←

Scriptorium

Announcements[edit]

February Monthly Challenge[edit]

Gather round to hear the tale of the February Monthly Challenge. For the first time, over 100 pages were proofread everyday. In total, 6976 pages were either proofread or validated contributing to 36.28% of all pages in these categories during February. Among the highlights were

Our Nig - the first novel published by an African American in the US
The Struggle for Empire - a early Edwardian tale of space battles
Truth Stranger Than Fiction - an autobiographical account of a Josiah Henson that served as the basis for Uncle Tom's Cabin
Winnie-the-Pooh - one of the most revered children tales that just entered the public domain.
The Sun Also Rises - one of Ernest Miller Hemingway's first novels that entered the public domain this year
A Study in Scarlet - the rare original printing of which only eleven copies survive
The Book of American Negro Poetry and Fire!! both classics from the Harlem Renaissance
North and South a classic of Victorian literature that focused on the conflict between workers and their employers
The Case of Charles Dexter Ward a key work of H. P. Lovecraft that introduced the Cthulhu Mythos
The Man in the Brown Suit a work of detective fiction by British writer Agatha Christie
Incidents in the Life of a Slave Girl detailing the horrors of slavery in the United States

...and many more.

This month, a plethora of works are available to all

Germinal - one of Zola's most important novel detailing the struggle between coal miners and their employers in the North of France.
The American Indian as slaveholder and secessionist - a rare work that discusses slave owning among Native Americans
Between the Twilights - one of the earliest works of feminism in India
The Blacker the Berry - a key work of the Harlem Renaissance
Candide - one of Voltaire's most influential works illustrated by the artist Paul Klee
Dead Souls - a key work of Ukrainian literature
The Federalist - a rare edition of the Federalist papers edited by all the original authors and formerly owned by John Adams
The Elene of Cynewulf - one of the pre-eminent figures of Old English Christian poetry
The History of the Standard Oil Company - about the corrupt business practices of the Standard Oil Company
Imre - the first gay novel with a happy ending
The Scarlet Letter all about sin, guilt, and penitence in Puritan Massachusetts.
Silas Marner a classic of Victorian Literature by George Eliot
The Wisconsin Idea one of the key theoretical works of the progressive movement.
Zakhar Berkut a historical fiction work from Ukraine
The reign of George VI - an early work of future fiction imagining England under King George VI

and many more...

So head over to the Monthly Challenge and join the fun. Languageseeker (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking New Coordinator for the Monthly Challenge[edit]

I'm stepping down from running the Monthly Challenge. If anyone wants to take it over, feel free to do so. Languageseeker (talk) 23:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: I have created the new module page Module:Monthly_Challenge/data/2022-04 and the corresponding monthly overview, using works that were planned to be run in April as stated on the Nominations page Wikisource:Community_collaboration/Monthly_Challenge/Nominations.

Whenever I have the time, I'll be happy to contribute to running the challenge, but I don't plan to be the only one running it. Also, most probably, compared to Languageseeker, I have far less knowledge allowing me to decide on new relevant and interesting books to work on.--Tylopous (talk) 07:16, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to help when I can, though I do not have a strong literary sense either.

Specific action point: I do plan to fix up the "make sure it's all set up nicely" script to run prior to the first of the month to avoid the nagging race conditions we see sometimes when the bot lags behind by a short while. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:17, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inductiveload @Tylopous Thank you for both volunteering to continue the Monthly Challenge. If I get the time, I might step in occasionally to contribute a bit. It'll probably be confined to mostly behind the scenes type of work. You're both much, much appreciated. Languageseeker (talk) 00:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Proposals[edit]

New Request for Comment on Wikilinking Policy is open[edit]

I have just opened Wikisource:Requests for comment/Wikilinking policy. You will find there a proposed complete overhaul/rewrite of the current policy, which is now ready for review by the wider Wikisource community. It is proposed that the RfC will be open for two weeks. Please make your comments there rather than here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:33, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle: I think 2 weeks / 72 hours is a little bit too aggressive, even for a presumed uncontroversial policy proposal like this. I understand the reasoning, but I just don't think the community is able to move that fast. For example, we have several long-time contributors that are currently in a phase where they check in only every couple of weeks. And I know for my own part that the local Covid status could easily make me too busy to check in here for weeks on end. We could still have an accelerated timeline (just not quite as accelerated as 2/72) if we notify of the proposal in an site notice and maybe even a talk page message to any established contributor that has been active in the last three months (or similar).

PS. And let me repeat my previous private kudos in public: you took my ongoing whining about the old policy and turned it into a concrete proposal for a new policy. Great work, for which I am extremely grateful! --Xover (talk) 09:25, 14 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

De-amending WS:WWI[edit]

A recent proposal amended WS:WWI, to add a qualifier prohibiting works not originating in scans. I think this policy ill-advised. As being without scope is grounds for speedy-deletion, all works without scan are liable for speedy-deletion; I think, at the very least, that such works should have a full discussion at WS:PD. I believe that this prohibiting qualifier should be entirely eliminated, as antithetical to the course and structure of English Wikisource at it has existed, and exists currently. This policy will lead to a decrease in the number of works added to the project, which is directly against the intent of the project. In the alternative, the qualifier should be qualified by a requirement that the user proposing deletion show affirmatively that the work cannot be scan-backed, and that the work if of such quality or completeness that it detracts from the quality of the project. In the alternative, the first paragraph (here) should be deleted, and the second paragraph, which recommends scan-backing, kept alone, so that scan-backing is not a requirement. (People involved in prior discussion: Languageseeker, EncycloPetey, Inductiveload, Cygnis insignis.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further note: Apparently, “second-hand transcriptions” is to be understood to mean any work without a source. This is even more problematic than the policy as actually written. My objections to the policy as written apply to this interpretation to a greater extent. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:21, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose. First, I'm against such proposals to undo a vote that recently finished. The proposal was posted for all to see for quite a long time. Second, the policy exists to allow us to gradually work through the backlog of unsourced or secondary transcriptions that exist in various forms on this site. Unsourced and secondary transcriptions raise questions of quality and authenticity that simply cannot be resolved. Third, the policy already allows for exceptions with community consensus. If you feel that a particular secondary transcription qualifies for such an exemption, I'd be happy to read that proposal. Languageseeker (talk) 23:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Languageseeker: A few responses. My primary motivation in making this counter-proposal was my belief that the previous discussion was not sufficiently borne-out for a proposal which would effect many thousands of works; this proposal is, in my mind, more a continuation of the old proposal. To be sure, I would have strongly objected to the previous proposal if I knew this would be the result. You claim that the policy’s effects would be “gradual”; but the policy does not state this, and any number of old works, which happen to lack scans, could be nominated for speedy deletion. Your claim, that secondary transcriptions “raise questions of quality and authenticity that simply cannot be resolved,” is essentially unprovable. Such a claim may be valid for some works without scans, but would have to be balanced against the facts of any one work. A lack of immediate source, or that source being a secondary transcription, does not categorically introduce “questions of quality and authenticity,” and certainly not “questions … that simply cannot be resolved.” The supposed exemption raises another problem: it puts the burden on a third party seeking the retention of the work. This, I believe, creates an unsustainable model. I believe that, as normal, the burden of convincing and proof for deletion should lie with the person nominating a work for deletion. The project thrives on the addition of new works; existing works should not be removed generally, except for good cause as an exception. Forcing those who add works, or who defend existing works (whether added by themselves or others), to work to justify the inclusion of such works, rather than forcing those who want works removed, to justify the removal of such works, goes against the very nature of the project, and will, assuming the policy-based justification of the new qualification stands and is taken to its logical conclusion, result in the removal of many useful works, without incentivising the creation of new works. As you have recently shown, nominating many works for deletion (even through the more thoughtful proposed-deletions process) leads to non-productive “discussions” which do not deal, to any great extent, with the work(s) at hand. This problem will only be exacerbated if speedy deletions are allowed for the vast class of works the new qualification encompasses. If a work is not copyrighted and in English, it is presumed to be suitable for inclusion on English Wikisource. There are a few exceptions, but they cover specific, limited classes of works on the grounds of the content of those works. However, the newly-introduced qualification covers a general and very broad class of works, not on the grounds of content, but on the grounds of technical status—one that out-of-project visitors will often not care about. This greatly limits the viability and usefulness of the project, and for that reason I seek to remove the qualification. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - @TE(æ)A,ea. The amendment specifically states that this is for new works only. Any old work is safe. I've seen numerous problems of non-scan backed texts missing parts. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward/Chapter I was missing part 3. South Carolina Exposition and Protest was missing nearly the entire text prior to me marking it as imcomplete. At what point are we simply just passing work on to future users? How many works do we already have that have no scan and are not finished? How many unsourced works remain unfinished? Yes, many scan-backed works are unfinished, but they can be finished. The policy does not apply to users who prefer to proofread outside of PP extension. It only applies to work that are copied from another website that is not the original place of publication. I spend quite a significant amount of time on this site trying to incentive new users either through running the MC or trying to figure out which version of a particular work should be proofread. You speak of all the users who come to the site wanting to add secondary transcriptions of various quality, what about all the users who spend hours carefully proofreading and formatting text? They contribute far more time and effort than those who copy-and-paste. They make the site grow. Languageseeker (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - Languageseeker: I originally understood that this was only intended to apply to new works; however, your statements in this discussion led me to believe that it would be applied generally. Yes, a number of old works without scans are missing parts. Such incompleteness would be grounds for deletion, in my view, if such a work were newly added. However, these problems are work-specific; they are not inherent in all works without scans. This is the reason for my opposition to the general classification of the original proposal and qualification. Works without scans can also be finished. Works may be proofread outside of the ProofreadPage extension, as you have stated; however, as the plan is currently written (according to your interpretation) such works would be subject to speedy deletion, as all works without a source are to be considered as being illegal “secondary transcriptions.” Your reference to other users is besides the point: this discussion is not about the Monthly Challenge, but about the changes to inclusion rules. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
      - @TE(æ)A,ea. Let me try to clarify with some scenarious:
      - Worked posted prior to 28 Dec 2021 -> still included
      - Worked published online and copied to Wikisource -> still included
      - Worked proofread outside of ProofreadPage and source provides the necessary reference -> still included For a good example of an in-scope, non-scan backed text, see The Red Book Magazine/Volume 1/Number 6/The Deliverance of Pima Jim.
      - Worked copied from Project Gutenberg or another website and posted after 28 Dec 2021 -> out of scope. If there is no source, then the user can choose to post the necessary reference and it will be in scope provided that it is not posted from a website. Languageseeker (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed deletion that TE(æ)A,ea. links to above is a nice case study of why this amendment is such a terrible idea. A relatively new user (in contributions if not so much in time) has pasted a poem, which we didn't previously have, and which is in scope. The contribution is clearly a good faith attempt to improve the site, and I think the site has been improved. We could help this user to understand how they can contribute in higher value ways, but instead we are going to summarily delete their work. This is cultural poison. Hesperian 01:03, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hesperian I did reach out to the user on their talk page to offer them to find a scan and help them learn how to proofread it. Languageseeker (talk) 02:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please let us not confuse scan and source. The ask isn't for them to provide a scan at this point, but a source and we should be very clear that if they provide a source we could fill out the header and save it from deletion. MarkLSteadman (talk) 23:15, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thankyou, point taken. Hesperian 00:18, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i do not believe you have a consensus to delete non scan back works. instead of wasting time deleting works, how about spending time proofreading? put on a maintenance tag "missing source" or "missing scan" and people can work the backlog; delete it and they cannot.

shifting the burden of providing scans upon the uploader is an insidious practice. it bites good faith newbies, and impedes quality improvement by scraping low quality work. it’s not paper, and we do not have a server limitation on low quality work, rather we have an attention limitation that you are diverting by management by drama. we need to pivot those dumping non scan backed to proofreading, when you delete their work, then you make pivoting harder. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 17:15, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bot approval requests[edit]

See Wikisource:Bots for information about applying for a bot status
See Wikisource:Bot requests if you require an existing bot to undertake a task

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

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

Index:The future of Africa.djvu[edit]

Starting at Page:The future of Africa.djvu/9 until the end, please move the text by +4. Languageseeker (talk) 06:07, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mpaa (talk) 21:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpaa Thank you!

