage some time (Nov is still far away) for going through and validating this science work? This is an important work, considered a classic, and would be very good as FT. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 03:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Frankenstein is 200 years old this year

On a similar note to Hrishikes', I see that Mary Shelley's Frankenstein turns 200 this year. We have a version that is not scan-supported, and maybe as a community we should be looking to get another version in place. It would be something useful to flag-wave for the site. I also wondering whether it is something that we could flag to sister Wikisources to see if we could collectively get multiple language versions available. That could make the WSes go from flag-wave to Mexican wave. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:56, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Our version is of 1831 vintage; scan is here: https://archive.org/details/ghostseer01schiuoft. Better option would be the original 3-vol version of 1818, if it can be found. Hrishikes (talk) 05:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst, @Hrishikes: You are in luck! Mahir256 (talk) 06:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

@Mahir256: Thanks. Also here. I'll try to add the vols. These have significant difference from 1831 and later versions (see here). Hrishikes (talk) 06:49, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems we can and should do both the 1818 version and the 1831 version, especially as the second is more well known.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Multiples? That would be a treat! Building a corpus is useful, especially where any translations can be tied back to a particular version. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I also think if we can get some contemporaneous secondary material like reviews, criticism, condemnation of the ungodly eeeviillls, etc., it would play to Wikisource's strengths as more than a simple host of book-like works (that's what PG is for). If we had enough, there could even be a Frankenstein portal? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:12, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For various versions, English and foreign, see here. This is for any cross-wiki event. Hrishikes (talk) 01:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's a 1912 German version, but I can't find anything about the translator Heinz Widtmann for German copyright law.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:22, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k1143204/ Here's the 1821 French translation. -Einstein95 (talk) 11:54, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Internet Archive has some additional PD works by and about Mary Shelley. And I suppose, if we wanted to, some sort of collaboration could be extended to include Polidori's vampire book and Byron's fragment and anything else relating to the night of telling horror stories that inspired Frankenstein. John Carter (talk) 15:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Scan, transcription, and translation source for historical Japanese texts

w:en:Japanese Historical Text Initiative. For example, http://archive.wul.waseda.ac.jp/kosho/wa03/wa03_01594/wa03_01594_0001/wa03_01594_0001.html and https://jhti.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/jhti/brows.cgi?page=&line=&hon=&moji=&sbpage=1&kazu=3&key1=&key2=&taisho=&honname=3&chk=&CHKYES=&sel=0&brows=a could be combined to make a scan-supported Engishiki entry. Arlo Barnes (talk) 09:39, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

According to the Search Texts page, the translator for Engi Shiki is Felicia Gressitt Bock, who appears to have translated it in 1972 and published it in Japan. This makes it well-within copyright coverage, as Japan is life+50. Also, according to the Engi Shiki "Editions and Copyright Information" page:

Permission to publish this translation electronically was granted by the translator, Dr. Felicia Bock, to JHTI in 2001.

-Einstein95 (talk) 11:44, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Page and OCR do not sync

The OCR and page images do not match. I was told that I might find help here.

Index:Birdcraft-1897.djvu --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:39, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Dictionary of Christian Biography and Literature

This is a weird one. The edition we have here says it is basically a selection of the longer articles, apparently verbatim, from an earlier edition of the same book. The first edition would thus apparently contain those articles included in the second edition, again, apparently verbatim, as well as additional shorter articles. How to proceed? John Carter (talk) 22:37, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Why is this unusual? Treat it like any other work, proofreading the scan and so forth. If you want to add an earlier edition, go for it, and we can help you create a {{versions}} page to list the various editions. If you have more specific concerns about this work, I will be able to answer your concerns directly, and I'll do my best to help out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:20, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We work on editions as published. If they iterate the data in a subsequent edition or previous edition, and you would prefer to work on another edition, that is completely a choice you have. We disambiguate based on head of the work, so it may mean moving pages, and letting us know would be useful as it isn't a usual disambiguation. To note that some of the EB1911 articles are based on, or close to verbatim EB9 <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 06:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-15

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• Some pages have templates that describe problems with that article. There is now more information for mobile readers and what is wrong with the article and how they could help fix it. [30]
• You can now thank users for many more actions than edits to a page. This was one of the top ten requests in the Wishlist Survey last year. [31]
• The sort order of categories will have errors for a short time starting Monday 9 April (UTC). We are upgrading versions of an internationalisation library (ICU) and using a script to update the database. This will take between a few hours and a few days depending on wiki size. You can read more details. [32]
• Tag filter titles will now work better on wikis where the tag filter title is in a language that is written in another direction than the language of that wiki. This could for example be an English title (written from left to right) on a Hebrew or an Arabic wiki (written from right to left). [33]

Problems

• The bookmark icon for saved filters on the recent changes page disappeared because of new icon changes. This has now been fixed. [34]
• For a week in March rollbacks got both the rollback and the undo tag on the recent changes page and other pages where you see tags. This has now been fixed. [35]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 10 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 11 April. It will be on all wikis from 12 April (calendar).
• Patrolled edits now have three states instead of two. Recent changes filters are updated to show unpatrolled, autopatrolled and manually patrolled edits. [36]

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 10 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 11 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The iOS and Android apps will get synced reading lists later in April.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:08, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Administrators removed from Bibliowiki

wikilivres:Bibliowiki:Community_Portal/en#Admin.2FBureaucrat_Requirements.2F_Hosting_Expenses_--_RESOLVED has removed so many administrators there including myself, for no financial contribution. Regardless of how strict we enforce URAA, I am no longer able to move works to Bibliowiki, so from now on would someone else do it, please?--Jusjih (talk) 22:34, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Done as much as you need. Just {{ping}} me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I have two pings at WS:CV now.--Jusjih (talk) 04:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@Jusjih: Odd. I never saw these. I will move them tonite. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:49, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Mass reverts of {{Engine}}

