Wikisource

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-03

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

Small admin fix needed

See Template_talk:Author#Bibliowiki_has_changed_its_name_back_to_Wikilivres. This should take 30 seconds. Thanks. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Still not showing up after 24 hours and purging the cache. E.g. Author:John Ernst Steinbeck. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:58, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: that's not what I thought you were asking for, thanks for pointing it out. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:36, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Nice. All   Done now. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Slow contributions...

I seem to have slowed down in proofreading, not by any design though. Is this a good thing? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

There is no deadline here; there is no minimum requirement for a daily/weekly/monthly contribution (nor is there a maximum); some works require more mental energy than others; some works are messy and complex, while others are straightforward; real life needs to happen for all of us. In other words, a slow down in contributions just happens sometimes and it's not something to worry about—or even spend much time thinking about. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

CSS not displaying

On Optimism (Keller), the CSS for the horizontal rules does not display. It does work on individual pages but not the transcluded work or the index. I've searched the Help: namespace and don't see the solution. Can someone break down how to resolve this? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

If you mean what I think you mean, it's not CSS; it's that you need {{nop}} before wiki syntax like tables, headers, rules, and so forth, if that syntax is on the first line of the page in pagespace. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:47, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: This is actually not the problem. First off, if I have {{nop}} at the end of a page like 11 and then start the page with a horizontal rule, such as at 13, that will not fix the problem. I have to still move the horizontal rule from the first line. (See the edit history of Page:Helen Keller - Optimism.pdf/13: I had to insert a line break to make this page transclude properly, even with {{nop}} at the end of Page:Helen Keller - Optimism.pdf/11.) The problem is that if you see the transcluded pages at Optimism (Keller), the horizontal rules are standard black. If you look at individual pages, such as Page:Helen Keller - Optimism.pdf/13, the rules are a dark orange color because at Index:Helen Keller - Optimism.pdf, I have included the following CSS: hr {border-top: 1px solid #fd4027; }. Do you know why horizontal rules are dark orange on individual pages but are black at the actual page itself? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Koavf: AFAIK the CSS on the Index page does not affect mainspace. (I could be wrong about this.) To my understanding, you'll need inline styles or TemplateStyles for that. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:00, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
Hm. Seems kind of silly to have CSS that just displays for the Page: namespace... What could be the point of that? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-10

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

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 5 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 6 March. It will be on all wikis from 7 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 6 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • You can give feedback on the future of talk pages.
  • The mobile website will use the standard fonts on your computer or phone instead of a generic font. This will make it easier to read text in many scripts. [1][2]

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

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

? template

In February 2018, {{?}} was changed by @Χ from a redirect to {{Symbol missing}} (as it had been since 2008) to a template which doesn't seem to fit any purpose that {{Symbol missing}} or any of the {{* missing}} templates currently provide. Given how few pages currently use it (14 at time of writing), and how only one page attempts to use the tooltip, what should be done with it? -Einstein95 (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Huh, I like what they've done to it. Maybe I'll start using it more. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:42, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
One thing to keep in mind, few pages use it because its purpose is to be replaced by the missing text asap ;) χchi (talk) 09:58, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
There should be a rule demanding that authors of templates should provide documentation to their templates together with or immediately after their launching. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:52, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Χ: could we trouble you to fill out Template:?/doc ? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: Done, and thanks for the reminder. χchi (talk) 09:58, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Serial numbering of The Silver Cord

You can do it, got to More tab and move them. I would leave no redirect and fix the links that refer to them.— Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

{{nop}} not working

This has been going on for a while now. It was reported at Help but I'm posting it again here. Can't what was done be undone? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

I do not see any problems with {{nop}}, checking it in Firefox and Chrome. Can you provide a link to a problematic place? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:05, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: The problem is not with the {{nop}} template, but rather with the MediaWiki:Gadget-NopInserter.js gadget. I've suggested a fix for it, but don't have rights to edit it. —Sam Wilson 04:38, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-11

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

Problems

  • Some wikis will not be able to edit for a short period of time on 19 March (UTC). This will start at 15:00 UTC. It will last up to 15 minutes but probably shorter. You can see the list of affected wikis. This is because of network maintenance. You can still read the wikis.
  • Editors who use Firefox to edit with the visual editor had a problem with copying text. When they tried to select text that included footnotes, templates or block images in the middle they would often only get part of the text. This has now been fixed. [3]
  • Some maps didn't work for a while on 8 March. This has been fixed. [4][5]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 12 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 13 March. It will be on all wikis from 14 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 13 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.