Index:Incidents in the life of a slave girl.djvu[edit]

[[Starting at Page:Incidents in the life of a slave girl.djvu/5 until the end, please move the text by +4. Languageseeker (talk) 01:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done Mpaa (talk) 11:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpaa Thank you!

The Professor: a Tale[edit]

Please move The Professor: a Tale to The Professor (First Edition) Languageseeker (talk) 17:29, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: Is there really no better dab then "First Edition" for this? Is the year it was published not sufficiently unique? Xover (talk) 06:35, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover The year is insufficent because there is also the Tauchnitz edition and Harper & Brothers editions published in the same year. This is the only edition set from the manuscript of Charlotte Brontë, see [=year%3A%221857%22] and [1]. For a lot of these big names, I'm following the naming convention established in the Clarendon editions. Languageseeker (talk) 12:13, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: The common dab for situations such as this is "(year, publisher)". Xover (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover Is it possible to name it The Professor (First Edition) or is that strictly forbidden? Languageseeker (talk) 12:34, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: It is not explicitly forbidden anywhere that I'm familiar with (we don't tend to write guidance at that level of specificity), but it is decidedly non-standard and I am disinclined to do so. Xover (talk) 13:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover Ok. I just fail to see how The Professor (1857, Smith, Elder & Co.) is a better name, especially since you can situations such as North and South (1855, Chapman and Hall, First Edition) and North and South (1855, Chapman and Hall, Second Edition). Also with this dab, what do you do about serials? North and South (1854—1855, Household Worlds). Seems to me as if this dab can get pretty ugly very quickly. Would we also say Hamlet (1623, Iſaac Iaggard, and Ed. Blount) instead of Hamlet (First Folio)? Languageseeker (talk) 14:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: There's no perfect dab scheme, and there will always be cases when the lesser of two evils must be picked. In particular, once you get to three-component dabs you'll find there's a much greater appetite for picking a pragmatic solution. The problem with your proposed dab scheme is that it over-emphasises the first edition. I know this is an attribute of primary concern to you, to the point you've actually title-cased the phrase first edition in your dab, but it is simply not a significant distinguishing factor in this context (making the wikipage page name unique). Xover (talk) 15:06, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover I'm not trying to be pedantic for the mere sake of my own personal predilections. This edition is called the first edition in the scholarship on the Brontë sisters. It's sort of a standard name in the field. In the spirit of compromise, could we make this The Professor (1857, Smith, Elder & Co.) and then have The Professor (First Edition) redirect to it? Languageseeker (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: Redirects are cheap, so have as many as you want (well, within reason of course, but…).

Doing... Xover (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker:

Done Please check that I didn't mess anything up. Xover (talk) 19:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover Looks good! Thanks. Languageseeker (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and {{EB1911 fine print/s}} use[edit]

There are multiple instances of the template {{EB1911 fine print/s}} (and {{EB1911 Fine Print/s}}) that do not have a carriage return right after them, causing formatting problems. So a carriage return needs to be inserted where it is missing. i.e. {{EB1911 fine print/s}} (and {{EB1911 Fine Print/s}}) need to be on a line by themselves with no other text on the same line. Also, {{EB1911 fine print/e}} and {{EB1911 Fine Print/e}} need to be on a line by themselves with no text beforehand. Can this please be fixed by a robot? Thanks — DivermanAU (talk) 00:12, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Doing... Xover (talk) 06:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: - thank you very much. DivermanAU (talk) 20:46, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Done There was somewhere between 6k and 9k pages affected by this (6k /s and 3k /e, so actual number depends on how often they were on the same page and how often they were separate), so it's possible that there were some edge cases in there that broke when we added the newlines. Xover (talk) 08:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not clear to me if there is a real formatting problem or not. Anyhow, the doc page of the template shows an example without newline. If that is really wrong, it should be amended.Mpaa (talk) 12:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've amended the example in the template documentation. It is necessary, otherwise a line break in the text will be rendered as a paragraph break. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:05, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu[edit]

Please delete Page:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu/826 and Page:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu/827 and move up all sequential pages in the scan. They're malformed duplicates of pages that already exist in the scan. Page:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu/53 and Page:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu/52 are also duplicates. DoublePendulumAttractor (talk) 21:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/1 and United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/L.1[edit]

The history of the latter page should be merged into the former one. —— Eric Liu_{（留言．百科用戶頁）} 04:44, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Move request: The Village Pulpit, Volume II to The Village Pulpit/Volume 2[edit]

I found this on User:Inductiveload/false root pages, and I'd like to standardize the page structure. Specifically, the moves I'd like are:

Thanks! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:43, 12 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Other discussions[edit]

Policy on substantially empty works[edit]

[This is imported from WS:PD, where it applies to multiple current proposals, and several other works].

We have quite a few cases of works that are "collective" or "encyclopaedic" in that they comprise many standalone articles of individual value, which are basically just "shell pages", with no substantial content of any sort, not even imported scans or Index pages. For example, and this isn't intended to make any statement about these specific works, they're just examples and they may well get some work done soon during their respective WS:PD discussions:

Auction Prices of Books, a four volume set of auction listings, by author. No scans, no content and a couple of notes in the header.
Central Law Journal/Volume 1, a single volume from a periodical, with a AuxTOC of numbers, and a title page, but otherwise empty. Has scans and Index.
A Critical Dictionary of English Literature, a three-volume dictionary by author. Currently has no scans, no title page, and a single non-scan backed article.
Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide, a top-level periodical page with a single volume number and no other content. No scans linked, though Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide (XVI) did once exist, it was deleted and Index:Bradshaw's_Monthly_(XVI).djvu exists and is partly proofread.

Based on the usual rate of editing for things like that, unless dragged up into a process like WS:PD, they'll remain that way a very, very long time. I think it is perhaps there might be a case to host a mainspace page for this work, even though there is zero, or almost zero actual content. Do we want:

Mainspace pages where this is a tiny bit of information like header notes, scan links and maybe detective work on the talk page (not in this case). This provides a place for people to incrementally add content. Also gives "false positive" blue links, since there is actually no "real" content from the work itself, or
Do not have a mainspace page until there's some content. Only host this in terms of scan links author/portal scan links, much like we do for something like a novel.

Personally, I lean (gently) towards #2, but with a fairly low bar for how much content is needed. Say, Indexes, basic templates, a title page and one example article. Ideally, a completed TOC if practical, especially for periodical volumes/numbers. It is fair to not wish to transcribe entire volumes of these work, it is fair to not want to import dozens of scans when you only wanted one, it is fair to only want an article or two, but it's not fair, IMO, to expect the first person who wants to add an article to have to do all the groundwork themselves, despite having been lured in with a blue link. That onus feels more like it should be on the person creating the top-level page in the first place.

I do see some value in periodical top pages with decent lists of volumes and scans where known, because these are often tricky and fiddly to compile from Google books/IA/Hathi, so it's not useless work, even if there are no imported scans (though imported is better than not).

We currently have a large handful of collective works listed for deletion right now in various levels of "no real content", and, furthermore, every single periodical that gets added can fall into this situation unless the person who adds, so I think we could have a think about what we really want to see here. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that, if there is no scan as an Index: page, the main-namespace page should not exist unless it is being actively completed or is already mostly completed. A few pages (of the volume itself) is not very helpful, and is entirely useless if their is no scan given. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:59, 3 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I think such preparatory information would ideally be on more centralized WikiProject pages (for the broad subject), both for clarity and to assist in keeping different efforts consistent -- but that it certainly should be retained as visible to non-admins. I think that the red vs blue link issue is minor (but not totally negligible) and outweighed by the disadvantages of hiding the history of previous efforts. I strongly encourage redirecting such pages to appropriate WikiProject pages (after copying over the details there). JesseW (talk) 18:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseW: I agree that history shouldn't be deleted, but I think we should approach this in terms of what we want to see from these works, rather than what to do with the handful of examples at PD. There are hundreds of periodicals we could have but don't, and this applies to those as well. If we can come to a conclusion about what is and isn't wanted, we can make all the deletion requested works conform to that easily enough. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think these pages are necessary to list index pages and external scans of multi-volume works (such as encyclopaedias and periodicals) especially if they are wholly or partly anonymous or have many authors or are simply large. I think it makes no difference whether such pages are in the mainspace, the portal space or the project space (except that it is harder to find pages outside the mainspace). The point is that these works often have so many volumes (often dozens or hundreds) that they must have their own page, and cannot be merged into a larger portal or wikiproject. If the community starts insisting on index pages, what will happen is the rapid upload of a large number of scans for the periodicals that already have their own page. Likewise if the community insists on transclusion. I also think it is reasonable to have a contents page in the mainspace, as it allows transclusion of articles. Most importantly, new restrictions should not immediately apply to existing pages that were created before the introduction of the restrictions. This is necessary to prevent a bottleneck. James500 (talk) 23:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

move the works to a maintenance category, and i will work them; delete them and i will not: i find your sword of Damocles demotivating. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 01:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Slowking4: I am not proposing a sword of Damocles. I agree that the imposition of deadlines is counter-productive. I do not support the deletion of any of these pages. I would prefer to see them improved. James500 (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TEA is on his usual deletion spree. not a fan. will not be finding scans to save texts, any more. he can do it. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 00:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The entire point of moving this here, and not staying at WS:PD is to decouple from the emotions that get stirred up in a deletion discussion. Let's keep deletion out of this. If we come up with some idea of what we do and don't want, then we can go back to WS:PD and decide what to do. I imagine that all that will be needed will be a fairly limited amount of housework to bring those works up to some standard that we can decide on here, and all the collective works there will be easy keeps. Hopefully with some kind of consensus that we can point at to outline a minimum viable product for such works going forward. There are hundreds and thousands of dictionaries, encyclopedias, periodicals and newspapers that we could/will, quite reasonably, have only snippets of. How do we want to present them? What, exactly, is the minimum threshold? Let's head of all those future deletion proposals off at the pass, because deletion proposals often cause friction. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 00:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and yet deletion is the default method to "motivate" quality improvement. i reject your assertion that "emotions get stirred in a deletion discussion", rather, anger is a valid response to a repeated broken process being kicked down on the volunteers. it is unclear that a minimum threshold is necessary, rather a functional quality improvement process is. until we have one, you should expect to see this periodic stirring of emotions, as the non-leaders act out. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 11:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Slowking4: Thank you for presenting this opinion, and I'm sorry if I have not made myself clear. We do need to figure out how to avoid a de-facto process of using WS:PD as an ill-tempered ad-hoc venue for "forcing" improvements on people who have somehow managed to generate works that are so in need of improvement that another user has nominated them for deletion. Please also consider looking at #Re-purpose_WikiProject_OCR_to_WikiProject_Scans for an idea to have a "functional quality improvement process" to which such works could be referred upon discovery rather than kicking them straight to WS:PD. If you have other ideas or you have previously suggested something similar to address these frustrations, you could detail them there. Personally, I think we should always prefer improvement over deletion. Exactly what the remediation is (refer to a putative WP:Scans, WS:Scriptorium/Help, directly WS:PD as now, or something else) is not what this thread is for. This thread is for discussing, what, if anything, should be the tipping point for deeming a page "lacking" and doing something about, whatever "something" is. I don't think I can be much clearer that this is not about deletion. If we also have a better venue for improvements, then that's even better.

For example, my personal feeling and !vote on A Critical Dictionary of English Literature is "keep and improve", despite it lacking scans or even links to scans, having only one article and no other content, not even a title page: in short, failing almost every criterion suggested so far in this thread. The only thing it does have is have is good text quality of the one entry. I personally do not think this work should be deleted, but I do think it should be improved in specific ways. The first half of that sentence is not the focus of this discussion, the second half is. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

deletion threat has been an habitual method of communicating by admins since the beginning of the project. and text dumps have been habitual following in the guttenberg example. culture change and process change would be required to change those behaviors. we could may it easier to start scan backed works, but the wishlist was not supported. Slowking4 ⚔ Rama's revenge 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this needs to be much of an issue going forward -- we all agree that it's OK to create Index pages for scans, even if none of the Pages have been transcribed yet; so the only case where this would come up is recording research where no scan has yet been identified as suitable to be uploaded. And for that, I still think a WikiProject page is the right location, not mainspace. (Or, if you must, your userpage.) JesseW (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC) I realized I may not have been clear enough here -- in my view, the ideal process goes like this:[reply]

Decide on a work you are interested in (in this case, a periodical/encyclopedic one) -- don't record that anywhere on-wiki (except maybe your user page)
Find and upload (to Commons) a scan of one part/issue/etc of the work.
Create a ProofreadPage-managed page in the Index: namespace for the scan. (You can stop after this point, without worry that your work will later be discarded.)
EITHER
1. Put further research (on other editions, context, possible wikification, etc.) on that Index_talk page.
2. Proofread a complete part of the scan (an article from the magazine issue, a chapter from the book, a entry from an encyclopedia, etc.) and transclude it to the mainspace (and create necessary parent pages), and put the further research on the Talk: page of the parent mainspace entry.