User:EncycloPetey is removing {{Engine}} from several long works where I have added it and told me to post here for some reason. So what does everybody think--are longer works (e.g. The Subjection of Women or The Problems of Philosophy) enhanced by its presence or should they be removed? Should we have the ability to search works at all? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:03, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Koavf has had the use of this template explained multiple times: (1) Wikisource does NOT need every work tagged with {{engine}}, and (2) Featured Texts should not be altered like this either. I'm tired of explaining it over and over, and to have what amounts to vandalistic tagging continue without understanding. He tags everything of any length, including disambiguation pages. It's ridiculous. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:08, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: And why are you removing it from non-featured works? Which works should have it? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:10, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please refer to the discussions where this was explained to you before. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you mean Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-01#Search_template_question? I don't know what else you are referencing but there is no rubric there for when a work is disallowed from having local search. You asked me to not add it to other featured texts or candidates so I stopped adding it. Now you are just indiscriminately removing it and harassing me on my talk. Can someone else please give feedback on the actual question at hand: under what conditions should a work have {{engine}} added? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:20, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You admit above were asked "not add it to other featured texts or candidates", yet when I removed it from those candidates, you undid my edits to put them back on the Featured text candidates: 1 2 So, although your statement above is technically true, it comes across as untrue. And as I said before, you have added the search function to disambiguation pages, as well as incomplete works with no content, as well as multiple Featured texts after the fact. In short, you tag works indiscriminately. No, Wikisource doesn't have a "rubric" because we're not Wikipedia and don't mire ourselves in that kind of endless procedural debate, but your tagging indiscriminately goes against any sort of common sense. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

My "common sense" is that long works could benefit from search. Again: which works should have internal search? Since you seem to not like any rule or policy about this, I guess it's just whatever you feel like should have it? Please give me some rationale for why certain works shouldn't be searchable. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:04, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

(A) You can look at which works use the Template. (B) Two people already responded to this question some time ago. Your request to insert the engine on a Featured text was denied with full explanation. Why you persist in turning this issue into drama, I do not know. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:11, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

You asked me to post here. There is no documentation for the template indicating where it should or shouldn't be used, so I am asking for feedback. Be civil, please. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:23, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I asked you to post here about use of the template. You opened the discussion by saying I had "from several long works where I have added it", which shows that you were aware of the previous discussion about use of the template, despite feigning ignorance. The way you opened the discussion was provocative, making out that I had committed some offence, when I has acted according to responses you were already aware of. Asking me to "be civil" when you undo admin edits, tell me to go away after pinging me over and over with questions and don't get the responses you like, and create drama by opening a thread with accusations is disingenuous. You already had feedback you didn't like, so you pretended to forget it. Civility works both ways, and invoking it after being rude yourself is hypocritical. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:33, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Okay, thanks for all that. Now, can someone else please give feedback on the question: when do you think that {{engine}} should be applied to works? I basically think that any long work (I have no explicit page count or kilobytes in mind) should have it because it's very helpful to readers. Does anyone else have a perspective to add here? Does anyone know of community discussion on when and how {{engine}} should be used? Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

 Comment Two previous responses to this question are here.

And for clarity, Koavf thinks A Christmas Carol is a "long" work, as well as Jekyyl and Hyde. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:48, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Please stop--you are just being harassing. I am asking for community feedback which is what you wanted in the first place. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:50, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

No, you came here to accuse me; witness for example the title and start of this thread. You began this series of events when you popped in after a prolonged absence to undo my edits, then ping me repeatedly, then tell me to go away when I answered your pings, then began posting complaints. All over edits which had been justified fully to you, and despite having been previously blocked for reverting my admin edits. Don't act surprised when you knew all this beforehand. In any case, I am part of the community and the only admin online for the past several hours. If you want community feedback, you're going to get community feedback on the issues you've raised. You cannot ask members to stop giving feedback that you have specifically asked for. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:00, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @Koavf: (edit conflict to the max) Since you're arguing about non-existent criteria for a misused template: here's my proposal for some:

"This template may be added to the header of the top-level page of any collective work of more than one physical volume (be it a periodical, a newspaper, an encyclopedia, a society transaction, or something else), as well as the header of the top-level page of a dictionary or the header of the top-level page of a series of government documents. It should not be added to lower-level pages of any of those types of aforementioned works (even if those may be divided into multiple physical components), nor to any work, not among the types of works for which this template's inclusion is permissible, whose division into physical volumes may be construed as being purely arbitrary. For example, The Atlantic Monthly, The New York Times, The New Student's Reference Work, and Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, along with Dictionary of the Foochow Dialect and United States Statutes at Large, are valid pages in which to include {{engine}}, while The Dial/Volume 15 and Daniel Deronda are not considered valid pages in which to include this."

