Василиса▶ Я жду вашего обращения. Что Вы хотите узнать?
Логотип
Wikisource:Scriptorium - Wikisource, the free online library Wikisource:ScriptoriumFrom Wikisource
Scriptorium
The Scriptorium is Wikisource's community discussion page. Feel free to ask questions or leave comments. You may join any current discussion or start a new one ; please see Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help . Project members can often be found in the #wikisource IRC channel webclient . For discussion related to the entire project (not just the English chapter), please discuss at the multilingual Wikisource . There are currently 437 active users here.
Filing cabinet icon.svg
SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{ section resolved |1=~~~~}} after 31 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.
ContentsAnnouncements[ edit ]Proposals[ edit ]Collective work inclusion criteria[ edit ]

[This is a proposal stemming from the section below.]

Since there has been no more input for a month, here we go. This is only a proposal, so any part of it can be changed, or the whole idea rejected. Inductiveload talk / contribs 10:58, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria for articles[ edit ]

Some works are composed of multiple parts that can stand alone as independent pages. These works are generally encyclopedias, biographical dictionaries, anthologies and periodicals such as magazines and newspapers and so on. Such "collective works" have slightly different criteria for inclusion in the main namespace. The aim of these criteria is:

To allow individually-useful articles, or sets of articles, to be transcribed to the main namespace without requiring active transcription of hundreds of pages of unrelated articlesTo nevertheless make it easy for other users to "drop in" and add more articles to the work.

To be eligible for inclusion, a component of a collective work (e.g. a single magazine article), should satisfy the following criteria:

The component should be "non-trivial" in scope and importance. For example, only a title page or single-paragraph "notice to subscribers" in a magazine is unlikely to be considered useful on its own. However, it would still be part of a full transcription of the rest of the parent unit (e.g. a magazine issue).The work should be scan-backed.Main namespace pages should be created for the work at the top level and any intervening levels (e.g. Volume and Issue/Number ranks should exist). Sometimes, the Issue/Number rank redirects to a section on the Volume page.Front matter of each intervening level the "parent unit" (e.g. a magazine volume and issue) should be transcribed and transcludedA table of contents is required for the parent unit in question. Use {{ AuxTOC }} if the original work doesn't contain a TOC.Appropriate infrastructure around the work should exist. This might include internal plain link templates ("lkpl"), dedicated article link templates for use on author pages, formatting templates for repeated formatting elements, etc. All templates should be fully documented.The article should be linked to from any relevant author pages and suitable portalsOppose. An article is a complete work. The only requirement for inclusion should be that it actually is an article. This proposal would result in, for example, the deletion of huge numbers (at least hundreds) of perfectly good short stories and similar articles created over more than a decade for no good reason. I can see no reason for demanding every piece of front matter, which might consist of large quantities of indexes, adverts and other material of no great importance but massive bulk and technical difficulty. Insisting on scan backing would be extremely damaging if a particular article is or should be used as a source for Wikipedia. The need to provide online copies of sources to maintain and improve Wikipedia is overwhelmingly more important than the luxury of scan backing. Requiring the creation of templates would be a crushing burden, because most people do not know how to create them. It is in any event wholly unecessary. Whether the article is linked to is irrelevant to inclusion. I can understand the desire for a main page that links to the article (and even that would take a lot of effort to effect in some cases where a lot of articles have already been created), but the rest is just obstructive. The problem with this proposal is that it would create a massive crushing burden that is wholly unecessary and produces no useful benefit to the project or readers. It is burdensome restrictions for the sake of restrictions. James500 ( talk ) 20:18, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Support. Without a system like the one you have described in place, sub-pages of works could be created wantonly without any means of completing the works from which they were derived. If an article, which is a selection from a larger work, is created without any infrastructure, it will be very difficult for other Wikisourcerors to complete the work which has been started, as they will have to find and upload a scan and set up the complicated not-article material without the aid of the person who created the first article. The new system will also make it easier for other contributors to work on smaller parts of a larger work, without worrying about demanding formatting concerns. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk ) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC). Content creation should not be described as "wanton". There are means of completing the works from which the sub-pages were derived. If an periodical article is created without so-called infrastructure, it is very easy for other Wikisource editors to complete the work which has been started. It only becomes difficult when someone goes on a deletion spree. And it is massive numbers of nominations that cause problems. James500 ( talk ) 18:33, 30 August 2020 (UTC) This page is a fine example of what I refer to. A novel contributor, with no previous involvement with this work, or one like it, would have to generate an entire system for reproducing (transcluding) articles from that work. The example I provide is more complete than other pages, and is much more complete, in relation to the whole work, than a single article. It would be very difficult to add to larger works, where the basis is merely articles or other pages in the state of which I complain. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk ) 21:21, 30 August 2020 (UTC). Oh sheesh is that happening again. Fully agree with you TE(æ)A,ea that it is wanton and of little value. That content does not belong in main namespace. Main namespace is for transcribed work. Constructs and curation belong in portal namespace. I have created the portal and moved the non-mainspace material. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)That page was created more than a year ago. Nothing is "happening again". You did not move the bibliographic information from the mainspace page to the portal. I had to add it to the portal myself. If that important bibliographic information had been deleted by mistake, that is an example of how seriously disruptive the proposed deletion criteria could be. The word "wanton" is needlessly offensive. The primary meaning of the word "wanton" is "sexually promiscuous" and it is applied to other things by analogy. Please do not use that word. James500 ( talk ) 00:49, 31 August 2020 (UTC)what's "happening again", is the periodic pearl clutching of the deletionists, who are opposed to an open project, and seek to provide a tl;dr of the "one right way" to do transcription. if a text is useful, and people can work to organize it, then we should include it. put a maintenance category, and move on. making up exclusion rules is a waste of time with the prospect of a growing backlog, or filters turning away newbies. take a look at german wikisource, if you want to know how that turns out. [1] Slowking4 Rama's revenge 21:38, 1 October 2020 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg   Comment @ Inductiveload :