If you can't find any scan, and don't want to leave your working notes on your user page, put them on a relevant WikiProject's page.

If you come across such research done by others and misplaced, follow the above process to relocate it to an appropriate place, then redirect the page where you found it to the new location. That's my proposal. JesseW (talk) 01:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseW: It's not clear to me in your above whether when you use the term "index" you refer to a ProofreadPage-managed page in the Index: namespace, or a general wikipage in the main namespace on which an index-like structure (and/or a ToC, or similar) is manually created. Could you clarify? --Xover (talk) 05:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I meant the namespace. Clarified now. JesseW (talk) 05:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoo-boy. Y'all sure know how to pick the difficult issues…
My general stance is that: 1) scans and Index: (and Page:) namespace pages have no particular completion criteria to meet to merit inclusion, and can stay in whatever state indefinitely (there may be other reasons to get rid of them, but not this); and 2) the default for mainspace is that only scan-backed complete and finished works that meet a minimum standard for quality should exist there.
That general stance must be nuanced in two main ways: 1) there must be some kind of grandfather clause for pre-existing pages; and 2) there must exist exceptions for certain kinds of works that meet certain criteria. I won't touch on the grandfather clause here much, except to say I'm generally in favour of making it minimal, maybe something like "No active effort to get rid of older works, but if they're brought to PD for other reasons they're fair game". The design of a grandfather clause for this is a whole separate discussion, and an intelligent one requires analysis of existing pages that would be affected by it. It is always preferable to migrate pages to a modern standard, so a grandfather clause is by definition a second choice option.
Now, to the meat of the matter: the exceptions…
We have a clear policy to start from: no excerpts. Works should either be complete as published, or they should not be in mainspace. But quite apart from the historical practices that modify this (which are somewhat subjective and inconsistent, so I'll ignore them for now), there are some fairly obvious cases that suggest a need for more nuance than a simple bright-line rule alone provides. The major ones that come to mind are: 1) massive never-completed projects like EB1911 or the New York Times (EB because it's big; NYT because new PD issues are added every year); 2) compilations or collections of stand-alone works with plausible claim to independent notability.
For encyclopedias and encyclopedia-like things, we have to accept some subsets due to sheer scale of work. But when that is the grounds for exception, there needs to be some minimum level of completion. I'm not sure I can come up with a specific number of pages/entries or percentage, but it needs to be more than just a single entry (and, obviously, only complete entries). For this kind of exception to apply, I think it needs to be a requirement that the framing structure for it is complete: that is, the mainspace page should give a complete overview of the relevant work even if most of it is redlinks. That includes title pages and other prolegomena when relevant. For a periodical like the NYT, that means complete lists of issues with dates and other such relevant information (e,g. name changes etc.). For preference, these kinds of things should be in Portal: namespace or on a WikiProject page until actually complete, but that will not always be practical (EB1911 and NYT are examples of this). Mainspace or Portal:-space should never contain external links (i.e. to scans) or links to Index: or Page: space (except the implied link of transclusion and the "Source" tab in the MW UI provided by ProofreadPage).
For exception claimed under independent notability there are a couple of distinct variants.
Newspaper or magazine articles need to have a certain level of substance in addition to a specific identifiable byline (possibly anonymous or pseudonymous, and possibly identified after the fact by some other source, such as the Letters of Junius) in order to qualify. It is not enough to ipso facto be a newspaper article, a magazine article, a poem, or an encyclopedia entry. On the one hand we have things like dictionaries and thesauri, where an entry could be as little as two words. Or a one-sentence notice without byline in a newspaper. Or two rhymed lines (technically a poem) within a 1000-page scholarly monograph.
To merit this exception it should be reasonable to argue that the "work" in question should exist as a stand-alone mainspace page (not that we generally want that; but as a test for this exception, it should be reasonable to make such an argument). This would clearly apply to moderately long entries in the EB1911 written by a known author that has their own Wikipedia article. It would apply to short stories or novella-length serialisations in literary magazines by authors that have later become famous (or "are still …"). It would apply to various longer-form journalistic material from identifiable journalists (again, rule of thumb is notable enough for enWP article), including things in magazines that have similar properties. For most periodicals the most relevant atomic (indivisable) part is the issue not the entry or article, but with some commonsense exceptions.
It would, generally, not apply to things that are works by a single author, like a scholarly monograph that just happens to be arranged in "entries" rather than chapters. It would not apply to things that are essentially lists or tables of data. It would not apply to short entries in something encyclopedia-like or entries that are not by an identifiable author. The OED for example, iirc, is a collective work where entries are by multiple not individually identifiable authors (and each entry is mostly very short too); only the overall editor is usually cited.
For works claiming this exception too the framing structure should be complete, even if most of it are redlinks. The same general rules about Portal:/WikiProject and no external or Index:-space links apply. An exception would be for periodicals where new issues enter the public domain every year; and we should generally avoid including even redlinks for the non-PD issues here (but may allow them in a WikiProject page). For non-periodical works in multiple volumes where some volumes were published after the PD cutoff, including listings for the non-PD volumes (but not links to scans; those are a copyvio issue) is ok.
Poems, short stories, and novellas are a special class of works here. A lot of these were first published in a magazine (possibly serialized), and a lot of them exist as multiple editions in substantially the same form. Some exist in multiple versions. These should all primarily exist the same way as chapters as part of their various containing works; but there are some cases where we might want to have, for example, a series of connected pages of the poems of Emily Dickinson. I am significantly ambivalent about this practice, as it amounts to making our own "edition" or "collection" of her poems (in violation of several of our other policies), but I acknowledge that it is an established practice and it is something that has definite value to our readers. It may be that it is actually a practice that should be governed by its own dedicated policy rather be attempted to be handled within these other general policies.
For the sake of example; applying this to the works Inductiveload listed at the start of this thread would shake out something like this:
⁠• Auction Prices of Books—This work appears to have no sensible subdivisions and is in any case by a single author. I see no obvious reason to grant this work an exception, except under sheer volume of work and even there I would want to see both a substantial proportion completed and some kind of ongoing effort towards completion (no particular time frame, but definitely not infinite and definitely not as an effectively abandoned project). In a deletion discussion I would very likely vote to delete the mainspace pages here (but, as nearly always, to keep the Index: and Page: namespace artifacts). I don't see this as a reasonable candidate for a Portal:, nor really a good fit for a WikiProject (though I probably wouldn't object to a WikiProject if someone really wanted one).
⁠• Central Law Journal/Volume 1—A single volume is too little, so I would want to see a complete structure for the entire Central Law Journal, with level of detail for each volume similar to the one existing volume. Each article in the journal can be individually considered for a stand-alone work exception; but for the collection I would want to see at minimum a full issue finished to justify having the mainspace structure, and preferably multiple issues (in a deletion discussion I might insist on multiple issues). Index: and Page:-space artefacts can, of course, stay. A Portal: might make sense for selections from the journal, of articles that meet the standalone work exception. A WikiProject to coordinate work and track links to scans etc. might be a decent fit here, if someone wanted that. As it currently stands I would probably vote delete for the mainspace artefacts (with option to move whatever content has reuse value to a non-mainspace page for preservation; and undeleting if someone wants to work on something is a low bar).
⁠• A Critical Dictionary of English Literature—The top level mainspace page has near-zero value, existing only to link to the single transcribed entry. For a credible claim to exception to exist it would need to be a complete framework for the work as a whole, and significantly more than a single entry must be complete. I would probably also want to see ongoing work, unless a substantial percentage of the entries were complete. The single finished entry is eligible to claim a standalone work exception, but I think it probably would not meet my bar for that (I might be wrong; and the rest of the community might judge it differently). In a deletion discussion I would probably vote to delete all the mainspace artifacts here (as always keeping Index:/Page: stuff) but with a definite possibility that I might be persuaded on the one completed entry (an absolute requirement for convincing me would be to scan-back it: as a separate issue, my tolerance for grandfathering of non-scan-backed works is small, and effectively zero for new/non-grandfathered works).
⁠• Bradshaw's Monthly Railway Guide—Would need a full framework and a number of individual issues finished to merit a mainspace page. I see no credible subdivisions for a standalone work exception, but might be persuaded otherwise if, say, one of the train tables was used as a (reliable primary) source in a Wikipedia article (implying some sort of notability beyond just being raw data). In a deletion discussion I would probably vote to delete all mainspace artifacts here. If anyone made the argument, I would entertain the notion that there is value in treating train tables like poems, and hosting a series of train tables like we do Dickinson's poems; but that would require a substantial number of them completed.
For everything above my stance is nuanced by a willingness to accept temporary exceptions for things that are actively being worked: active being operative, but with no particular deadline to complete the work. We have differing amounts of time available, and some works are so labour-intensive or tedious to do, that my person threshold for "active" is a pretty low bar to clear. If it's months and years between every time you dip in and do a bit I might start to get antsy, but days or weeks probably won't faze me. And that the projected time to completion is very long at that pace is not particularly a problem so long as it is not infinite. Within those parameters I would always tend to err on the side of letting contributors just get on with it in peace, regardless of any of the policy-like rules sketched above.
I also want to emphasise that I think this is a very difficult issue to deal with. There are a lot of competing concerns, and a lot of grey areas that will likely take individual discussions to resolve. My balance point on this issue is partly formed by a broader concern about our overall quality (we have waay too many works of plain sub-par quality, and too many not up to modern standards) and a hope that by preventing the creation of these kinds of works (rather than deleting them after creation) we will be able to retain the good and desirable exceptions without dragging down quality, and without the traumatic and stressful events that deletions and proposed deletion discussions are.
And for that very reason I am grateful this issue was brought up here for discussion, and I hope we can end up with some clear guidance, possibly in the form of a policy page, going forward. And in any case, since it will create de facto policy, this is a discussion that needs to stay open for a good long while (there are several community members that have not yet commented whose opinion I would wish to hear before closing this), and depending on how well we manage to structure the consensus, may also require a formal vote (up in the #Proposals section). --Xover (talk) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. It is becoming clear that a policy on incomplete works in the mainspace is going to place enormous pressure on individual editors. I think it would be more effective to start a wikiproject devoted to scan-backing works that lack scans and so on. James500 (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @James500: FYI, this thread was made in order to provide an exception to the current policy of "no excerpts". A literal reading of the policy as it stands has a plausible chance of coming down delete on the mainspace pages over at WS:PD. This thread is a chance to come up with a better way to support such partial collective works. That we have several substantially incomplete and abandoned collective works lolling around in mainspace is actually the result of laxity in respect to stated policy (not to say I think it's a bad thing). The deletion proposals, whatever you may think of them, are actually not in contradiction to policy. That said, as always, there is scope to adjust policy. Which is what this is.
- Now, in terms of a WikiProject to scan back works, I think that is a good idea. See #Re-purpose_WikiProject_OCR_to_WikiProject_Scans above, which proposed to reboot Wikiproject OCR as a scan-backing Wikiproject. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The policy says "When an entire work is available as a djvu file on commons and an Index page is created here, works are considered in process not excerpts." A literal reading of that policy is that no scan-backed work is an excerpt (it is expected to be completed eventually). Further the policy refers to "Random or selected sections of a larger work". A literal reading of that expression is that it does not include lists of scans, or auxilliary content tables, as they are not "sections" (they are not part of the work), and that not every incomplete portion of a work is either "random or selected" (which would not include starting from the beginning and getting as far as you can, with intent to finish later). I could probably argue that an encyclopedia article or periodical article is a complete work. James500 (talk) 15:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice wall of text, Xover (and I say that with great respect!) -- it generally makes sense and sounds good to me. As another hopefully illustrative example, take The Works of Voltaire, which I've been digging thru lately. I think this would very much satisfy your criteria as a large work, with sufficient scaffolding to justify the mainspace pages that exist for it. I would love to hear others thoughts on that. JesseW (talk) 16:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@JesseW: Yeah, apologies for the length. Brevity is just not my strong suit.
The Works of Voltaire probably qualifies on sheer scale of work, yes. I don't think the current wikipage at The Works of Voltaire is quite it though: as it currently stands it is more WikiProject than something that should sit in mainspace (its contents are for Wikisource contributors, to organise our effort, not our readers, who want to read finished transcriptions). It also mixes a work page with a versions page in a confusing way. So I would probably say… Move the current page to Wikisource:WikiProject Voltaire; create a new The Works of Voltaire as a pure versions page, linking to…; The Works of Voltaire (1906), that is set up as a work page with the cover and title (and other relevant front matter) of the first volume, and an AuxTOC (and possibly also the {{Works of Voltaire}} volume navigation template). I don't know how tightly coupled the volumes of this edition are (does the first volume have a common ToC or index of works for all the volumes?), so some flexibility on format may be needed to make sense. But as a base rule of thumb it should start from a regular works page and deviate only as needed to accommodate this work (mainly the size is different).
In any case… With a volume or two completed (they're only ~350 pages each) I'd be perfectly happy having something like that sitting around. With less then that I'd possibly be a bit more iffy, but it's hard to put any kind of hard limit on that. And with somebody actively working on it I'd be in no hurry whatsoever regardless of current level of completion.
PS. I'm pretty sure a large proportion of the contents of these volumes are works that would qualify under "standalone works" that could exist independently in mainspace, regardless of what's done with the The Works of Voltaire page. Even his individual poems and essays can presumably make a credible claim here (because it's Voltaire; less famous authors would have a higher bar). Better as part of the edition, but also acceptable on their own. --Xover (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JesseW: I personally take no issue with this page's existence (actually I think it's a nice work and good way to allow an important author's works to be slotted in piece-by-piece. I have some general comments which overlap with this thread (written before Xover's reply, so pardon overlap):