Strengthen or weaken this how you will. Mahir256 (talk) 04:51, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Personally I think the search box adds value to works such as dictionaries, newspaper articles, encyclopaedias and such collective works where multiple subjects are treated of and a search would help you find what you're looking for. There's no point in using it in novels, treatises etc. where the book is actually meant to be read in a certain order or flow. I think it looks a little cheesy in these works and doesn't suit them at all and would have little to no use. Jpez (talk) 05:53, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

• (my opinion) there should be clear value in adding "engine" template, and for the two identified works I don't see that clear value. I see that one even has a linked index. Jpez's commentary seems to predominantly cover the cases where it adds clear value, though there will be natural variations. We have long held to keeping the header minimalistic, and allowing the user to get straight into the work. In the cited examples I would be comfortable wirh the addition of edition=yes and the addition of template:engine to the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreeing with the above - {{Engine}} is useful in encyclopedias, dictionaries, magazines, and other works that are designed to be searched and read in sections rather than read from cover to cover. In novels and short works it's kind of pointless, and in disambig pages it doesn't even make sense. I'd also suggest that in absence of clear consensus, these questions be handled on a per-work basis, reverting neither the template's addition nor its removal without a discussion on the work's talk page. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:06, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

I disagree with a "per work" discussion in this instence. If the general question had already been proposed (it had) and answered by two different editors (it had) who were also admins (they were) who came to a consensus conclusion (they did), with no other responses from the community for more than a month, then starting multiple new and identical discussions on more than a dozen tagged talk pages of short stories, incomplete works, disambiguation pages, etc. which had all been tagged with the template in a mass tagging effort is simply a wasted effort and needless distraction. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

All that nonsense and personal sniping aside, it seems like there is consensus that {{Engine}} should be used for multi-volume works (an encyclopedia, the print run of a magazine, a large omnibus like The Complete Works of [x], etc.) Correct? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Over 6,000 public domain childrens' books

http://ufdc.ufl.edu/baldwin/all/thumbs If someone has the time and effort to comb thru them, there is a lot we can add. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

see also Wikisource:Scriptorium#Huge_collection_of_historical_children's_books_from_UFL above. the ones with articles would be a good starting point w:List_of_children's_classic_books. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 21:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, this is totally redundant. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The place to add this data is Wikisource:Sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

United States District Court of Southern New York Documents in Public Domain?

Hello, I have a PDF which I downloaded from a government website a while ago. Can I upload it to Wikisource? The court is "United States District Court of Southern New York" the document is dated Oct 24, 2003. Thank you. Michael Ten (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If it is a court document, then the file should be loaded to Commons with their tag of {{PD-USGov}} — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, if they are work product of u.s. government employee. see some examples here Portal:Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States (and if you have a few, you could create a portal as well) Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Small-size scan when creating a new page

Hi everyone,

I have a problem when I'm creating a new page in the Page: namespace. The scan is displayed as a really small picture. When I refresh the page, the scan goes back to normal size. Any clues about how I can correct that ?

[37]

Assassas77 (talk) 12:21, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Assassas77: ↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑↑ #Page images errors — billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

New edit interface

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T192220

A few days ago the interface for (source) edits was updated, apparently. Some signs in the toolbar are changed. But also the little grey lines around the edit sections (header, page body, and footer) have disappeared, which is really nasty. When loading the page the lines can be seen in a very short flash. But after that they disappear, and I can't get them back. Am I the only editor around here who does not like this? --Dick Bos (talk) 13:44, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

My lines/boundaries are obscured between header/page body/footer now as well. It does throw me off some. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:30, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It makes it nearly impossible to tell which section of the page is being edited. There have been several editing interface problems introduced in recent weeks. Should we compile a list of them, get signatures and present them to Mediawiki, with a statement that these constant changes to wikisource without notification of, testing on, or prior input from the affected project(s) is unacceptable? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:04, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree this problem is annoying—I'm also having it—but IMO the OOUIfication of the edit window isn't a problem once you get used to the change, and the fact that Dick Bos sees the lines appearing then disappearing again suggests a regression rather than a deliberate choice. I'll see about creating a Phab ticket. BethNaught (talk) 22:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Keeping us informed and even involving the WS community in the process before changes are made is also desired so that we can be prepared to make the necessary changes with images/information on our help pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

These (little) changes are indeed really nasty in the normal process of editing. Good ideas of @EncycloPetey and @Londonjackbooks! And thanks to @BethNaught for making a "Phab ticket" for this. So first of all: make a list of these little problems, somewhere, and then present this list to Wikimedia, and next keep our list updated with information about what is (not) going on ..... I will be happy to help, but I'm a typical (non-English) "end-user", so don't expect too much from me, when it concerns these "technical" things. --Dick Bos (talk) 08:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

this is a perpetual problem, where the coders do not do UX, are wikipedia focused, and underestimate just how disruptive "cosmetic" changes are. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 13:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment Are people only seeing this difference in the Page: ns? [Noting that I am not even sure of the issue that you describe, so a bit unable to assist]. If it is, then it could be a Proofread Page issue, and related to the fix that Tpt did for the page order load. Presuming that Tpt's fix will come out next week. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

  And I see that Tpt has added a comment to that effect since I last checked. So, it is nothing related to WP developers, it is only our local developers. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

You're right. Sorry. I forgot to mention that. The problem here described is in the Page namespace, indeed. --Dick Bos (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

and the new interface does not extend down the "page body" field, requiring more scrolling up and down to proofread. a refresh of the "scroll within scroll" would be nice. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:23, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-16

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• Profiling statistics for an abuse filter tell how often edits match the filter. The statistics for the abuse filters were reset after 10000 actions. Wikis can now decide to reset it more or less often. They can file a phabricator task to do so. [38]
• Abuse filters will now treat integers and floats more precisely. For example, 5/2 was rounded down to 2 but will now be 2.5 and 2*4 will be the integer 8 and not the floating-point number 8.0. Division values are the only ones changed. For the rest only strict comparisons (=== and !==) will be affected leaving the values unchanged. [39][40]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 17 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 18 April. It will be on all wikis from 19 April (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 17 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 18 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The new PDF renderer could not create PDFs from books. Books are in this case collections of pages on a Wikimedia wiki. PediaPress will take over development of the books-to-PDF function. [41]
• Pywikibot will no longer support Python 2.7.2 and 2.7.3. [42]
• Volunteer developers can fill out the Wikimedia Communities and Contributors survey. The last day is April 22 (UTC). This is a third-party service survey. See the privacy statement.