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Copyright of An Anthology of Czechoslovak Literature

I would like to ask about the copyright status of An Anthology of Czechoslovak Literature. The archive.org page states that the book is out of copyright, but I cannot find out the reason, as the book was published in 1929 and the editor and translator (Paul Selver) died in 1970. Does anybody have any idea, why it is allegedly out of copyright? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

It looks as though it was uploaded from India, which has different copyright laws. It is likely that IA will restrict access and amend the copyright once someone points out this issue. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:39, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
doubt it. they might well keep it, until the DMCA comes, not that any but wikimedians noticed. wikimedia copyright enforcement is out of the mainstream. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 19:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I have actually seen IA take down or restrict access to items before, but in cases where the works were higher-profile than this one. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:21, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks. I was just curious if there is a way of adding the text here... Apparantely there is not :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:59, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
HathiTrust has a baker's dozen of Selver's books. I can retrieve those that can't be downloaded from HathiTrust or Archive.org. I suspect at least part of that volume was first published in Anthology of modern Slavonic literature in prose and verse.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:22, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
yeah, you might go to https://wikilivres.org/wiki/Main_Page which is +50. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 22:26, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the advice. The biggest obstacle for me is that I did not find there anything similar to our proofreading extension :-(
Honestly, what I do not understand is, why the independent Wikilivres need to exist. It would be much better if the WMF did not keep all the servers in the US and were transformed into a more international organization based in various parts of the world. It is a pity that works of European authors which are in public domain in their home countries, cannot be added here because of different US copyright laws. I believe that the problem would be solved if part of our servers were placed somewhere in Europe and such works were stored there. It does not apply only to Wikisource content, but to the content of Commons as well. It does not make much sense that e. g. a contributor based in Hungary, adding works of Hungarian writers (originally published in Hungary in Hungarian language) to the Hungarian Wikisource, has to follow US laws, the only reason being that the servers are placed solely in the US :-(
(By the way, some smaller language wikisources silently ignore the fact that the servers are in the US and follow only their national laws instead. If somebody points them out one day, half of their content will be deleted, unless something similar to what I have suggested above is performed). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
The ProofreadPage extension exists at Wikilivres also; it's just temporarily broken at the moment. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
I see, thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:30, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
International copyright is complex, but note Project Gutenberg got sued in Germany over Thomas Mann books even though those works are PD in the US, Project Gutenberg has no non-US servers and it is solely a US organization. If Wikimedia had a official German presence, I don't think they could escape a legal obligation to avoid offering works PD in the US but not in Germany to German citizens. They might have to selectively region-lock files and pages or remove them altogether.
Wikilivres is probably the safest way to do this. It's no more vulnerable than Project Gutenberg is, which is about as good as you can get.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:09, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
Wikilivres needs to exist because US does not have w:Rule of the shorter term. US is the best of a bad lot, but not the best of all possible copyright regimes. and our sharing copyright community is constantly under siege by the copyright rent seekers, i.e. SOPA and EU w:Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market. we need a flexible response among many jurisdictions, so that money cannot buy the entire internet. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 20:24, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Commentaries on the Laws of England

I noticed that the djvu files were renamed and moved so it is currently in an intermediate state of transition. I manually copied over volume 2 but it would great to have a bot do volumes 1,3, 4. I am fine to go through and update the links and transculions afterwards to point to the new locations but it would be great to not have it be internally inconsistent like it is now

Moves

Removal

MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Done mostly, only a few tweaks on Index pages left.— Mpaa (talk) 21:50, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Next time please do not duplicate pages, they can be moved.— Mpaa (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you!All set. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:36, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Roman volume numbers in Article Link template

In the course of this this past conversation (18-19 February), I requested a parameter that would display volume numbers as Roman numerals in the {{article link}} template, and ShakespeareFan00 created "roman_vol." But it hasn't been implemented in the template yet, and although I requested further comment no one has replied.