- First off, I differ with Xover in terms of the scan links: I think they're better than nothing, and I don't see much value in duplicating the volume list onto an auxiliary page just to add scan links. However, I can sympathise with the sentiment that our mainspace shouldn't direct users off-wiki (or at least off-WMF). But if we don't have the scans, and that's what the user wants, they're leaving anyway. Real answer: import moar scans!
- No scan links are necessary where the volume exists in mainspace and is scan-backed (e.g. v3)
- Ext scan links should only be used when there is no Index page or imported scan. Use {{small scan link}} or {{Commons link}} when possible (e.g. v2)
- The first volume list could probably be in an AuxTOC to mark it out as WS-generated content.
- The "Other editions" section belongs on an auxiliary namespace page (Talk, Portal or Wikisource). I suggest the Talk page is best in this case. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Xover: I am in agreement with the majority of what you say. Particularly, I think a framework around any collective work (be it a single-volume biographical dictionary or a 400-issue literary review spanning 80 years) is the critical prerequisite, plus at least some scans, the more the merrier. Where I think I differ:
- I am inclined to be a bit more relaxed in terms of how much of a work we need. As long as a single article exists, it's not "trivial" (e.g. only a short advert or some incidental text like a "note to correspondents", as opposed to an actual article), it's well-formatted and scan-backed, and a complete framework exists, including front matter and a TOC, such that's it is easy for anyone to slot in new pieces, I'd be fairly happy. Lots of periodicals have all sort of tricky bits like tables of stocks or weather tables and writing into policy that those must be proofread in order to get the "real" articles into mainspace would be a chilling effect, in my opinion. If you allowed an exception, it would be verbose and tricky to capture the spirit without saying "unless, like, it's totally, like, hard, man".
- I am not dead against scan links in the mainspace at the top level, when such a top-level page exists. See my comments on Voltaire above. I am against them where they could sensibly be on an Author page and they are the only mainspace content.
- I am ambivalent on the presence of, e.g., disjointed train timetables. It's not my thing to have a smattering of random timetables, but as long as they're individually presented nicely, it's not too offensive to my sensibilities. I might question the sanity of someone who loves doing tables that much, but whatever floats the boats! Also, I think that this might circle back to "good for export" - a mark which certainly would require completed issues or volumes. If you want to get that box ticked, you have to do it all.
- Re the "notability" aspect of individual articles, I'm not really bothered by that, as I don't think we'll see a flood of total dross because few people really want to take the time to transcribe 1867 articles about cats in a tree from the Nowhere, Arizona Daily Reporter, and, actually I think some of the "dross" can be quite interesting in a slice-of-life kind of a way (always assuming well-formed and scan-backed). And the real dross is usually so bad (no scans, raw OCR, etc) that it can be dealt with outside of this topic. I think part of the value of WS is the tiny, weird and wonderful, not just in blockbusters like War and Peace and Pultizers. I think I might like to see more of our articles strung together thematically via Portals, but that's another day's issue. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Inductiveload: We appear to be mostly in agreement. But… instead of me dropping another wall of text on the remaining points of disagreement, maybe that means we're in a position to try to hash out a draft guidance / policy type page with the rough framework? Then we could go at the remaining issues point by point. Because I think I'm in with a decent chance to persuade you to my point of view on at least some of them, but this thread is fast getting unwieldy (mostly my fault). It would also probably be easier for the community to relate to now, and much easier to lean on in the future. --Xover (talk) 18:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @Xover: If there are no more comments forthcoming after a couple of days, I think that makes sense. I don't want to railroad it: considering we have at least one !vote for "do nothing", I'd like to see if there are any other substantially different opinions floating about. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The quantity of text here has grown far faster than my ability to absorb it, so rather than continue to put it off, here's my position: I don't see any problem with transcriptions that are scan-backed, even if the transcription only covers a small fraction of the entire scan. If Sally chooses (say) to transcribe a favorite story, that happened to be published in an issue of Harper's back in the 1890s, and goes to the trouble of uploading the full issue, but only creates pages for the one story that interests her, I think that's great. It doesn't matter to me whether she intends to work on the other pages or not. If it's not scan-backed, but it's fairly high quality, I am personally willing to do some work trying to locate a scan and match it up to the text; I'd rather we take that approach, than deletion, though of course deletion is the better option in some cases where the scan is very hard to come by.

~~If all this has been said above, or if I've misunderstood the topic, my apologies. Please take this comment or leave it, as appropriate. -Pete (talk) 02:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Apologies, I see I had missed the point.

I disagree with Xover's statement that a top-level page for a publication, with a link only to a single article within the publication, has "near-zero value." Such a page can serve an important function linking content together in ways that help the reader (and search engines) find the content they're looking for, or understand the context around it. For instance, A Critical Dictionary of English Literature is linked from the relevant Wikidata entry. The banner on the Wikisource page clearly tells a Wikisource reader that they won't find a full transcription here; and with a simple edit, it could link to a full scan on another site, or (with perhaps a little more effort) even transcription links here on Wikisource. This page has been here since 2010; we don't have any way of knowing what links might have been created elsewhere in the intervening decade. (I do think that new pages like this should not be created without a scan at Commons to be linked to.) -Pete (talk) 02:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm really bad with walls of text, so I have only read a tiny portion of the above discussion. But I want to mention a couple of things that I think are worth considering in this discussion.

Most of the time, a mainspace "work" that is only a table of contents, but which has none of the actual content, and is not actively being worked on, can be (and should be) deleted as No meaningful content or history under our deletion policy.
A mainspace work that has only a little bit of content, but that content is a work unto itself within the scope of Wikisourse, should be kept. Most periodicals are like this. For an example, see the Journal of English and Germanic Philology which only has one hosted article, but that hosted article is scan-backed and firmly within scope.
On some occasions, empty mainspace works do have value. I ended up creating the page The Roman Breviary, depsite containing no actual content, mostly because there are a lot of works that link to it, using many different titles, and if someone uploaded a copy of the work under one title then many of the links would remain red because they point to different titles of the work. This could be easily solved by creating redirects to a simple placeholder page, so I did. I tried to make the placeholder page as useful as a placeholder page can be, as it contains useful information about the history and authorship of the work, and links to the Index pages where the transcription will take place.

Anyway those are my 2 cents, sorry if they are redundant —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal[edit]

Since there has been no extra input for a month, and not wanting this section to get archived without at least attempting a proposal, I have started a proposal #Collective work inclusion criteria above. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since the proposal has now slipped off the main page (to here), with vague support for the first part (collective work inclusion criteria) and a fairly consistent opposition to the second (no-content pages), my plan is to transfer the first part, as guidelines rather than policy, to Wikisource:Periodical guidelines. As non-binding guidelines, they can then be worked on further in situ. Sound OK? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 08:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The example given in Wikisource:Periodical guidelines might be improved, PSM is and was an exercise that has gone its own way (no offense to @Ineuw:, this is a site under development and that is only one example).CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Cygnis insignis: You would be wrong to think that I am offended. Remember that when I started, I knew everything. By now, so much of that knowledge is lost that I am happy to listen. Would you elaborate please? — Ineuw (talk) 19:50, 17 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've created Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide (XVI) - it couldn't be done on one page, due to the very high number of template transclusions. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 1 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pigsonthewing: The links in the toc on that page appear non-functional. Also, depending on just exactly which templates were the culprit, it is possible that you may be able to put all the content you wanted onto one page now due to some recent technical changes (template code moved to a Lua module which drastically improves performance and prevents hitting transclusion limits until much later). Xover (talk) 11:17, 14 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Create the Draft namespace to hold substantially empty works? Then delete if no improvement after months?--Jusjih (talk) 19:22, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is that the "substantially empty works" can have useful and complete content that stands alone. For example, an article from a scientific journal.

I would not want to see that either shunted into a Draft namespace to rot or deleted a few weeks down the line.

Index and Page namespaces provide our long term staging areas, and works can and do remain unfinished there for years. But what do we do when a self-contained piece of a larger work is ready? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 20:29, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News
Issue 1, June 2021Read the full newsletter

Welcome to the first issue of Universal Code of Conduct News! This newsletter will help Wikimedians stay involved with the development of the new code, and will distribute relevant news, research, and upcoming events related to the UCoC.

Please note, this is the first issue of UCoC Newsletter which is delivered to all subscribers and projects as an announcement of the initiative. If you want the future issues delivered to your talk page, village pumps, or any specific pages you find appropriate, you need to subscribe here.

You can help us by translating the newsletter issues in your languages to spread the news and create awareness of the new conduct to keep our beloved community safe for all of us. Please add your name here if you want to be informed of the draft issue to translate beforehand. Your participation is valued and appreciated.

Affiliate consultations – Wikimedia affiliates of all sizes and types were invited to participate in the UCoC affiliate consultation throughout March and April 2021. (continue reading)
2021 key consultations – The Wikimedia Foundation held enforcement key questions consultations in April and May 2021 to request input about UCoC enforcement from the broader Wikimedia community. (continue reading)
Roundtable discussions – The UCoC facilitation team hosted two 90-minute-long public roundtable discussions in May 2021 to discuss UCoC key enforcement questions. More conversations are scheduled. (continue reading)
Phase 2 drafting committee – The drafting committee for the phase 2 of the UCoC started their work on 12 May 2021. Read more about their work. (continue reading)
Diff blogs – The UCoC facilitators wrote several blog posts based on interesting findings and insights from each community during local project consultation that took place in the 1st quarter of 2021. (continue reading)

—unsigned comment by SOyeyele (WMF) (talk) 22:37, 10 June 2021‎.