The proposal, as is, would require inhibit the ad hoc transcription of articles from " The Times ", eg. The Times/1914 and things linked from {{ The Times link }}. Is that in or out of scope for your proposal? Maybe there should be a declaration of some governing principles first. What is looking to be achieved, and indications of what is trying to be stopped. Then we can get onto a structure. I know that we created {{ header periodical }} to capture where we have more sporadic collections of articles from newspapers. [Now I could be convinced that such constructions are better to be in the portal namespace rather than main ns.]

Some examples of pages considered problematic would be useful for context. If the proposal is an effort to have articles from a periodical becoming part of a hierarchy of the periodical, ie. subpages, then YES, I fully support that, in contrast to a random root level pages without context to the publication. If the proposal is to set up a fully qualified structure for every periodical where we just want to reproduce one article, then NO. This is self-interest as I regularly want to reproduce an obituary for an author to establish biographical information and we are never going to get all that requisite newspaper construct data, and we are virtually never going to get the scans.

For any newspaper article I have transcribed I will generally do "Periodical name/YYYY/Article name" to give it grounding, and the article would have some "notability". The Times I did an extra hierarchy level. I will accept that there will be early works that I transcribed that may be incomplete by that standard and I would not transcribe them that way today. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 30 August 2020 (UTC)

To be eligible for inclusion, a component of a collective work (e.g. a single magazine article), should satisfy the following criteria:

The component should be "non-trivial" in scope and importance. For example, only a title page or single-paragraph "notice to subscribers" in a magazine is unlikely to be considered useful on its own. However, it would still be part of a full transcription of the rest of the parent unit (e.g. a magazine issue).The work should be scan-backed.Main namespace pages should be created for the work at the top level and any intervening levels a suitable, logical subpage hierarchy developed (e.g. Volume and Issue/Number ranks should exist). Sometimes, the Issue/Number rank redirects to a section on the Volume page.Front matter of each intervening level the "parent unit" (e.g. a magazine volume and issue) should be transcribed and transcludedA means to navigate the subpages of the work is required; a table of contents is preferred, though alternatives exist. A table of contents is required for the parent unit in question. Use {{ AuxTOC }} if the original work doesn't contain a TOC.Appropriate infrastructure around the work should exist. This might include internal plain link templates ("lkpl"), dedicated article link templates for use on author pages, formatting templates for repeated formatting elements, etc. All templates should be fully documented. (additional) Parent template exist to make this readily easy.The article should be linked to from any relevant author pages and suitable portals; (additional) orphaned pages are not acceptable.If an article is orphaned, that is certainly a reason to add links to the relevant author page or portal. It is not a reason to delete the article. Issues that can be addressed in a very straightforward way by adding links to other pages are not suitable for use as deletion criteria. Why would you delete the page instead of just adding the links? This kind of thing belongs in a style guide. I suggest the words "eligible for inclusion" are the problem with some of these criteria. James500 ( talk ) 01:33, 31 August 2020 (UTC) We are wanting to get people to link. We don't delete a work for lack of a linking, we are not that petty. What that criteria does is limit the transcription and addition of the trivial, linking indicates that it requires some relevance. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)@ Billinghurst : I mostly agree with your formulation - that's more flexible in the case of newspapers. @ TE(æ)A,ea. : has already given an example, but there are several more examples in the below.I do still think we should be requiring the front matter, but perhaps only when we have scans. Usually, it's just a title page or issue banner, it usually provides the date and number as in the original and it prevents the main-space page being just a floating TOC: e.g. The Chinese Repository/Volume 1 and The Chinese Repository/Volume 1/Number 1 , versus, say, The London Quarterly Review/39 (which doesn't have a scan, so it's kind of fair enough in this case, but if it had a scan, it should get the front matter).I was going to disagree with the removal of the scan section, but if it is downgraded to "if possible", since the current global policy is pretty much "scans if at all possible", it doesn't need to be repeated.For clarification: by "Parent template exist to make this readily easy." do you mean things like Template:Authority/lkpl ? Inductiveload talk / contribs 11:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I was meaning template:article link primarily as it is more what we have used for journals. template:authority/link is more aligned to dictionaries and the like. But yes, one of those as the parent template, or used directly. If we have a scan, then yes to front matter, so we can qualify in the regard of its existence.I have a question; let's take Golfers Magazine . I expect that there will be exactly one article ever transcribed from this--Ask the Egyptians, by Rex Stout, an obscure short story by a not so obscure author. I'm glad to provide scans; I think we should demand scans for stuff that wasn't originally published digital. And it will get tucked under a Golfers Magazine/Volume 28/Issue 3/Ask the Egyptians. But how much work do you expect here? I would begrudgingly create a ToC for the issue, but messing with templates seems completely unnecessary.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 14:03, 31 August 2020 (UTC) Personally I think that scans are nice, maybe preferred, not mandatory. Sometimes getting scans is either not possible, or just problematic. I have numerous newspapers to which I can get access through subscription sites, but producing scans to upload is just MEH! especially if I just want an obituary reproduced. (Noting that where I just want a rough transcription or a snippet that these days I put it on an author talk page.) Have a poke at Category:Obituaries for a range sources that myself and others have used.