I do think this parameter would be useful; roman numerals are a very standard way of stating volumes. Disagreement or agreement? Can someone implement this? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

As you know I implemented this in the sandbox, you would have to ask someone else to swap in the code to the actual template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:34, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
True; I'm wondering why no one who is able to do so has commented. I guess I must be posting in the wrong place. Where should I put this message, then? Levana Taylor (talk) 16:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

You may now become 'Wikisource — A Wikipedia project'

According to this discussion at Meta, Wikimedia Foundation is considering rebranding. This means for you, that rather than Wikisource being a Wikimedia project, it would become a Wikipedia project.

The proposed changes also include

  • Providing clearer connections to the sister projects from Wikipedia to drive increased awareness, usage and contributions to all movement projects.

While raising such awareness in my opinion is a good thing, do you think classifying you as a 'Wikipedia' project would cause confusion? Do you think newcomers would have a high risk of erroneously applying some of Wikipedia principles and policies here which do not apply? If so, what confusion? Could you please detail this. I have raised a query about that HERE in general, but I am looking for specific feedback.

Please translate this message to other languages. --Gryllida (talk) 23:03, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

  • Agree that rebranding would cause confusion. In my experience, most WM projects have a policy "X is not Wikipedia" to explain to participants that the project operates independently and with different community norms and standards. Making everyone a "Wikipedia" project would increase the confusion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Thank you for this comment and for sharing it at Meta. How would you feel about rebranding from 'Wikipedia' to 'Wikimania' umbrella? Perhaps this sounds more colorific (thus resolving the concerns from Wikimedia) and does not cause as much confusion as 'Wikipedia' umbrella name. Gryllida (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
    Wikimania would be fine with me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)
Please leave notes here at Meta if you like: there is a brainstorming section, where people have an opportunity to leave their opinion on each suggested name. Gryllida (talk) 00:55, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Downloaden epub

Hi, something strange is happening by downloading the epub of Bevan - Sir William Petty (1894). Only the preface is in the epub, not the rest of the book. When I download another book by instance The New Carthage then there is no problem. Can anybody tell me what is wrong with the book of Sir William Petty or what is wrong with my action?WeeJeeVee (talk) 13:15, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This happens when the Table of Contents is not included on the first page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:06, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Template:SPARQL

Please can someone who holds the necessary permissions import d:Template:SPARQL and any sub-templates, from Wikidata?

It's necessary to allow Wikidata queries to be posted here. An example of its use can be seen at species:Wikispecies:Biographies with no identifiers, which I intend to replicate for this project, at Wikisource:Biographies with no identifiers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:38, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I can import the template for you. Does it do anything besides document and link to an external tool? If not, then it seems to me that a dedicated page in Wikisource-space isn't the right place for it—wouldn't it be better to place the template under your own User page? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Beleg Tâl: It's a formatting template for use on talk pages or project-space pages, used to pretty-print w:SPARQL code and provide a link to try the query out on Wikidata. It will be useful in, e.g., discussions about how to implement various bits of Wikidata integration in other templates (like {{author}}, which currently gets confused if a Wikidata item has multiple dates of birth or death etc. and could use a better query for these things). Not sure there's a lot of SPARQL hackers on enWS, but it will do little harm and will be very useful in those instances when it is needed. --Xover (talk) 13:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I can see how it would be useful on talk pages and similar places. I still feel that pages like species:Wikispecies:Biographies with no identifiers are unnecessary on Wikisource, but if the larger community is okay with them I will not oppose them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
  Done I have imported the template. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

OCR bot not running

Seems the OCR bot is broken: when clicking the OCR button, you get the message: ws_ocr_daemon robot is not running. :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:11, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

It is already OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:36, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-12

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

Changes later this week

  • When you use rollback you will be able to get a confirmation prompt on most wikis. It asks you if you wanted to do the rollback. This is to avoid misclicks. You will have to opt in to get it. On German Wikipedia it will be an opt-out feature from 28 March. [6][7]
  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 19 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 20 March. It will be on all wikis from 21 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 20 March at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

  • Admins will be able to block someone from editing a page or a namespace. This already works on a few Wikimedia wikis. You can read more. If your wiki wants to be an early tester of this, you can tell the developers. [8]
  •   Toolforge will shut down the Ubuntu Trusty job grid. This will happen the week of 25 March. Tools that use this grid needs to be moved to the new Debian Stretch job grid. If they haven't, they will be taken offline. Maintainers can restart the tools later. Users may not be able to use them in the meanwhile. You can see a list of affected tools.