Index:Robert Carter- his life and work. 1807-1889 (IA robertcarterhis00coch).pdf[edit]

First run through is done, and it's transcluded. Needs validation. Thanks in advance for any help. Jarnsax (talk) 18:13, 16 June 2021‎ (UTC)[reply]

J3l[edit]

The Works of the Late Edgar Allan Poe/Volume 1/The Domain of Arnheim —unsigned comment by 202.165.87.161 (talk) 18:52, 25 December 2021 ‎(UTC).[reply]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Dear community members,

Greetings from the EWOC Newsletter team and the education team at Wikimedia Foundation. We are very excited to share that we on tenth years of Education Newsletter (This Month in Education) invite you to join us by subscribing to the newsletter on your talk page or by sharing your activities in the upcoming newsletters. The Wikimedia Education newsletter is a monthly newsletter that collects articles written by community members using Wikimedia projects in education around the world, and it is published by the EWOC Newsletter team in collaboration with the Education team. These stories can bring you new ideas to try, valuable insights about the success and challenges of our community members in running education programs in their context.

If your affiliate/language project is developing its own education initiatives, please remember to take advantage of this newsletter to publish your stories with the wider movement that shares your passion for education. You can submit newsletter articles in your own language or submit bilingual articles for the education newsletter. For the month of January the deadline to submit articles is on the 20th January. We look forward to reading your stories.

Older versions of this newsletter can be found in the complete archive.

More information about the newsletter can be found at Education/Newsletter/About.

For more information, please contact spatnaikwikimedia.org.

About This Month in Education · Subscribe/Unsubscribe · Global message delivery · For the team: ZI Jony ^(Talk), Saturday 21:49, 19 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Versions in Portals[edit]

What is the community consensus on version is Portals, such as Portal:Science fiction. My own opinion is that it should be one work, one entry to reduce clutter. However, others might think that we should list all the works in the Portal namespace. Is there any consensus on this issue? Languageseeker (talk) 05:27, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We've been through this discussion before. Portals are the one namespace that is highly adaptive and flexible, and I would rather not have lots of little rules governing Portals. Whether specific editions are listed should be flexible with the needs or benefits in a given use in a given Portal, not governed by abstract rulings. There are Portals that exist precisely in order to list the different editions/translations because doing so in a versions page would be far more complicated. Portal:Odes of Pindar collects together all the various translations of the surviving Epinikia of Pindar. Forcing these listings to be scattered over dozens of individual pages would not serve anyone. That is part of the reason they are listed this way. There are also no uniform or consistent titles, and no universally accepted numbering system. So choosing a title for the versions page of one ode would be arbitrary and require dozens of redirects to cover the possible other names. And if you look at the Isthmian Odes you'll notice that there are two separate numbering systems, because for this group of odes, different authors split and number them differently. If we imposed a "rule" forbidding the listing of versions, this Portal (and others like it) would not be possible. --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: To my knowledge there is no consensus to regulate portals at that level of detail. In particular, we're currently using portals as a bit of a safety-valve that lets us be stricter in other namespaces. We will probably have to rethink that at some point, possibly soon, due to issues created by Wikidata and interwiki links (cf. the proposal regarding author dabs in mainspace), but as per now the rules for portal scoping are essentially "contributor judgement" and case-by-case consensus. There are consensus rules about portals, but not that regulate stuff like this (so far as I know). (They're also spread around discussion archives, which is why I'm being a bit vague and hand-wavy) Xover (talk) 07:21, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Text gets more and more indented[edit]

Hello. Feel free to move this to a better discussion venue if one exists.

On Hobson-Jobson/D, as well as other subpages of the same work, the text starts out normal and then occupies a smaller and smaller region on the right side of the screen. There must be something wrong with templates or stylesheets here.

I assume this can be fixed, but I do not know how. 70.172.194.25 19:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably from using {{Left margin|2em}}example text instead of {{Left margin|2em|example text}}. 70.172.194.25 19:43, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It is the repeated application of that template that keeps indenting the text. At no point does the coding tell the formatting to "stop" the indent or start over. This can be corrected by using {{Left margin/s}} to start an indented section and {{Left margin/e}} at the end of the section to start fresh. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:52, 16 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The pages did work, but some user vandalized the pages, removing all of the closing tags—should be blocked. I have reverted all of the page-breaking changes. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for fixing it! Looks like the user was not exactly a vandal, just a malfunctioning automaton. 70.172.194.25 01:46, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Ah, I see; this specific one seems to malfunction more than most. For fixing it, I just copied the version from before the bot ran, and pasted over to make a new version (which is called “rollback” if you’re an admin). Thanks for pointing it out, though! TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:53, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: This kind of sniping at another contributor is not acceptable. Please retract it. Xover (talk) 07:13, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Xover: I did not know it was a bot; I would not have used “vandal[]” if I had. However, the bot’s results are comparable to vandalism, and I believe the bot needs to be more closely watched in the future. The bot policy requires approval for mass changes; and bots are supposed to be regularly confirmed, but that idea seems to have been abandoned several years ago. I feel like this situation would not have happened, had the bot policy been more strictly followed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: People make mistakes and bots make mistakes. Sometimes things get overlooked. This is not "comparable to vandalism" because vandalism is when someone deliberately and knowingly breaks things for the purpose of getting a laugh out of it, or for vengeance on someone else perhaps. No comment on the bot policy, but regardless of it please don't assign bad faith to a clearly good-faith editor. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:17, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TE(æ)A,ea.: A bot's operator is responsible for its edits, which means you are here calling its operator a vandal. If you have an issue with someone's edits, whether manual or automated, your first recourse should always be to bring the issue up with them directly (i.e. on their talk page). Xover (talk) 15:30, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

on other projects bots get blocked, and operators get excoriated for lesser offenses. but i do hope we would just file an error report, at user talk. obscure code getting broken on non-scan backed pages is going to be a continuing problem.--Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 16:45, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that {{div end}} could also be used to close out a single parameter {{left margin}}. However, if you are doing a lot of simmilar {[tl|left-margin}} in a single work, then maybe also considered writing some Indexstyles and using {{class block}} instead. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:43, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, it is unclear that reverting the bot is a permanent fix, so alternate templates would be a good idea. there is also the index to improve the work, so the templates are in page space. Index:Hobson-Jobson a glossary of colloquial Anglo-Indian words and phrases, and of kindred terms, etymological, historical, geographical and discursive.djvu. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 23:49, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Another affected page: Useful Knowledge: Animals. Search I used to find it: [2] (everything else was a false positive). 70.172.194.25 01:47, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

and here would be the index to migrate to scan backed, if any are interested - Index:Useful knowledge - Animals.djvu --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 04:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Outdated info in Monthly Challenge tips?[edit]

The Tips section on the Monthly Challenge page advises users that If a word is divided across two pages: proofread the part on the first page as {{hws|text|complete word}} and the part on the second page as {{hwe|text|complete word}}. For example, {{hws|hel|hello}} and {{hwe|lo|hello}} will yield hello when transcluded. However, this appears to no longer be necessary, based on the notice in the {{hwe}} documentation page and at H:HYPHEN. Would whoever runs the Monthly Challenge edit the page to reflect that? Shells-shells (talk) 21:44, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shells-shells Done. Thanks for spotting this. Languageseeker (talk) 23:05, 17 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Languageseeker, Shells-shells: The so-called “fix” does not work universally, so that guidance should still be present. It doesn’t work for references, for instance. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, it makes sense to mention the use of {{hws}}. However, I think it would still be worthwhile to note that it's not necessary in many (most?) common scenarios. Shells-shells (talk) 05:17, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
We should definitely prefer the approach without hws/hwe as it is less complicated and easier to learn in the vast majority of instances. That hws/hwe is still needed in edge cases is "advanced techniques" much like other things that need highly specialized solutions. Xover (talk) 06:32, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikisource blocked in China?[edit]

Does anyone know if enWS is blocked in China? Languageseeker (talk) 00:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Languageseeker Here's a nice website which can verify that and check the status of others as well. Shells-shells (talk) 05:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- @TE(æ)A,ea. @Shells-shells Thanks! Languageseeker (talk) 22:02, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  - English Wikipedia is also blocked. Thanks for the great finding.--Jusjih (talk) 23:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    - [Just noting for anyone watching the revision history that my apparent revert of Jusjih's above comment was a mis-click in the mobile interface. For some unfathomable reason the mobile interface puts a giant "Rollback" button right where it is apt to get clicked by accident. Apologies for the noise, and a big thank you to Shells-shells for noticing and undoing. --Xover (talk) 09:52, 28 February 2022 (UTC)][reply]

Is there a better solution to using {{di}} with images?[edit]

Currently, the use of {{dropinitial}} with an image involves manually setting the image size in pixels and (optionally) setting the margins so that it lines up with the text block. In my view, this is rather unsatisfactory; it results in images not necessarily being displayed consistently across devices, both in size and in alignment with the text, because the pixel value and the font settings don't necessarily have any relation to each other. However, drop initials in real-life texts are typically aligned in some way with the actual text content: picking examples at random from the first few pages of Category:Dropinitials with image, see Page:An Essay on Virgil's Æneid.djvu/67, Page:BibleKJV1611-010.pdf/51, Page:Cicero And The Fall Of The Roman Republic.djvu/235; also Page:The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1926).djvu/47 and Page:The Seven Pillars of Wisdom (1926).djvu/48.

In short, is there any way to make images properly aligned with lines of text (hopefully with some options, too—align to baseline, midline, etc.) in a way that remains accurate when viewed on different devices? While I don't know anything significant about CSS, I've seen some examples of aligning text with images using flexboxes which seem like they might work in this context. Would anyone with expertise be willing to weigh in? Shells-shells (talk) 07:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shells-shells {{di}} isn't perfect by a long way, but it's trying quite hard to do a three-way balance between:

The software can't ask for an image in terms of "em" (which is kinda-sorta connected to line spacings, but not the only thing affecting it), it can only ask for pixel values. Moreover, it cannot know, when the page is rendered, how big an em will be. In a browser, it's usually 16, Mediawiki CSS reduces it to 14 often and users can override it manually too. On an ereader, it could be anything and possibly 40 or more depending on the screen DPI and users settings.
CSS that works in a browser and in things like poems (see H:PXWIDTH for examples).
CSS that still works in (most) ereaders

Notably, flex-box will almost certainly not work in the third case, so do be aware that a sensible fallback will be needed there.

However, it's certainly true that the margins of the DI templates are "bad", because they apply to an inner div, after the font-size is applied. This means your "0.1em" in the template is actually more like "0.3em" in terms of the main text content's size. I am generally hoping to clean that up, but it's going to need a bit of care to avoid smashing the place up too much in the process.

Also, if you have any smart ideas, please do let me know, because the current implementation is very much not smart! One thing we might be able to do is allow the container to set the image size in terms of "em". But then we probably need to up-res the image so it can scale without pixelating in some cases (and we still need to give the thumbnail server a px value to work with). So, again, it's not trivial. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 22:08, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Remember to Participate in the UCoC Conversations and Ratification Vote![edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

A vote in SecurePoll from 7 to 21 March 2022 is scheduled as part of the ratification process for the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) Enforcement guidelines. Eligible voters are invited to answer a poll question and share comments. Read voter information and eligibility details. During the poll, voters will be asked if they support the enforcement of the Universal Code of Conduct based on the proposed guidelines.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. A Wikimedia Foundation Board statement calls for a ratification process where eligible voters will have an opportunity to support or oppose the adoption of the UCoC Enforcement guidelines in a vote. Wikimedians are invited to translate and share important information. For more information about the UCoC, please see the project page and frequently asked questions on Meta-wiki.

There are events scheduled to learn more and discuss:

A community panel on 18 February 2022 at 15:00 UTC shares perspectives from small- and medium-sized community participants.
The Movement Strategy and Governance (MSG) team is hosting Conversation Hours on 25 February 2022 at 12:00 UTC and 4 March 2022 at 15:00 UTC. Please sign-up for these conversation hours to interact with the project team and the drafting committee about the updated enforcement guidelines and the ratification process. See the Conversation Hour summaries for notes from 4 February 2022.