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

15:20, 16 April 2018 (UTC)

Page: ns fixes above

The display fixes noted above are noted to be deployed with the .30 rollout. This is scheduled for about 2018-04-18 circa 2000, and you should see its rollout noted at toollabs:sal/production search for "1.31.0-wmf.30" and it will also display here in Special:Version — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

New Proofread buttons icons

Hi everybody! When you activate the option "Enable the editing toolbar" of your preferences, then in edit mode of pages, some proofread icons are different than those stated at Help:Page scans (that is, the "old" buttons , and so on). I've been searching on Commons, Phabricator and Gerrit which are the files for those icons but I've been unsuccessful. I want to update the help page in some Wikisources, and link the new icons, so I can tell to newbies which buttons they have to click on. But the help page doesn't show the new buttons. Does anybody know which are the files? Also, now is different (whatever the preferences you have activated). Any help will be welcome! Thanks! -Aleator (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and also the files shown at Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-editing, that is, MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-showheaders-label and MediaWiki:Proofreadpage-preferences-horizontal-layout-label perhaps becomes confusing to some users.-Aleator (talk) 16:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

You may need to ask at Meta. As far as I know, the English Wikisource wasn't consulted on these changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

At least hovering over icons gives some direction. Page status icons do resemble easter eggs now. Is it permissible to take screenshots of icons and upload to Commons? The aforementioned page status buttons image was uploaded that way by User:Dominic. Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:19, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

yes, please take a snip, with those fancy tl;dr templates. it will be nice for demonstrating that we noticed the change, even if unconsulted. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge

Tomorrow, if there are no objections. What are tl & dr? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

sorry for the editorial comment, the template [43] is so "too long and did not read" that i thought it appropriate when reusing WMF content. why we would need a special template, i do not know, but since it is there…. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 11:06, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm partly to blame, I think, or at least I knew about what was going on (a bit). I started working on the OOUI version of the radio buttons (just out of interest really, and because "everything" is supposed to be converted to OOUI eventually), but never finished it, and recently Esanders submitted a patch to do the same, and it was accepted. There's some more discussion about this at phab:T164753. Sam Wilson 04:12, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment @Aleator: the old are easy as they are a straight read from https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/plugins/gitiles/mediawiki/extensions/ProofreadPage/+/master/modules/page/ext.proofreadpage.page.edit.js the newer are referenced there though it seems that they are OOUI derived, so it sounds like they come from a library so it may be a little searching unless samwilson can give us a shortcut. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

@Aleator: Have updated/added buttons to Commons and updated Help:Page scans page only:

previous page

next page

the Index for the page

show/hide the interface for editing the header and footer

vertical/horizontal layout

zoom out on scan

zoom in on scan

reset zoom

Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:18, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you all :) -Aleator (talk) 16:00, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Can someone perhaps update this image (upload a new version of the file at Commons, also updating file info as necessary) to reflect the new buttons? Pretty much any unproofread page (with discretion) in edit mode should do. Preferably with settings a new editor would encounter... My background has color to make it easier on my eyes, and I also have a customized edit bar... or I would update myself. Thanks if you can. The image is used on about 3 WS pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:16, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RE: my post above: If no one else is able to update as requested, I can create another account myself for just such a purpose. Unless there is an objection to my doing so. That way, when any new changes occur, I can make updates to reflect how a new editor would view pages/images. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:11, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Update: I was able to log in to my old (original) user account to take screenshots, and have updated the images on the following help pages:

• Help:Page scans
• Help:Beginner's guide to proofreading
• Help:Proofread
• Help:Editing
• Help:Beginner's guide to validation
• Help:Page status

If anyone finds more images in need up updating, please let me know. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:58, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Schindlerjuden

The article at w:Schindlerjuden currently contains a list of everyone on "Schindler's List" of Jews saved during World War II. This seems to be more appropriate content for Wikisource than for Wikipedia. I'm not sure how/where such a list would be added here, nor even whether it would be on this site or a German-language Wikisource. Power~enwiki (talk) 21:49, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

WS:WWI is your guide here, and we wouldn't collect a compiled list solely due to the fact that it is a compiled list. We reproduce historical documents or published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

The compiled list on enwiki is apparently based on two specific historical documents from 1945 currently located at Yad Vashem; I'm unsure if reproductions of the originals are available online. Power~enwiki (talk) 22:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

more appropriate for wikidata. talked about this at holocaust museum, they do not have a copy of the original document to transcribe, rather they have compiled lists online https://www.ushmm.org/online/hsv/source_view.php?SourceId=20610 --Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:31, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

If you could find a copy of the original list to reproduce, it would be in scope at German Wikisource. I could only find about half the pages scanned however. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:55, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Jessewaugh (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Pulchrism: Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art

Over at Wikipedia the page for the author of this self-published text has been deleted three times:

• Jesse Waugh first nomination at AfD, and also
• Jesse Waugh second AfD, and
• Jesse R Waugh. At this point Jesse Waugh, Jesse R. Waugh and Jesse Waugh (artist) are all salted so that only admins can create them. This Wikisource page is for the self-published text on the "pulchrist manifesto" that is frequently added and then deleted to Wikipedia: art manifestos. And deleted from the page again. This material is the product of a vanity campaign-- does it belong here? There is no peer reviewing whatsoever on it, and the press is run by the author.104.163.158.37 03:21, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It also carries a fairly clear copyright notice: "© Jesse Waugh, © Carpophage Press, All rights reserved. This book or any portion thereof may not be reproduced or used in any manner whatsoever without the express written permission of the publisher except for the use of brief quotations in a book review."104.163.158.37 03:23, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Permission was granted via OTRS (ticket #2016082510004762), see File:Pulchrism - Championing Beauty as the Purpose of Art.pdf. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:59, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Additionally, from https://www.jessewaugh.com/catalogues/:

PULCHRISM: Championing Beauty as The Purpose of Art is licensed as Creative Commons category CC-BY. See it here on Wikisource.

with the last sentence being a link to the Wikisource page in question. CC-BY is the license used by Wikisource, so I don't see an issue here from a copyright perspective. Whether it should be removed due to the possibility of it being self-published is another question. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:01, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

WS:PD is the place to address this if someone wishes to pursue. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

104.163.158.37, why are you trying to remove all references to this person across Wikimedia projects? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:55, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Conversation doesn't belong here. If the user wishes to pursue it, then they can explain it at that conversation at the identified place. Please don't prolong the conversation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

i find the conversation just fine here. we have anonymous editors here inserting english drama across all wikis. the amount of vindictiveness you will tolerate is a policy question, not confined to any specific case. and editors here should be aware there are anonymous sea-lions seeking to induce you to act on their behalf. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 17:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

To answer Justin above (I'm the same IP, router reset), I asked about this item as Waugh is just engaging in personal promotion. On Wikipedia it was unjustified, and the pages got deleted. There is also major sockpuppeting, at the AfDs and even now, when three IPs were just blocked while discussing pulchrism at wiktionary. So there is major promotionalism going on with "Waugh products". The Wikisource Pulchrism text is a self-published item that has no notability or purpose outside of the author's vanity, so I think it's reasonable to ask why it is here. Also, Justin, you're a very respectable editor so I do not get why you uploaded them in the first place, along well as the 13 artist images by Waugh at Commons. Waugh and his work has no notability or pubic following-- what is the point of promoting it here? I guess my answer to your quesiton is that I respect the wiki projects, and wonder why this crap is here?104.163.145.232 01:59, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Deletion discussion opened.104.163.145.232 02:29, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

the vindictiveness across multiple platforms and many years is immoral. you seem to have a lot of knowledge of wikicode and forums; care to declare your user name? Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 10:55, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

You have that backwards. Making an effort to delete non-notable, vanity, self-published and promotional material from wiki projects is constructive work that helps to maintain overall project quality. The "immoral" act here, if you must have one, is uploading such material across wiki projects simply to gratify one's ego, and then sockupppeting and meatpuppeting (not here on wikisource (yet)) during deletion discussions to keep the ineligible material here. (Router reset, I'm 104.163.145.232, the the nominating IP.) 198.58.173.226 03:50, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

mandiberg you’re the one sock puppeting with anonymous accounts and everybody knows it. You’ve also summoned your coven of feminazis to take me down because of my gender and race (white male - the last bastion of the dreaded “patriarchy”), and canvassed numerous individuals to contribute to your deletionist rampage to unperson me from Wikimedia. You’ve sure got it in for me - I wonder why? This is so obviously politically motivated. But it’s also a personal vendetta because something about my art and message - which you universally slate - irks you. But you apparently lack the introspective capacity to figure out why. In your ignorance you convince yourself my art is kitsch, but something bugs you about it. What is that something mandiberg? You’re nothing but a fascist totalitarian - the very monster you claim to be fighting. You’ve also ousted real, actual, authentic feminists from Wikipedia in your bizarre (or not so bizarre, as you behave like an intelligence operative) quest to establish yourself as the leftist tzar of feminism on Wikimedia. No doubt you will get this response struck out as a personal attack, but I won’t be the only one to see the irony in this, as you have orchestrated what obviously amounts to a monumental personal attack on me with your sickeningly hateful erasure of me across all Wikimedia. You may think you have power over Wikimedia deletion debates because of your chutzpah, but your conflict of interest - as an “artist” (taken with a grain of salt) deleting information about other artists who don’t fit your gender and racial prerequisites - will eventually cause others more powerful than you to take note of your cyberterrorist tactics. Jessewaugh (talk) 08:30, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I'm just applying Wikimedia policies. Sorry if that interferes with your career. Have a nice day.198.58.173.226 09:31, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

PS: I'm not Michael Mandiberg, although I do respect what he does. 198.58.173.226 09:36, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Mob witch hunts are Wikimedia policy? Everyone knows you're mandiberg. Burning books is not art - it's destruction. Jessewaugh (talk) 11:04, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

I am sorry that Wikimedia is not working out as a promotional vehicle for your personal ideas. However, you should not be attacking real people by the their names as you do above. There's really no point.198.58.173.226 11:58, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