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

19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

f x ſ in United States Reports/Volume 1

I looked at some pages of the United States Reports/Volume 1 and it seems that none of the original long ſ which were wrongly replaced by f by the OCR software were corrected during the proofreading process (see e. g. Respublica v. Roberts), although the pages were tagged as "proofread"! It seems like to much work to correct everything manually, could some bot do the job? I also think that this has raised considerable doubts about the quality of the proofreading work in these pages generally, so I suggest the bot could also set the status of all of these pages to "not proofread", until somebody proofreads them again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:51, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I have just realized that it cannot be corrected by the bot, as it cannot distinguish where the "f" is correctly and where not :-( So it probably could just untag the "proofread" pages. I have not checked the other volumes. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:58, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
A bot could correct certain patterns, like the Britiƒh mentioned below. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:22, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
It looks to me that the proofreader chose to use 'f' deliberately (otherwise how would one explain Britiƒh) without relaizing that there was a separate character for 'ſ'. If the rest of it is fine, you might consider simply leaving a note on the Index talk page and leaving it for validation. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) (Matthew Henry)

Further to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-02#An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)_(Matthew_Henry) I have just discovered that DJVU 1 skips from page v to page viii at [Page:An_Exposition_of_the_Old_and_New_Testament_(1828)_vol_1.djvu/15]. I'm surprised at this, as I did some checking of that section in Feb 2017. Can anyone help, or do I have to approach Princeton for the pages and then get someone to reorganize the text? PeterR2 (talk) 09:48, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

If you can find an image for the missing age it can be inserted the djvu and the pages reorganized. Pages in Main ns. wil have to be realigned accordingly.— Mpaa (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Problem with Once a Week volume 10 index

The index page for Once a Week volume 10 seems to be damaged -- what happened to the file? Levana Taylor (talk) 02:48, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

It got deleted from Commons by commons:User:Túrelio because it "has nothing to do with Betty Bossi AG" (whatever that means). I have requested undeletion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Redirects within an original published work

In some works, most commonly encyclopedias and dictionaries, a section or listing will only exist to redirect to another section or listing. In such cases, I have generally transcluded what is there, to allow the page to function as essentially a {{soft redirect}}. Examples include:

Do other editors have other methods that they prefer to use when handling such pages? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:59, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing the same with the Grove Dictionary of Music. See Category:DMM article redirects for examples. I do note that in volume 1 of CE1913 previous editors have simply ignored these and didn't include them in the listings on Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Volume 1. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-13

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 new version of the content translation tool will be used for all new translations. The older version will still be used for translations that were started with it. Most users won’t see any change. More than 80% of the published translations are already using the new version. [9]

Problems

  • There was a problem with editing with Safari on iOS. When you wrote an edit summary you couldn't save the edit. This has now been fixed. [10]
  • The editing toolbar sometimes disappears when you scroll on iOS devices. This will be fixed soon. [11]
  • Wikis can over-ride interface messages on-wiki. A problem meant that sometimes an old versions of any changed messages were shown instead. This included the sitenotice and other important parts of the interface. This was fixed at around 2019-03-22 16:00 (UTC). Logged-out users may still get the wrong message. Purging the page should fix it for them. [12]

Changes later this week

  •   The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 26 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 27 March. It will be on all wikis from 28 March (calendar).

Meetings

  •     You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 27 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.