You can comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact either team by email: msgwikimedia.org or ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Sincerely,
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 12:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation
[reply]

Looking for John Benson Rose[edit]

I am looking for a date of death for John Benson Rose [3] who was publishing translations from Latin in 1870's London. I have not been able to find dates of birth or death. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:22, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's actually John Benson Coles Rose who according to Men-at-the-Bar/Rose, John Benson Coles was born 1808 and I see mention dying around Feb. 1874. He had had a famous daughter Emily Marion Rose. Ed. actually Nov. 1873: https://www.wikitree.com/wiki/Rose-19849. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:21, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sections of TOC not exporting[edit]

In Beeton's Christmas Annual/A Study in Scarlet, the TOC entries Part I and Part II are not being exported. Can someone take a look? Languageseeker (talk) 11:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

They're not in the TOC tables, which set the ws-summary class (IMO automatically setting this class on these templates is confusing for this reason). Wrap it all in a {{export TOC}}. See Help:Preparing_for_export#Listing_pages_for_export more details. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:47, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Inductiveload So would you just place this in from of the regular TOC? I tried that on Page:Beeton's Christmas Annual 1887.pdf/17 and it didn't seem to change anything. Languageseeker (talk) 14:00, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, just like that. It's working for me, so maybe you needed to purge something or bypass the exporter cache (nocache=1 in the URL). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:36, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Symbols from The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, page 99[edit]

Does anyone have images they can insert that can be used for The Case of Charles Dexter Ward page 99? I tried using a symbol from Gutenberg Australia's version but it really doesn't work well. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You've used the right symbols, see w:Astrological_symbols#Miscellaneous symbols, but the way they display will be affected by the choice of font. The en.WP page has image versions in their table that you can use, if you wish. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks so much for your help! Sorry, I just haven't used these symbols very much. SurprisedMewtwoFace (talk) 20:55, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mrs. Dalloway sections[edit]

The book Mrs. Dalloway has no sections or chapters. However, during a transclusion a user decided to add sections. Are these sections valid? Languageseeker (talk) 02:49, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Are you asking whether the previous reply someone gave you on this subject is truthful? Yes. Most editions have regions of more whitespace at specific locations within the text when the location or thought stream changes significantly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey I'm asking if these gaps are equivalent to chapters. In other words, should this text be transcluded on one page or spit across multiple chapters. Languageseeker (talk) 03:03, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is like asking whether an audio recording of the book has to be all one track or can be split into individual tracks. Both methods are reasonable, there is not one "right" way to do it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i really like the "the author’s intent is stream of consciousness", therefore no sections allowed. does the same reasoning apply to Ulysses (1922)? you realize publishers have trashed author’s intent for ages? and disappointed you edit warred rather than gained consensus. you can always transclude an alternate "no sections" version. can’t wait until you get to On the Road. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 16:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The book does have sections, and those sections are necessary so as to not make too much text on one page. The current situation is valid. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey @TE(æ)A,ea. @Slowking4 Thank you for the information and clarification. I know see that sections are appropriate. However, maybe creating a single page version might also be appropriate. Languageseeker (talk) 18:30, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

i admire the aesthetics. just pity the poor reader with bandwidth, and memory issues. we have a norm of creation table of contents for works without, to minimize size. cheers.--Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 22:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-08[edit]

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

Special:Nuke will now provide the standard deletion reasons (editable at MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown) to use when mass-deleting pages. This was a request in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey. [4]
At Wikipedias, all new accounts now get the Growth features by default when creating an account. Communities are encouraged to update their help resources. Previously, only 80% of new accounts would get the Growth features. A few Wikipedias remain unaffected by this change. [5]
You can now prevent specific images that are used in a page from appearing in other locations, such as within PagePreviews or Search results. This is done with the markup class=notpageimage. For example, [[File:Example.png|class=notpageimage]]. [6]
There has been a change to the HTML of Special:Contributions, Special:MergeHistory, and History pages, to support the grouping of changes by date in the mobile skin. While unlikely, this may affect gadgets and user scripts. A list of all the HTML changes is on Phabricator.

Events

Community Wishlist Survey results have been published. The ranking of prioritized proposals is also available.

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 22 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 23 February. It will be on all wikis from 24 February (calendar).

Future changes

The software to play videos and audio files on pages will change soon on all wikis. The old player will be removed. Some audio players will become wider after this change. The new player has been a beta feature for over four years. [7][8]
Toolforge's underlying operating system is being updated. If you maintain any tools there, there are two options for migrating your tools into the new system. There are details, deadlines, and instructions on Wikitech. [9]
Administrators will soon have the option to delete/undelete the associated "talk" page when they are deleting a given page. An API endpoint with this option will also be available. This was a request from the 2021 Wishlist Survey.

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

19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March[edit]

Please help translate to your language

Greetings from Wiki Loves Folklore International Team,

We are pleased to inform you that Wiki Loves Folklore an international photographic contest on Wikimedia Commons has been extended till the 15th of March 2022. The scope of the contest is focused on folk culture of different regions on categories, such as, but not limited to, folk festivals, folk dances, folk music, folk activities, etc.

We would like to have your immense participation in the photographic contest to document your local Folk culture on Wikipedia. You can also help with the translation of project pages and share a word in your local language.

Best wishes,

International Team
Wiki Loves Folklore

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:50, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am not able to add source containing .xyz domain name some one help[edit]

hi i am not not able to add source containing .xyz domain name some one help

User:Ehtesham855: Many .xyz domains are blocked, particularly on the global blacklist. See also the local blacklist. What source are you trying to add? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

post edit saved message[edit]

hey, can someone enable the "HidePostEdit" gadget in editing preferences. the lingering popup is annoying. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 03:55, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Seeing a popup for every The page was created! and Your edit was saved! is hugely distracting while trying to proofread. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it does illustrate how the mediawiki devs are wikipedia centric, and migrating towards mobile "features". and how they repeatedly do not build in opt out. they would do better to add features to a new skin, and then we could opt out by using an old skin. (kicking the can down the road when skins get unsupported) --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 23:18, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

user script here [10] but we should not have to paste custom css --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 15:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Index page change[edit]

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T277267

Was some major change implemented in the past 24 hours (or so) that changed the basic look of Index: pages? I am not a fan of the change. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:10, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Index page used to be easy to read, because proofreading status was color-coded and dominated the region of page listings. Now the information is swamped by whitespace, which carries no information about proofreading status, making it more difficult to interpret the information displayed on the page. It is like breaking a bar graph into hundreds of colored dots, obscuring any patterns. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:31, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey: It's a side-effect of T277267. The spacing issue has already been reported and they're working on a fix. --Xover (talk) 20:30, 26 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Adding Wikisource links to Wikipedia infoboxes[edit]

At Wikipedia the template {{infobox book}}, used widely for most articles on written works, has the parameters wikisource and native_wikisource for providing a link to a copy here. These parameters (one added by User:billinghurst, interestingly enough) have existed since 2012 and 2013, respectively, yet only 830 articles use them—and of those only 100 link to foreign-language Wikisources (tracked here and here). A user at the Teahouse kindly provided two searches to find infoboxes which could have those parameters filled: [11] and [12]. The former tries to find all articles with the template which 1) lack the wikisource parameter and 2) have a pub_date of 1926 or earlier; the latter tries to limit the search to foreign-language works. While this is a pretty rough search, I think it forms a good starting point, and I hope some others would find it worthwhile to help link these pages. I've done a handful so far, but there are plenty more to trawl through.

P.S. I know that the various {{wikisource}} templates exist, but these typically end up buried at the very bottom in the External Links section—hardly noticeable even when one knows what to look for, and (probably) almost invisible to the majority of users. I think adding these parameters to the infobox would be worthwhile in boosting the visibility of Wikisource in general, as well as helpful to many Wikipedia readers who might not otherwise realize that a digitized text exists.

P.P.S. This was apparently one of the last tasks at Wikipedia:Wikiproject Wikisource before it went defunct in 2014. Shells-shells (talk) 05:30, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shells-shells: I have gone through some of them, although the lists are not perfect. I have traditionally used {{src}} (especially because of the spotty coverage of the book template), but I’ll focus more on the infobox in the future. Also, there is a problem sometimes with native_wikisource conflicting with other parts of the template: could you look into that? It happened on some of the works for which I found a copy on a non-English Wikisource. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:21, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you for so promptly replying and implementing the suggestion :) I think the issue you mention (if you are talking about the native_wikisource link showing up improperly) arises when title_orig is marked with {{lang}}, which somehow causes the link to be improperly generated; for example, see w:Special:Diff/1074309169/1074339152. I have raised the issue in the infobox talk page, so it will hopefully be addressed soon. Shells-shells (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WS is bound by the rules of WPs to how we link and the indication is that they wished for ELs. And to note that our editions are not directly alignable with their works on books as per d:WD:Books. Also to note that many of our works do not have WP articles, and some have many. Also look to WS: sister interwikis, references in articles, etc. So it not highly pertinent to just focus on WP infoboxes. For instance look at the links through something like their w:template:cite Q. We more and more wish to have linking automagically appear through interwikis through book => VERSIONS PAGE or book => EDITION data in WD, rather than manually try to manage such works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, we really need a migration plan for bibliographic metadata towards Cite Q. maybe w:Template:Infobox book/wikidata would be part of that, and migrating the custom infobox data towards the wikidata one. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 16:43, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: I agree that ideally all these sites should be unified through references to Wikidata, but there are plenty of rocks on the road which will take significant effort and time to clear away. As far as I can tell, the issues of data modelling on WD are still being hashed out for many major topics, which is one short-term problem facing its widespread use; also, WD statements often (if not almost always) lack references to external sources, which seems to be a major sticking point for integrating it into (en)Wikipedia. The only real consensus on WP appears to be that it should not be linked to in article text, and it maybe/kinda/sorta can be used in infoboxes or tables, subject to limitations. There is not currently a great deal of cross-site integration, and I'm not sure how this situation would change significantly unless WP's attitude to WD warms up, or WD's use of external referencing greatly increases. In the meantime, I think that unstructured additions of the abovementioned kind still hold value in improving the encyclopedia.

P.S. According to the MOS, enWP does allow inline links to Wikisource and Wiktionary. Shells-shells (talk) 22:28, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Coming soon[edit]

Several improvements around templates[edit]

Hello, from March 9, several improvements around templates will become available on your wiki:

Fundamental improvements of the VisualEditor template dialog (1, 2),
Improvements to make it easier to put a template on a page (3) (for the template dialogs in VisualEditor, 2010 Wikitext and New Wikitext Mode),
and improvements in the syntax highlighting extension CodeMirror (4, 5) (which is available on wikis with writing direction left-to-right).

All these changes are part of the “Templates” project by WMDE Technical Wishes. We hope they will help you in your work, and we would love to hear your feedback on the talk pages of these projects.

- Johanna Strodt (WMDE) 12:38, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Call for Texts by Ukrainian Authors[edit]

During the March Monthly Challenge, I want to run a few texts by Ukrainian authors. If you know any such texts with scans available, can you please post them below. Languageseeker (talk) 20:57, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Languageseeker: A few translated works by important Ukrainian authors:

The Kobzar of Taras Shevchenko
biography of Shevchenko by Maksym Rylsky, another important Ukrainian poet
Index:Zakhar Berkut(1944).djvu by Ivan Franko, an existing scan about a third of the way done
A collection of six plays, one of which ("The Babylonian Captivity") is by Lesya Ukrainka; the others are by significant Russian playwrights
six poems of Shevchenko; also "The Song of the Merchant Kalashnikov" from the Russian poet Mikhail Lermontov

Overall it is a little difficult to locate public-domain translations of much of the body of Ukrainian literature (or perhaps I have just missed some sources). If anyone else could help out, that would be lovely. Shells-shells (talk) 23:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Shells-shells Thank you for this amazing list. Languageseeker (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-09[edit]

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

When searching for edits by change tags, e.g. in page history or user contributions, there is now a dropdown list of possible tags. This was a request in the 2022 Community Wishlist Survey. [13]
Mentors using the Growth Mentor dashboard will now see newcomers assigned to them who have made at least one edit, up to 200 edits. Previously, all newcomers assigned to the mentor were visible on the dashboard, even ones without any edit or ones who made hundred of edits. Mentors can still change these values using the filters on their dashboard. Also, the last choice of filters will now be saved. [14][15]
The user group oversight was renamed suppress. This is for technical reasons. You may need to update any local references to the old name, e.g. gadgets, links to Special:Listusers, or uses of NUMBERINGROUP.

Problems

The recent change to the HTML of tracking changes pages caused some problems for screenreaders. This is being fixed. [16]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 1 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 2 March. It will be on all wikis from 3 March (calendar).