At least I have the balls to use my real name. You're the one trying to monopolize Wikimedia as a vehicle for your personal ideas -- you literally print it up into a set of volumes (like a retrograde Britannica) in a sorry attempt to possess it as your own "art". Whatever your motives may be, the result of your work actually furthers the demise of Wikipedia. You're so hellbent on demonstrating your supposed Wiki-eliteness that you can't see that your actions are counterproductive. Either that or you have nefarious political intentions. How do you not see your own vindictive megalomania? I was just happy to have a Wikipedia article about me until you laid your hideous psychopathic eyes on it and set out to destroy it. You're constantly accusing me of self-promotion, mandiberg - but you don't practice what you preach - as you engage in much more self-promotion than I do. Maybe instead of trying to hijack Wikipedia as some sort of fifth-rate performance art piece, you might just do something constructive -- like CREATING something of value maybe?? -- instead of burning books (literally for your art, and figuratively with your deletionism), and deleting artists who actually *try* to create value - like me. That's why I advocate Beauty in art, and try to create beautiful art -- because I want to be positive and helpful and creative - not a destroyer like you. I don't claim to succeed at doing so - that would make me guilty of what you accused me: egotism. My practice is not an attempt at some sort of egotistical self-aggrandizement as you suggest - I try to create beautiful art simply because I want to make the world a better place, and who will promote it if I don't? - evidently not you. If you're as idealist as you make yourself out to be, then perhaps you might put a little faith in me and stop doing everything you can in order to destroy my credibility. You say in your videos that by editing Wikipedia you're writing history. We'll see on which side of history you fall - on the side of the creators or on the side of the destroyers. Jessewaugh (talk) 12:47, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

• Poor little guy.198.58.173.226 15:13, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Shaming language doesn’t work any more - but you wouldn’t know that considering the company you keep. Jessewaugh (talk) 15:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

As an administrator, this thread needs to die. Now. Any relevant discussion on the book can go to Wikisource:Proposed deletions, and personal attacks and political arguments need to cease; this is not the website for them.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:15, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

 Support Please take your Wikipedia approach back there. At enWS whilst we may disagree about subjects and have the occasional blow-up, we do try to be respectful. Present your case objectively, then shut up. Getting personal is not the way. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:04, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

IRS about Wikisource

Hello. The Russian WP-article about Wikisource has been nominated for deletion. Can someone please suggest some independent reliable sources (in English) about WS? there's nothing in Russian… Thanks in advance. Ratte (talk) 21:05, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ratte: You might try visiting the English Wikipedia Wikisource article for sources? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for quick reply. As I can see, there's no any independent reliable sources, mainly Wikimedia projects. [44] — there's no «significant coverage». Ratte (talk) 22:21, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ratte: Perhaps one I came across: 1) Washington Post article briefly mentioning Wikisource: "National Archives hires first 'Wikipedian'" by Lisa Rein (June 2, 2011). States, "Another project is related to Wikisource. This is a sister project to Wikipedia. It deals with primary source material. They transcribe pages and scans of documents." I'll keep looking. References are not my area of expertise :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:23, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

2) Mention in a book: No specimen left behind: mass digitization of natural history collections by Vincent Smith (2012) (p. 239 &c.)

3) Don't know if this one counts: Wikisource and the Scholarly Book Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:52, 21 April 2018 (UTC)

On a related note: This book Doug & Wahwee (2012) on books.google cites Wikisource for the Treaty of Versailles. This is an example of the project being cited (used), rather than a mention. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Thank you very much!! Ratte (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

@Ratte: Also note EncycloPetey's response above. For some reason, their comment was removed with a bot edit to the page, and I have placed it back. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

here is some BBC about anne frank [45], and "how wiki works" book ref [46], wikimedia blog has coverage of odia wikisource [47] [48] (i leave the other blog post by our esteemed colleague to the student). cheers Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 20:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-17

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• All Wikipedias now have Page Previews.
• The iOS and Android apps now have synced reading lists. This means you can save articles to a private list that can be seen on your other devices if you use the apps.
• The icons in the 2010 wikitext editor have changed. [49]
• The visual editor and the 2017 wikitext ask you to write an edit summary after you press Publish. This button now also shows an ellipsis. This is to show that pressing Publish is not the last step. [50]

Changes later this week

• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 24 April. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 25 April. It will be on all wikis from 26 April (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 24 April at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 25 April at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• <mapframe> will come to most Wikipedias in May. This means that you can put interactive maps in the articles. Nine Wikipedias that use a strict version of flagged revisions will not get this feature in May. [51]
• The rollback function could change. This was a German community request. All editors with rollback rights can leave feedback on the proposed solution. The last day to leave feedback is 4 May (UTC).

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:16, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Dracula, Frankenstein.. Next?

Which of the Horror genre canon do we not have as scan backed versions?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

We still don't have a scan-backed copy of Carmilla by Joseph Sheridan Le Fanu. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 22 April 2018 (UTC)

Added Index:In a Glass Darkly - v3.djvu (Carmilla starts on DJVU p.57. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:48, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Might be worth adding the other volumes as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Done: 1, 2. -Einstein95 (talk) 14:09, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Also, no scan-backed copy of The Invisible Man by H. G. Wells. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:50, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:The Invisible Man - A Grotesque Romance.djvu Just got started on this. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:15, 23 April 2018 (UTC)

Finished. -Einstein95 (talk) 13:30, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Don't forget that Portal:Horror is a good place to find works that might need scans, and to list newly added works! —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

On pagination

https://theoutline.com/post/4257/what-of-the-lowly-page-number —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:29, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

great article. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:16, 24 April 2018 (UTC)

i see the last update changed the page number layout, and we now have "page links within text". Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 21:31, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Firstly, check your page "display options" in the sidebar to ensure that you have the right options in place.