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing and duplicated pages in the Yale 3 Henry 6

In Index:Henry VI Part 3 (1923) Yale.djvu, pp. 122 and 123 are missing, replaced with duplicates of pp. 120 and 121. HathiTrust has two Google scans of this edition—#1 and #2—with the pages intact (if with Google's usual poor scan quality). Help? (@EncycloPetey: FYI)

PS. Apart from this snag, good progress is being made on Portal:The Yale Shakespeare. Most of the history plays have been proofread and are awaiting validation—*cough* hint *cough* :)—and a large part of the rest are already set up with an index, pagelist, some formatting guidelines, etc.; and EncycloPetey has done a near-miraculous job of finding good clean scans to proofread from. --Xover (talk) 08:56, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

@Xover:, no point in dropping hints here when we have WikiProject Validate/Noticeboard (WS:WPV/N). I actually do check to see what's posted there. I'd love if more people started using it, but that's just me. I'll get started on it now, but a post there to let others know wouldn't hurt! :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 00:57, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
@MJL: Thanks, I wasn't even aware it existed. But in this particular instance I was just sneaking in a little nudge when the opportunity presented itself by way of having something else to post here. Your efforts at getting more pages here greened is very much appreciated! --Xover (talk) 15:17, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: I take whatever opportunity to plug WS:WPV that I can get! I totally feel you though. The struggle is real :D –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 15:23, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I bit the bullet and delved into the arcana of DjVuLibre. New file uploaded that seems to fix this (unless I messed anything else up along the way). And found task T219376 while I was at it. It may be of interest to others poking around the guts of .djvu files. Short version: djvu files with pages that have invalid hidden text layers will confuse MediaWiki and lead to OCR text being offset by the same number of pages as had invalid hidden text. Simply removing the hidden text (djvused 'select <page>; remove-txt; save') seems to do the trick is the page contains no OCR text worth salvaging. --Xover (talk) 13:07, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Replace OAW Vol 3?

The existing scan for Once a Week Volume 3 is pretty poor; would it be too much work to replace it with this Google Books scan instead? Levana Taylor (talk) 07:06, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

I can't see the file. If the offset betwen old vs. new is constant for most pages, it is not a huge work. Pls check and upload the file if you want that file. Please post here also the offset to move current pages to new position (e.g offset +N, page xxx +> xxx + N).— Mpaa (talk) 21:09, 25 March 2019 (UTC)
PDF uploaded at File:OAW Ser 1 Vol 3.pdf. There is no difference in page numbering from the old version. Levana Taylor (talk)
How do you link the file to the index? Levana Taylor (talk) 01:17, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The link is automatic based on using the same name in both places. When uploading a new version of a file, upload it over the top of the old version rather than as a new file name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: I saw this, but would it not have been simpler to just re-upload the file to File:ONCE A WEEK JUL TO DEC 1860.pdf and then simply nominate the duplicate for speedy deletion? –MJL ‐Talk‐☖ 03:06, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Maybe, except it's Commons policy that you should only replace a file with an altered version of the same file. Being as this is a whole different scanned book, I think we should keep both files. So, shift the old one to a different name. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:45, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Text size in the edit box

How can the font size in the edit box be increased? The idea isn't to enlarge the whole webpage, just the characters that appear in the edit box. I would expect this to be in Preferences, but cannot seem to find it. Thanks, Dovi (talk) 16:48, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@Dovi: You'd have to use custom CSS: go to Special:MyPage/common.css and add a line .wikiEditor-ui textarea { font-size:larger; } (or whatever your preference is) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 17:47, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you so much Beleg Tâl! What are the specific options (besides "larger")? Dovi (talk) 05:09, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
@Dovi: see https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/font-size —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:14, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks so much Beleg Tâl! Dovi (talk) 12:56, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Handle System

I propose the addition of Handle System identifiers to {{Cite book}}; please see Template talk:Cite book#Handle System. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