Future changes

Working with templates will become easier. Several improvements are planned for March 9 on most wikis and on March 16 on English Wikipedia. The improvements include: Bracket matching, syntax highlighting colors, finding and inserting templates, and related visual editor features.
If you are a template developer or an interface administrator, and you are intentionally overriding or using the default CSS styles of user feedback boxes (the classes: successbox, messagebox, errorbox, warningbox), please note that these classes and associated CSS will soon be removed from MediaWiki core. This is to prevent problems when the same class-names are also used on a wiki. Please let us know by commenting at phab:T300314 if you think you might be affected.

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

22:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Consistent quotation marks[edit]

In Index:Zakhar Berkut(1944).djvu, some pages use " " and ' ', while others use “ ” and ‘ ’. At first, I was using " ", but then I saw some other pages used “ ”, so I switched to that. But now I see there are more pages early in the book with " ". Which is preferred? I can go through and switch them all to be consistent if desired. (The actual text uses “”.) 70.172.194.25 00:48, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And now I encountered many validated pages in a row with smart quotes. That may be the most common choice; so far, only a few pages near the start use straight quotes. 70.172.194.25 00:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline here is to be consistent across a work. When a work is being proofread by multiple wikisourcerors (e.g. in the Monthly Challenge), there should be a note made on the Index talk: page about what the style is to be for the particular work and everyone working on that work is expected to follow the style. If there are lots of pages that have the other style, then we can get a bot to run over the completed pages to make it consistent. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:26, 2 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, depending on the ocr, you can get curly or straight quotation marks. and the typed in tend to be straight. we do not have a preference, unlike the wikipedias. --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 16:38, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Politicians as authors?[edit]

Hope this is a quick and easy question. Is it appropriate to add a politician under the author namespace to represent legislative texts they're responsible for writing? Potentially not the final acts because they're considered a work of government, but members bills and SOPs and such things like that. Supertrinko (talk) 00:13, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's tricky, because in reality they almost certainly won't have written them. In the UK at least, even private members' bills are for the most part actually written by clerks in the Public Bill Office, and if they stand a chance of passing they'll also get reworked by the lawyers in the Office of Parliamentary Counsel. The MP who actually submits it won't have done more than an outline.

The most accurate analogy is probably when a work has been commissioned. Theknightwho (talk) 11:40, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed[edit]

Hi all - as a follow-up to #Call for Feedback about the Board of Trustees elections is now open: the call is now closed and reports are available for review. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions. Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed. This Call ran from 10 January and closed on 16 February 2022. The Call focused on three key questions and received broad discussion on Meta-wiki, during meetings with affiliates, and in various community conversations. The community and affiliates provided many proposals and discussion points. The reports are on Meta-wiki.

This information will be shared with the Board of Trustees and Elections Committee so they can make informed decisions about the upcoming Board of Trustees election. The Board of Trustees will then follow with an announcement after they have discussed the information.

Thank you to everyone who participated in the Call for Feedback to help improve Board election processes.

Best regards,

Movement Strategy and Governance
Xeno (WMF) (talk) 03:47, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Transclusion of North and South (First Edition) or any other multi-volume novel[edit]

So a debate has arisen over the transclusion of North and South (First Edition). At first, the main page had an AuxToc that pointed to the volumes. Then a user decided to condense all the TOCs from the volumes onto the main page. I reverted the change and got reverted. The reverter expressed their belief that if an AuxTOC points to a page with another AuxTOC, then the second AuxTOC will not get exported. Calibre does not confirm this behavior. So what is the stance on this, can a multi-volume work be listed as multiple volumes or do all the TOCs have to be condensed on the root page? Languageseeker (talk) 12:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Your way is correct; the volumes are separate, and the tables of contents should be listed separately. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:13, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There isn't a single correct way. Long novels in the 19th Century were frequently published in two or three volumes for practical reasons. The volumes were available for purchase simultaneously, and are therefore a single work from our perspective. In these it would make sense to have the contents all on the mainpage. (Ergo, Paul Clifford). When the volumes of a work were published at different times (putting aside serial publication, which is a different beast altogether), then we would need separated lists. In the end, it comes down to what makes sense, what's practical and what actually works for a download. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Beeswaxcandle In this particular case, the work was first transcluded as a multi-volume work and the download worked. Then a user edited it to create a single page-TOC that did omitted some of the material from book, which I reverted, and then an administrator reverted my revert. I'm trying to establish community consensus. If it's acceptable to have a multi-volume work, then was the administrator's revert a misunderstanding? Languageseeker (talk) 04:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The download worked for Languageseeker, but did not work for me. With only links to "Volume I" and "Volume II" or the work's main page, using the Download feature displayed in the top right corner produced only a table of contents, but none of the chapters in the download. I do not know how Languageseeker managed to make the download work. It sounded to me as though he is using a third-party program to grab the download. For a typical user wanting to download a novel, they will use the built-in download feature from the page, and will be confused and disappointed if they do not get a complete download. We have had readers complain in the past when a work with this issue appeared on the Main Page. For this work, "a user" was the same person who had created the Contents and all of the chapter transclusion pages. The reason "a user" decided to condense all the TOCs from the volumes onto the main page was that I pointed out to them that this approach would not permit users to download the novel. They would have to know to go to Volume I and do a download, then go to Volume II and do a download, which most users would not think of doing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

And as Beeswaxcandle has pointed out, there is no single "correct" way. In this instance, the person who set up the work agreed with my assessment and chose to transclude all the chapters on the primary page. The first involvement from Languageseeker was to step in and revert their work, and tell them (erroneously) that this is not acceptable [17]. This approach is acceptable, and often desirable for multi-volume novels.

Neither volume has a table of contents, so it's going to have to have an AuxToC, and both volumes were published in the same year. Beeswaxcandle pointed out that in such an instance "it would make sense to have the contents all on the mainpage," so why do you think I had some kind of "misunderstanding"? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey North and South was proofread and transcluded as part of the MC which I have been running. There, the standard is to transclude multi-volume works into separate volumes which is how I set up North and South and Chrisguise originally transcluded it. Then, they decided to combine the AuxTOC without putting all the material in the volumes into a single-issue work. They also did not remove the AuxTOC from the Volume pages, see North and South (First Edition)/Volume 1 and North and South (First Edition)/Volume 2 or include all the sections in the single AuxTOC. The combined AuxTOC has made things worse and more inconsistent which is why I reverted it. So, I'm asking you what is the advantage of a single AuxTOC if a multi-volume one does not break downloads? Languageseeker (talk) 21:01, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that you are running a collaboration project does not create Wikisource standards. There is no problem with having the AuxToc in two places. Your project does not override Wikisource practices, and the fact that you selected it for your project does not mean that the person who sets it up must meet your expectations. They must meet the requirements and expectations of Wikisource, not standards that you impose. It sounds as though you are forcing requirements on works by selecting them, without consulting with the larger community, and without regard for the people who are doing the actual work.

Question: exactly what content was not transcluded? You keep stating that something was not transcluded, but you won't say what that is.

And what is the advantage? It makes more sense to the reader, it allows a reader to find all the contents in a single placeand in this case, it makes a download possible from the work's main page, as I have said repeatedly. It also aligns with the advice given above by Beeswaxcandle, which you seem to have missed. Please answer the reverse question: what is the advantage of splitting the contents up across multiple pages? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:33, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EncycloPetey The number of volumes and whether the books was published in volumes is an important part of the publishing history. Many of the more popular books had multiple editions that are distinguishable by the number of volumes. As I pointed out, there was no problem with the download. As for what is missing, the front matter for Volume 1 and Volume 2 is missing and the advertisements for Volume 1 are missing. In the front matter for Volume 1, Gaskell explains that she changed the ending from the serialized form and her reason for doing so. As it stands, the single AuxTOC is incomplete. As Beeswaxcandle pointed out, there is no set standard. In essence, the standard seems to be whatever the user decides. Yes, I run the MC, but I'm trying to use it as a space to teach new users how things should be done. It increasingly seems to me that there is no such thing. Things are done however it pleases. Languageseeker (talk) 22:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You have not answered my question: "what is the advantage of splitting the contents up across multiple pages?" Neither volume originally had a table of contents, so if the goal is to reproduce the original format, that is an argument for having no table of contents, not a reason for having multiple ToC. What is the advantage of multiple AuxToC?

You point out that there was no download problem for you. There was a download problem for me, and presumably for "a user", who made the changes after I pointed out the problem to him. The fact that you did not have a download problem is one data point, and does not mean that other users are not experiencing problems. The advertisements are not required in any transcription here at Wikisource. They are optional, as you yourself have pointed out before. The "front matter" is a title page, colophon, and note about the work's first appearance. These can be added to the combined AuxToC in multiple ways. The fact that an AuxToC is incomplete is a reason to amend it, not a reason to remove it. The fact that the work was published in two volumes can be pointed out in the Header notes; that is what they are there for.

And yes, there is not one "right" way to do everything here. I have told you that more than once, and Beeswaxcandle said exactly that above. There is much room for variation and different approaches, including having a single ToC for a multi-volume novel. If you plan to teach people how to do things, it is just as important to not teach them things that do not need to be taught and not force them to follow standards that are yours alone. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From a export standpoint, both ways are valid. However, if you use the separate volumes method and you want to export both volumes together from the top page, you do need to make sure that links on the subpages are in a class=ws-summary container.

If all the links are on one page, you do not need this, but if you do have a ws-summary container anywhere on the page, you have to make sure all the links are contained in a ws-summary container.

{{TOC begin}}, {{AuxTOC}} and {{export TOC}} all set this, amongst others. More details at Help:Preparing for export.

Also, before assuming something is is or is not working, especially with regards to what pages are included in an export, do make sure that after your edits that you purge the export tool caches by adding "nocache=1" to the download URL.

And I repeat my usual opinion that reverting is an act of last resort. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:55, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Voting has begun! UCoC Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

You can find this message translated into additional languages on Meta-wiki.

More languages • Please help translate to your language

Hello everyone,

The ratification voting process for the revised enforcement guidelines of the Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) is now open! Voting commenced on SecurePoll on 7 March 2022 and will conclude on 21 March 2022. Please read more on the voter information and eligibility details.

The Universal Code of Conduct (UCoC) provides a baseline of acceptable behavior for the entire movement. The revised enforcement guidelines were published 24 January 2022 as a proposed way to apply the policy across the movement. You can read more about the UCoC project.

You can also comment on Meta-wiki talk pages in any language. You may also contact the team by email: ucocprojectwikimedia.org

Sincerely,
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 13:20, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation[reply]

Tech News: 2022-10[edit]

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

There was a problem with some interface labels last week. It will be fixed this week. This change was part of ongoing work to simplify the support for skins which do not have active maintainers. [18]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 8 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 9 March. It will be on all wikis from 10 March (calendar).

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

21:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

help?[edit]

im new here, is their a layout page i can work with?? If im not being clear enough please let me know. Thank you.