I was fiddling with page numbering yesterday (for about half an hour) to see if there was a simple fix for the Translation: ns issue; so it is possible that had an impact, though it shouldn't — purge cache and recheck. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Citethispage-content

Hi there is a conversation started at MediaWiki talk:Citethispage-content about the text for citation link. It is an area where we are not the best and have a bit of set and forget. All welcome to join the conversation. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:10, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Books on books

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/books-about-libraries-history —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-18

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• The parameter for unpatrolled edits in recent changes filters changed name. You might need to update saved filters and links. [52]

Problems

• We are migrating wikis from Tidy to Remex. Because of a bug the 250 wikis which do not yet use Remex were switched on 23 April. This is two months early. This meant that pages with broken wikitext showed wrongly to readers. The bug was undone the next day. You can help fix broken wikitext to avoid this problem when your wiki switches. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. You can follow the process on Phabricator. [53]

Changes later this week

• You will be able use CodeMirror in the 2017 wikitext editor on all wikis. CodeMirror helps with syntax highlighting. It has previously been a beta feature and only available on wikis with scripts that are written from left to right. [54]
• When an administrator blocks someone they will have a calendar they can use to choose when the block ends. This is to make it easier to pick a specific date. [55]
• You can soon turn on the Performance Inspector in the Editing section in your preferences. It shows information about the performance of pages. This could be the size of modules in the page, how many CSS selectors are defined on the page and how many are used, or the size of the images on the page. This tool is intended to help editors fix pages that load slowly. [56]
• There is a new abuse filter function called equals_to_any. You can use it to check if its first argument is equal (===) to any of the following ones. For example you can use it to check if the page's namespace is amongst a given set of values in a more compact way than you could earlier. You can read more on mediawiki.org.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 May. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 May. It will be on all wikis from 3 May (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs you think are the most important. The meeting will be on 1 May at 18:30 (UTC). See how to join.
• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 2 May at 15:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• The Wikimedia Cloud Services team is working on a new project called Toolhub. The goal is to make it easier for Wikimedians to discover software tools they can use. You can leave feedback on the talk page or email jharewikimedia.org to leave private feedback.
• All wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in all namespaces will switch to use the Remex parsing library. This is to replace Tidy. It will happen on 2 May. Other wikis will be recommended to switch soon when they have fixed the errors that must be fixed. Wikibooks wikis with fewer than 100 high-priority linter errors in the main namespace will switch on 9 May. Tidy will be removed on all wikis before July 2018. [57][58][59]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Index:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2

Hi,

I'd like to attempt to complete the outstanding sequence of table pages in Index:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu

I have attempted the first three pages of the table starting at page 8 (188) and I would now like to be able to see how they are rolling into each other over the page breaks and check for issues, however I am not sure how to make them visible as a whole. I think part 2 may need to be transculded to allow this view?

Would someone have time to take a look and make the changes required?

I'd also appreciate if anyone could check out my initial attempt at creating the table and offer any improvements?

I'm trying to learn tables from what info I can find in the help pages, but I'm not sure if I've grasped the concepts fully.

Thanks, Sp1nd01 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

@Sp1nd01: If you transclude pages such as Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu/8 and Page:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu/9 into another page, you can see how they look together. So you could start (e.g.) User:Sp1nd01/Sandbox and input (e.g.) <pages index="The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu" from=8 to=XX/>, replacing "XX" with the final page you wish to transclude. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:55, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Justin, I've created the Sandbox Page as suggested and can now see the table layout.

Now the fun starts in trying to get them to all line up. Sp1nd01 (talk) 08:30, 1 May 2018 (UTC)

"People don't use Wikisource"

I inquired at WP about links to WS from WP pages. They are now located in the left navigation panel, which does not show up on mobile devices. Old "external links" to WS are considered "redundant" and often removed in deference to the link in the navigation pane. I used Wikisource's usage of placing sister site links near the header—fully visible in mobile mode, and was met with "People don't use Wikisource" as a rationale for perhaps not doing similarly at WP. I continued the discussion at another Talk page. Please correct me if my interpretation of their statement is wrong. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is the encyclopaedia, and they should be using their valuable infrastructure to focus on the encyclopaedic content, which is how I read that comment. If you don't want to use an external link, then you can utilise {{wikisource author}} which will pick up the wikidata link without the need for additional parameters. If people are taking out Wikisource as an external link, then you can just be put back in again, and simply comment about required for availability in mobile. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

welcome to the adversive edit warring at wikipedia. what he means is "i don’t use Wikisource, and since i am not an admin there. i will revert links there just like wikidata." rosiestep however, will work to write articles based on wikisource, so find the competent people to collaborate with. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 21:04, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

That is not a correct assessment of the events. My fault for not being clear. You can follow Talk page links for complete a account. I think concerns have been addressed, although there is opportunity for further discussion at relevant WP/WM talk &c. pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:10, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

i’m glad to see him walk back his aggressive comment. apparently, he is unaware of the extensive use Rosiestep has made of WS, particularly w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Women in Red/Missing articles by dictionary/Woman of the Century. the fact that mobile, can’t link gracefully, makes it more important to link as a reference. lots of citation cleanup to do. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 22:43, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Nah, not aggressive. Like I responded, more "unhelpful" than aggressive. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

@Slowking4: I haven't been following the conversation over there, though the comment "...mobile, can’t link gracefully..." interests me, and not one that I have followed/noticed. Is there a good summary discussion that is informative? One of the things that I have been wondering is about seeing how linking through Wikidata may be useful for us in terms of better interwikis. A large job I know, though one that I consider of value. I know that I did lots of work for authors to get {{wikisource author}} more functional—though I have no revisited that for a while. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

yeah, do not know of any central discussion. maybe https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:MobileFrontend ? the mobile team made some design choices, like losing the left menu. (and they collapse references) so hard to find wikidata link, or what links here. the commons and wikisource external link boxes work, but the custom nav boxes do not. we do not have a "results from sister projects" (search result on right hand side on desktop) although they do have a "read more" added at the bottom of mobile. -- it means a new round of how to link to wikisource in a discoverable way from mobile, which is the growth reader area. maybe we need a channel to discuss with mobile team. when i say "not graceful" i mean that links in mobile do not go to a WS app, but to browser, and we have to custom link to each article, it does not find a link via wikidata. it’s a lot of hand curation. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge

Page images errors - FIXED!