  Oppose based on what I see. If the purpose is to show multiple offsite links to various databases, then perhaps we could instead use a single Wikidata value, and store all other values on Wikidata instead of displaying them locally? The results of what you've done make the primary citation very difficult to read, and will detract from the purpose of the Author pages, which is to link to works hosted on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:03, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What exactly have I "done" to "make the primary citation very difficult to read"? The template currently displays at least there external IDs (OCLC, doi, JSTOR); I am simply proposing that we include another, which is widely used. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:23, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You have plastered {{Cite book}} all over an Author page. The resulting multiple blue links and arrows all over the page have made it hard to read the citations. We don't use {{Cite book}} on Author pages. It's intended purpose is for use on the Talk pages of works in the Main namespace to identify the source of a single work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Funny; I read all the documentation for the template, on this project, and can find no mention of that intention. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Documentation here is sporadic and often outdated or wrong. We are a much smaller community than most other projects, and members seldom take the time to document templates. If you find documentation that isn't up to snuff, you can always improve it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
I have no interest in abusing template documentation to suggest a practice is incorrect, when that suggestion is clearly not supported by current reality. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You're linking without reading. What you're seeing are links in the References sections on Author pages, not links to specific works. Please look at what is happening, instead of presenting misleading statistics. I know you're new, and having trouble adapting, but please take the time to look at what's actually going on instead of assuming. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
You clearly have no idea what I have read and what I have not read. I am not having any "trouble". It is you who needs to stop making assumptions, and to stop making ad hominem comments. And it was you who wrote, falsely, "We don't use {{Cite book}} on Author pages." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
What is clear is that this discussion now has no goal, no focus, and no direction. I didn't come here for an argument. If that's what you wish to do, then please proceed without me. You have done nothing to convince me I should change my initial response, nor satisfactorily addressed the concern I raised, so my initial response will stand as is. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Also, could you please put your entire proposal and explanation in a single place (here) instead of spreading breadcrumbs across four pages on two projects? --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:05, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The entire proposal is in a single - and the most appropriate - place, on this project. As that seems little-watched, I posted a pointer to it, here. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:20, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I know what you did. However, Wikisource (unlike Wikipedia or Wikidata) holds its conversations in the central discussion location of the Scriptorium. Placing proposals on other pages, with pointers to them is not best practice for Wikisource. Best practice is to place the proposal here and have the discussion here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
If you know what I did, then your comment alleging that I was "...spreading breadcrumbs across four pages on two projects" is nonsensical. Nonetheless: why, then, do pages like Template talk:Cite book exist; and where is this rather unusual convention not to us them documented? And why are there currently, for example thirty nine separate discussions on Template talk:Author? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:54, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
The simple answer: We frequently get new contributors who do not know what best practices are on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
"contributors who do not know what best practices are". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:22, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Instead of simply creating a link to a list, look at what you've linked to, and analyze it. Look at the total number of pages involved over the course of an entire year. Look at which contributors initiated those discussions. It's a very small number of pages created by a very small number of editors over a long period of time with very, very few created in any given year. Hence, best practice is to hold the conversation in the Scriptorium. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:43, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Look at which contributors... initiated those discussions. Do you assert that User:Billinghurst and User:Samwilson are "new contributors who do not know what best practices are on Wikisource"? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:49, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Again, you're linking without reading. The first example is a response, not the initiation of a discussion. The second example is a pointer to a discussion in the Scriptorium, not a discussion. The discussion itself is in the Scriptorium, where best practice says it should be. I'm sorry you're having trouble adapting, but I can't help if you only argue against the advice I'm giving. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:37, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
"Again, you're linking without reading" Nope. The first is a response - as can be seen by anyone who has read it - telling someone to start a discussion on a template talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Have fun arguing, if that's what you intend to do. I'll know in future that you look for individual exceptions to general patterns in order to claim that the general pattern doesn't exist. In such instances, there is no point in trying to help someone see the general pattern. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Style Guide update

I have updated the Style Guide to reflect the fact that we normally list works on Author pages chronologically, but have also added a clause to permit alphabetical listing, if doing so will better serve the user.

Please post any questions, comments, objections, or approval below. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

OK with me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:39, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
No problem. The one exception is that for poets it is often sensible to list the poems alphabetically, especially given that their original publication history can be confusing and hard to find out. Many poets would benefit from having both a chronological list of collections and an alphabetical list of poems. Levana Taylor (talk) 22:48, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
If you look at the diff, listing of poems is one of the examples I point out specifically as likely benefiting from an alphabetical listing over chronological. The other is any listing where the dates of the works are uncertain (e.g. Classical writers). --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:30, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
  Support —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

nomination for adminship

Hi all,

There is a nomination for adminship over at Wikisource:Administrators#Xover that has had very little community attention. I'm going to leave it open over the weekend.