Wythhgreat100 (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to learn how to do Wikisource editing, is to start with validating work that another editor has already proofread. Have a look at the yellow sections towards the end of Wikisource:Community collaboration/Monthly Challenge/March 2022 and see if there is a work that interests you. If there isn't, ping me on my User Talk: page with an indication of your areas of interest and I can point you towards works within those topics. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:05, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is very complicated, sorry but can I focus on new sources? Thank you. Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine. Please see Help:Beginner's guide to adding texts for guidance as to what's needed for new works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:14, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have gone over it, im just not getting it, apologies. Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What work do you want to add to begin with? Where can I find the scan to upload? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

https://chicagobible.org/htdbv5/zwt0557.htm Wythhgreat100 (talk) 20:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Periodicals are extremely complicated works to start with if you're new. Is there a short work of interest to you? Things like novels are easy because they typically require little formatting; also collections of short stories; or a short non-fiction text like a textbook or a set of essays or tracts. If you're just starting and feel overwhelmed, it's best to find something that is largely set in simple paragraphs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(e/c) That's not a scan. However, I have found a scan of all of the 1887 issues in one volume at the Internet Archive. I've done steps 1 and 2 of the Beginner's guide for you and the work is at Index:Zion's Watchtower 1887.pdf waiting for you to carry on with step 3. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:45, 8 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

you have a scan and index of vol. VIII no. 6; and the website is vol. IX no. 2. (i blame the metadata at IA) --Slowking4 亞 Farmbrough's revenge 22:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical issue: Page numbers on the side completely broken[edit]

I checked on multiple browsers (Chrome, Chrome Incognito [testing logged out], Safari), and it seems that the pages in Page namespace are no longer showing up on the side of transcluded works. And in Homicide Act, 1957, for example, the text floated to the left goes past the normal space into the aside... Any ideas on what's going on? PseudoSkull (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In fact everything seems broken... Headers being on the bottom doesn't happen anymore, you can't choose layouts, none of that. Seems like the JavaScript things broke... :( PseudoSkull (talk) 19:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I also see no page numbers, and have lost the options to Purge or perform Null edits on pages. I am seeing the problem in Firefox, so it does not appear to be browser related. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:40, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to Preferences/Gadgets, I note that the list has vanished. This is where the Purge option could be turned on, and presumably the other things also live. I don't know where to look to investigate further. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:49, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could some or all of these problems be caused by the changes mentioned in the #Coming soon that were scheduled to happen today? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:56, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have the same problem. I've checked that Javascript is still enabled in Firefox, and also tried Edge. Both have the same problem, so presumably it's a site issue. Chrisguise (talk) 19:57, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PseudoSkull, EncycloPetey, Beeswaxcandle, Chrisguise: This is a result of TypeError: Argument 1 passed to MediaWiki\Extension\Gadgets\GadgetRepo::getGadgetDefinitionTitle() must be of the type string, null given, called in /srv/mediawiki/php-1.38.0-wmf.25/extensions/Gadgets/includes/SpecialGadgets.php on line 114. The error occurs on all projects (try to purge something on enWP, for example), and does not seem to be fixed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:09, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, to give the classic manager's question (before I go into a Zoom meeting IRL): has it been logged? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have started working properly again. Chrisguise (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ditto for me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

ct ligature[edit]

I know that this is a tired topic, but hear me out: I have created Template:ct, which inserts the ordinary characters "ct" inside a <span> element which has the class "typographic-ct", which means that the ligature can be optionally enabled with CSS styles if the user has a font that is compatible with it. Quite a few have it as a historical ligature, so it's relatively straightforward for a user to enable it if they want. This feels like a reasonable way to implement it in an unobtrusive way that doesn't interfere with text search, Google searches etc. Theknightwho (talk) 13:32, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Tech News: 2022-11[edit]

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

In the Wikipedia Android app it is now possible to change the toolbar at the bottom so the tools you use more often are easier to click on. The app now also has a focused reading mode. [19][20]

Problems

There was a problem with the collection of some page-view data from June 2021 to January 2022 on all wikis. This means the statistics are incomplete. To help calculate which projects and regions were most affected, relevant datasets are being retained for 30 extra days. You can read more on Meta-wiki.
There was a problem with the databases on March 10. All wikis were unreachable for logged-in users for 12 minutes. Logged-out users could read pages but could not edit or access uncached content then. [21]

Changes later this week

The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 15 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 16 March. It will be on all wikis from 17 March (calendar).
When using uselang=qqx to find localisation messages, it will now show all possible message keys for navigation tabs such as "View history". [22]
Access to Special:RevisionDelete has been expanded to include users who have deletelogentry and deletedhistory rights through their group memberships. Before, only those with the deleterevision right could access this special page. [23]
On the Special:Undelete pages for diffs and revisions, there will be a link back to the main Undelete page with the list of revisions. [24]

Future changes

The Wikimedia Foundation has announced the IP Masking implementation strategy and next steps. The announcement can be read here.
The Wikipedia Android app developers are working on new functions for user talk pages and article talk pages. [25]

Events

The Wikimedia Hackathon 2022 will take place as a hybrid event on 20-22 May 2022. The Hackathon will be held online and there are grants available to support local in-person meetups around the world. Grants can be requested until 20 March.

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

22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Invitation to join the first Wikisource Triage meeting on 21st March 2022[edit]

Hello everyone,

Sam Wilson and I are excited to share that we will be hosting regular Wikisource Triage meetings, starting from 21st March 2022.

These meetings aim to foster the growth of a technical community of Wikisource developers and contributors. The meetings will be primarily focused on identifying, prioritizing and estimating tasks on the All-and-every-Wikisource and ProofreadPage workboards (among others) on Phabricator and eventually reduce the backlog of technical tasks and bugs related to Wikisource by making incremental improvements to Wikisource infrastructure and coordinating these changes with the Wikisource communities.

While these meetings are technology focused, non-technical Wikisource contributors are also invited to join and share any technical challenges that they are facing and we will help them to create phabricator tickets. Newbie developers are also more than welcome!

The first meeting has been scheduled for 21st March 2022 at 10:30 AM UTC / 4:00 PM IST (Check your local time). If you are interested in joining the meeting, kindly leave a message on [email protected] and we will add you to the calendar invite.

Meanwhile, feel free to check out the page on Meta-wiki and suggest topics for the agenda.

On behalf of Sam Wilson and Satdeep Gill

Sent by MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:52, 15 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Asking for advice on displaying transcluded three column pages[edit]

Starting with this Index page and the subsequent pages do not appear in alphabetical order when transcluded to the main namespace. Does it matter? Ineuw (talk) 08:49, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Could you possibly clarify what you mean about not being in alphabetical order? Do you mean that the first column on page 2 is a continuation of the first column on page 1, instead of being a continuation of the third? Theknightwho (talk) 10:17, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Alphabetical order" really means single column continuity. Because the sum of rows of the Index pages exceed a single table capacity, it cannot be done. I decided to leave this to more adept hands. Ineuw (talk) 10:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, this is a cosmetic issue. Ineuw (talk) 10:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think CSS columns should be able to sort this. Rather than having three separate columns that adjoin top to bottom, it's a single column that gets split into three on each page. When that gets transcluded, though, it should be possible to ensure the formatting is just as a single column.

I don't really have time to look into this for you myself, but I guess what I'm saying is that this is definitely a solvable issue. Theknightwho (talk) 11:06, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the helpful comments. I was curious if it was possible. Unfortunately, CSS is not my forte.Ineuw (talk) 11:13, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have actually wondered about how to solve this issue myself, as the three choices all seem a bit rubbish:

Have arbitrary breaks where the pages are, which is confusing on screen.
Have one supertall thin column, which is aesthetically ridiculous.
Have three columns that run continuously top to bottom, which is the easiest to use unless you're dealing with anything that spans the breaks.

Theknightwho (talk) 11:22, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Breaks are only one of the issues. One supertall thin column pasted into a single blank page and using {{Multicol}} is also not possible. So, please feel free to experiment. I am moving on. :) Ineuw (talk) 11:55, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Making a specialised font available for a work that needs it[edit]

Hi everyone - I have been plugging away at transcribing volume 1 of The Statutes of the Realm, which is the definitive publication of all Acts of the Parliaments of England and Great Britain up until 1713. The early volumes in particular tend to be laid out bilingually, with Latin or Anglo-Norman in one column and an English translation next to it.

One thing Statutes of the Realm is famous for is its use of Record type, which imitates all of the scribal abbreviations from the manuscripts. They're mostly possible to transcribe in Unicode, but most fonts don't support some of the characters used. I did briefly consider expanding out all of the abbreviations, but doing that would be an even more massive undertaking, and in any event, Statutes of the Realm is the legally definitive original language text in the UK, so it's not something I really want to risk getting wrong.

My solution to this has been to use the Junicode font, which is designed for these kinds of transcriptions. It's created by Peter Baker, who is an English professor at the University of Virginia that specialises in this sort of thing, and he has also been extremely receptive to incorporating my various requests and assisting with issues as and when they arise.

I would like to be able to upload Junicode to Wikisource so that it works for all users. This is technically possible through the use of CSS, as you can save the font as a data stream. I've already done it within my own userspace here, but the only person who's able to take advantage of that is me (and anyone else who changes their personal user styles to incorporate it). It definitely works, though, because it displays correctly on my phone.

However, it's not possible to incorporate this into the Index styles for Statutes of the Realm, which would need to happen for it to work for everyone. This is due to Index styles pages using the sanitised CSS content model, which doesn't allow data streams. The only way around this is if an admin changes the content model of the Index styles page from "sanitized CSS" to "CSS".

Is this something that might be possible? Obviously it would need to be implemented carefully, but there's definitely value in doing this. Theknightwho (talk) 12:11, 16 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is Wikisource:Featured text candidates still active?[edit]

Hi, out of curiosity, is Wikisource:Featured text candidates still active? It seems to have proposed texts dating back to 2018 without closure, and only a few edits this year. If it's not still active, is the process worth keeping? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:56, 18 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote[edit]

Hi all,

With about 2 days left in the poll, I can share that there are 1600 voters as of 18 March 23:20 UTC. There is only one voter with a home wiki registration of en.wikisource.

Being aware that homewiki isn't always indicative of where an editor is active, I would still like to remind everyone that diversity matters and that local opinions are sought in this global decision. It would be beneficial to see the comments about the Enforcement Guidelines given from the perspective of this project, even if en.wikisource is not your your homewiki.

You can access the voting page locally on https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:SecurePoll/vote/378

You can look at the votership numbers on this page

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions.
--BPipal (WMF) (talk) 00:11, 19 March 2022 (UTC)
Facilitaror, SEE
Movement Strategy and Governance
Wikimedia Foundation[reply]

Wikisource:Scriptorium

Announcements[edit]

February Monthly Challenge[edit]

Seeking New Coordinator for the Monthly Challenge[edit]

Proposals[edit]

New Request for Comment on Wikilinking Policy is open[edit]

De-amending WS:WWI[edit]

Bot approval requests[edit]

Repairs (and moves)[edit]

Index:The future of Africa.djvu[edit]

Index:Incidents in the life of a slave girl.djvu[edit]

The Professor: a Tale[edit]

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica and {{EB1911 fine print/s}} use[edit]

Index:The Dial (Volume 68).djvu[edit]

United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/1 and United Nations General Assembly resolution ES-11/L.1[edit]

Move request: The Village Pulpit, Volume II to The Village Pulpit/Volume 2[edit]

Other discussions[edit]

Policy on substantially empty works[edit]

Proposal[edit]

Universal Code of Conduct News – Issue 1[edit]

Index:Robert Carter- his life and work. 1807-1889 (IA robertcarterhis00coch).pdf[edit]

J3l[edit]

Subscribe to the This Month in Education newsletter - learn from others and share your stories[edit]

Versions in Portals[edit]

Text gets more and more indented[edit]

Outdated info in Monthly Challenge tips?[edit]

Is Wikisource blocked in China?[edit]

Is there a better solution to using {{di}} with images?[edit]

Remember to Participate in the UCoC Conversations and Ratification Vote![edit]

Looking for John Benson Rose[edit]

Sections of TOC not exporting[edit]

Symbols from The Case of Charles Dexter Ward, page 99[edit]

Mrs. Dalloway sections[edit]

Tech News: 2022-08[edit]

Wiki Loves Folklore is extended till 15th March[edit]

I am not able to add source containing .xyz domain name some one help[edit]

post edit saved message[edit]

Index page change[edit]

Adding Wikisource links to Wikipedia infoboxes[edit]

Coming soon[edit]

Several improvements around templates[edit]

A Call for Texts by Ukrainian Authors[edit]

Tech News: 2022-09[edit]

Consistent quotation marks[edit]

Politicians as authors?[edit]

The Call for Feedback: Board of Trustees elections is now closed[edit]

Transclusion of North and South (First Edition) or any other multi-volume novel[edit]

Voting has begun! UCoC Enforcement guidelines ratification voting open from 7 to 21 March 2022[edit]

Tech News: 2022-10[edit]

help?[edit]

Technical issue: Page numbers on the side completely broken[edit]

ct ligature[edit]

Tech News: 2022-11[edit]

Invitation to join the first Wikisource Triage meeting on 21st March 2022[edit]

Asking for advice on displaying transcluded three column pages[edit]

Making a specialised font available for a work that needs it[edit]

Is Wikisource:Featured text candidates still active?[edit]

Update on Universal Code of Conduct Enforcement guidelines ratification vote[edit]

Navigation menu

Search