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T192199Resolved

Looks like the latest update is causing more problems loading page images in the edit window. A hard purge seems to fix the problem, but it must be done every time on every page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 2 April 2018 (UTC)

yeah - wow, hard to do initial proofread at this rate, at least the coloured buttons are pretty… Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:16, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Lovely buttons indeed! But the absence of the image is not so lovely. Quite often the image is shown as a small stripe in the upper left corner of the image-window. I found that clicking on the page number in the Index often brings the image back. Sometimes two times clicking is necessary. --Dick Bos (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Here’s a temporary fix one can add to their individual css page:

.prp-page-image { overflow: visible !important; }
.prp-page-image > img { min-width: 80% !important; height: auto !important; width: auto !important; }

It’s ugly but it works for the moment. χ_chi (talk) 11:23, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

i can always go to tasks that do not require an image, but it does strike at the purpose of this site. is it related to the old problem with index page not showing colour status of pages? that needed a purge to refresh "null edit" as well. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 14:07, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

@User:Χ, Thanks, but the fix does not really work. It shows the image far too large. --Dick Bos (talk) 14:42, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes I’m aware. You can play around with the min-width of the image to fit your screen, but in the end it’s not really meant to fix the actual bug, just a quick and dirty workaround to be able to see the image. χ_chi (talk) 14:45, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Comment quick look shows that it is setting an image height of 15px, and looks to be poking into the toolbar. If you view the image and return, then it resets the page fine. So guessing that it is a page rendering order issue, and nothing to do with the image itself. [That is all I currently have time to do. ]— billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

  It is definitely a rendering issue, as if I go back and then forward (rock and roll) from the page, as the image is available it renders to size just fine when I revisit. Purging will not necessarily fix the issue as it will try to do everything from scratch, and that then faces same rendering timing issues. Seems that it is a javascript issue where we need to get the script to better dynamically deliver the page, and not get caught in the toolbar image rendering. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

We're about a week later now, and this nasty problem still exists. Is anyone looking after it? That would be great. It's far beyond my technical knowledge to do anything, so please.... Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:35, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

This seems to be fixed by the latest update, I may have needed to undo the temp fix in order to see that it was working Flannel (talk)

The (changed) title of this paragraph suggests that the problem is fixed. It is not! We are one and a half month further in time, and the problem, caused by some update of the software or so, is still there, and still causes extra work (I have to move from the page that does not show an image; and the next time the image is there), and most of all: it makes te working of Wikisource absolutely unclear for new users. --Dick Bos (talk) 12:17, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: It has been noted on the Phab ticket by several WS communities that it is still unresolved. The fix failed, or it was due to another component. The simple adjustment is to flick back and forward on the browser page (do not push a reload). The first time in the time taken to get the right thumbnail and the page loads before the image is ready. When flick back and forth, the image is already generated and available and loads fine. A question for you, which skin and which toolbar are you using? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Thanks for your answer. Let's hope that it can be fixed. About the skin and the toolbar: I don't know. Where can I see that? --Dick Bos (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: Both in your preferences, for your skin Appearance and for your toolbar Editing. I am guessing that you will have Vector, and the Advanced Enhanced toolbar checked on the respective tabs. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

The issue is certainly not fixed for me. I'm using the Vector skin and the advanced toolbar. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:09, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I don't see a checkbox for "advanced toolbar" under the "editing tab." I'm using Vector, and this problem has persisted for me for some time, across several browsers. Mostly (and maybe entirely) under the most recent Ubuntu Mate (upgraded from 17.10 to 18.04 a couple weeks ago, with no impact on this issue.) I thought I had the problem under Windows as well, but I can't be sure without testing (happy to do so if it's helpful).

I tried the CSS fix above, but it just introduced a new problem -- now the preview is too big and the white margins crash into the text in the editing window. (Can provide screenshots if helpful.) -Pete (talk) 23:31, 20 May 2018 (UTC) (p.s. I notice from the discussion above that the CSS foibles are already known, and something I can work around with some tweaking.) -Pete (talk) 23:33, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

All fixes and commentary should be added to the phabricator ticket. Noise there is far more productive than noise here.

Smacking my forehead...I looked and looked, and somehow missed "enhanced." However, perhaps useful info...I did not have it enable. (And yes, I'll add info to the phab ticket -- good point.) -Pete (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: - your guess was correct. I have a vector skin and I have the enhanced editing toolbar enabled. @Peteforsyth: - I made a remark in the phabricator thing (for me, after about fifteen years, a complete new corner of the Wikimedia-world! Never to old to learn new things). Let's hope it will bring us a solution. --Dick Bos (talk) 09:57, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Happily it looks like the problem is fixed now! Thanks a lot. --Dick Bos (talk) 14:10, 31 May 2018 (UTC)