Hesperian 03:16, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

And if the lack of community input there is a reflection of some reservation, uncertainty, or doubt, then please do express it! I promise I won't be offended. :) --Xover (talk) 06:26, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Hesperian: I encourage you to lead by example and contribute to the discussion :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:07, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Missing pages in OAW Volume 7

In the scan for Once a Week Volume 7, two pages (pp. 629-630 of the magazine, pp. 637-638 of the scan) are missing. They are omitted from the source Internet Archive file, but may be taken from Google Books. Could someone please fix this? Thanks! Levana Taylor (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

blocks of text w/o blank lines between paragraphs

Does this template exist? If not, it should. It would be very useful for some purposes to be able to not have a blank line between successive divs, like there standardly is since the divs are treated as text paragraphs. For example, it would be good for letters: the right-aligned date should be immediately above the left-aligned salutation, and the signature should be immediately below the complimentary close. <poem> is not suitable for the purpose, it has its own formatting such as a wider-than-normal blank line. Levana Taylor (talk) 15:53, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

If you have a specific page in mind, there are some templates that could be used. But it is difficult to demonstrate usage without having text for the demonstration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:55, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I am having difficulties with the formatting of letters on this page and this. I am particularly dissatisfied with the relative positioning of the date and the salutation on the latter page. They should be on successive lines, without a blank line between them, but not on the same line. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
If you are referring to "From the Mountain / January 1, 1863", I would suggest that the default paragraph spacing should go between them, just as the default indent-with-no-spacing is used in the source material. However, you could attempt something like: {{float right|From the Mountain}}<br />January 1, 1863. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
That is not what I was referring to. Rather, on that page the tricky layout problem is the signature of the following letter. Levana Taylor (talk) 19:12, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
I think you've done an admirable job on the signature of the following letter. I would do it similarly: {{right|I am, sir,{{gap|6em}}<br />{{sc|Abr. Cooper, R. A.}}{{float left|{{smaller|19, New Millman Street.}}}}}} —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:48, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
The ad-hoc solutions for page 90 are pretty good, but I still don't have an answer for page 71, and I would like to be able to easily solve problems like this in the future. Levana Taylor (talk) 22:01, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: It was never a popular solution but the precise effect you desire can be obtained by enclosing every paragraph within a leading {{p|m0}}, trailing </p> pair — i.e. explicit paragraph-with-zero-margins directives. 114.73.168.91 05:22, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Thanks! I will experiment with that. Levana Taylor (talk) 06:05, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Another effective technique is to enclose each individual paragraph within <div>, </div> pairs similar to above. Mediawiki has long had the characteristic of butting such divisions up against one another without intervening padding. Your choice! 114.73.168.91 06:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:News (en): April 2019 edition

 
English Wikisource's monthly newsletter; Wikisource:News, which seeks to inform all about Wikimedia's multilingual Wikisource.

Pindar (Way 1922)

I have uploaded File:Pindar in English Verse (Way 1922).djvu to Commons, only to discover that it is missing two pages (p. 158–159) near the end of the volume.

Please, could someone pull copies of those pages from (external scan), and insert them into the correct position within File:Pindar in English Verse (Way 1922).djvu, to correct the file on Commons? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Done. It looks like everything is good now, but please do a sanity check before proofreading to make sure I didn't mess anything up. --Xover (talk) 07:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Biographies with no UIDs

The page I have created at Wikisource:Biographies with no identifiers contains a Wikidata query which returns a list of people with a Wikisource page, but with no UIDs (VIAF, ISNI, ORCID, etc) on Wikidata - in other words, if {{Authority control}} is used on their biography, it will have no content.

There are currently 2,230 people in the list.

[Caveat: a few of those pages are in the form Woman of the Century/Ada Iddings Gale; not in Author: namespace; should they be linked from Wikidata, as on Ada Iddings Gale (Q41171030)?] Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:10, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Works on Wikisource, including subpages of Woman of the Century, should not be linked to Wikidata items representing people. Wikidata has properties that can be used for connecting the person-item to the work-about-person-item, that should be used instead. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:57, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
I've raised the issue on Wikidata: :d:Wikidata:Project chat#Incorrect Wikisource links. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:51, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
@Pigsonthewing: That link points to a page that does not exist. I believe you meant d:Wikidata:Project chat#Incorrect Wikisource links --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:51, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
the fact that wikisource has individuals without authority control id’s is good. (author or subject of a biography) need to add them as notable wikidata people, even if they never produced a work in a library. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 11:06, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
I can't parse half of that, but why is it good to not have authority control IDs? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
because you have to gather in the messy data before you can improve it. and need to clarify the ontology of depicted people. the fact that depicted people do not have authority control ID’s means they are not in someone else’s database, but we are now constructing an id in our database. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 13:05, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
The fact that no Authority ID is present in Wikidata does not mean there is no authority data in any database. The point here is that we need a means to (a) identify which persons have a biography on WS, but lack an Auth. ID on Wikidata, and (b) determine whether or not there is an Auth. ID to be found in the various online databases, which can then be added. This requires (c) some means of correctly matching persons with records in other databases. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:18, 20 March 2019 (UTC)
a- the query did it, but a more built-out depicts ontology would be better; b- the online databases are there already, the national libraries’ authority control data was ingested years ago, doubt you will find them in copyrighted or off-line databases; c- sounds like a task for mix or match, if you could find other data. in the meantime, need to create item based on wikisource depicts / subject of bio data. -- Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:29, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Your statement on (a) is only partly correct. I am constantly finding VIAF, LoC, BnF, and GND data matches that have not been added to Wikidata. We are also constantly adding new Author pages to Wikisource. So what happened years ago is irrelevant when we have new pages created here. For some of the Author pages I have added, there was no data item on Wikidata, and I have had to create these, even as recently as a month ago. So we may have ingested all the data for existing Wikidata items, but as new items are created, we still have to go find UIDs. There are still many, many authors with UIDs on public databases (VIAF, LoC, BnF, etc) for which no Wikidata item yet exists --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:35, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes, thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:17, 19 March 2019 (UTC)
Sorry with my first (or 2nd) question on Scriptorium but maybe this is the place where my question should be posted. (I'm never sure) So, an author does not exist on Wikidata or here and where should he exist or be created first? See my discussion with myself about it here on my talk page. Thank you.--Level C (talk) 16:45, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
If the person is an Author, then you create the Author page here first, then create a Wikidata item. Once the WD item exists, you link to the WS Author page from Wikidata. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:11, 21 March 2019 (UTC)
OK. Thank you much! I'll try to create it here soon. --Level C (talk) 17:25, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

Going back to the question about Ada Iddings Gale, in my view no, Wikidata should not link to the Woman of the Century biography of her. I don't think there's any reason to consider that the authoritative biography of her; presumably, it's one of many works about her. If Wikisource used categories for people (which it doesn't), it might make sense to link to the category page; or if there were a portal: page about her, same thing. But linking to one specific bio does not seem like the right way to go. -Pete (talk) 19:40, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

The discussion on Wikidata is now archived; the incorrect links remain unresolved. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:45, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you @Pigsonthewing: I just reviewed the Wikidata discussion. It reads to me as though people generally agree on the main point (i.e., that such links are not correct), and maybe the other points as well, and just have various ways they want to talk about ontology (by which I think people generally mean "taxonomy"). German and English Wikisources have established different norms and guidelines. No biggie, we can link to "Author:" space articles on enws, and main space articles on dews. But that has no bearing on whether this arbitrary bio should be linked from the subject's Wikidata item. I think all were in agreement it shouldn't. Am I missing something? -Pete (talk) 01:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I understand as well. Everyone agrees that the wikidata item for a person should not be lined to the wikisource page for an edition of a chapter of a biographical dictionary, but as for actually fixing the links you essentially have to do it yourself. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:04, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
at wikidata, i would create item for each article, and then use Property:P1343 for a "described by source". Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 15:14, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-03&oldid=11724661"