For your example, I would have gone for "Golfers Magazine/YYYY/article name" and then slapped down {{ header periodical }} at the root level, as we get more years, then we can break it down further. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

@ Prosfilaes :, what I think would be nice here might be: The top level page, pretty much as it is. Doesn't look like there's much more to say about this work.I can't really see any sensible templates (note "might include" in the proposal) to create for this work. It's not a dictionary so it doesn't obviously need a lkpl, and it's not big enough to merit an article link template of its own. Perhaps if all the headers are identical, there could be a formatting helper, but not critically needed.Personally, I'd like to see the cover if there is one and it's "nice" like this one (obviously not a library binding), and the issue header on the issue sub-page, but I can see the argument that it's a bit pointless if there is no intention to transcribe the rest of the issue. The TOC (which already exists in the original work) is something I'd prefer to see if possible, but I do get that it's a bit of an imposition in this case, where only one article is "interesting".A list of the known scans somewhere (90% of periodicals seem to do this in the mainspace, but that's evidently controversial). It looks like Hathi has an incomplete list and the IA has another Google-fied copy of v.12, so in this case probably just what Hathi has. A lot of the time a mish-mash is needed to get a set of links. Uploading is strictly optional - obviously preferred, but we all know how much of a pain it is, and page-listing and checking periodicals is pretty masochistic, so it's absolutely not needed.Again personally, I prefer "Golfers Magazine/Volume 28/Issue 3/Ask the Egyptians" than "Golfers Magazine/1916/Ask the Egyptians" since we might as well put things in the correct place ahead of time and it provides the obvious place for things like front matter. But I know that's not how it's always done, especially for newspapers where the content is often even more sparse, proportionally speaking, than magazines. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:54, 31 August 2020 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : If we can get that data, then that is definitely preferred, and I would think that for journals we would encourage it. For newspapers, I doubt that we are going to get the coverage, and they are just a lot harder due to how those beasts are constructed. Probably a case of differing guidance, and difference tolerances. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:23, 20 September 2020 (UTC)Caveat: I was hoping I would find the time to really dig into this and contribute something with some thought behind it, but I keep being disappointed, so instead I'm just going to do the drive-by thing. Sorry!I Symbol support vote.svg  Support Inductiveload's proposal as written. I disagree with Billinghurst's proposed softening, in particular regarding scans. We need to start getting a hard scan requirement (with the obvious exceptions) into policy, and partial works like this is where the requirement is most urgent as it is a de facto requirement for other contributors to be able to work effectively on completing the work. I am open to, and lean towards, removing the templates requirement. Templates are very hard for most people, and a somewhat tall order even for long-term Wikimedians, and I don't consider bespoke templates to be a critical factor.I also support soft application of this policy, the same way we allow for {{ incomplete }} and {{ missing image }}. Billinghursts concern regarding gigantic efforts required for front and end matter (long tables of contents, indices, etc.) is a legitimate one, but I think this is better handled by softing application than softening the policy. If the text is put in a sub-page structure, is scan-backed, and the front matter is coarsely there, I can live with something like a hypothetical {{ toc part missing }} or {{ issue toc missing }}. With all the coarse structure in place, filling in detail is eminently doable by crowdsourcing.I also stress that I don't consider the establishment of this policy a bright-line immediate cause for deleting existing texts. I oppose an explicit grandfather clause in this policy, but I !vote in favour of it in the context that our practice is not to proactively mass-delete historical texts just because we raise the standard for quality. I do, however, expect that individual texts that do not meet this new policy will be proposed for deletion piecemeal over time, as people happen to run across them, with no progress toward meeting the standard, or are too pathological to fix (which should certainly be the first approach whenever possible). And my expectation is that in those discussions those texts will either be improved to comply with this policy or they will be deleted in accordance with this policy. I also very much expect contributors who disagree with this to express their disagreement politely and constructively: prioritising different factors (e.g. quality over quantity) is in no way shape or form cause for name-calling or ascribing ulterior motives to other contributors. -- Xover ( talk ) 13:22, 22 November 2020 (UTC)Re. I am open to, and lean towards, removing the templates requirement: note that as written, this was intentionally worded as "may include". Not all works need their own templates and {{ article link }} and plan links instead of lkpl are sufficient. Both are fairly trivially substituted later if a need becomes apparent. For example, the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology probably does not need a "lkpl" template, because articles rarely refer to each other in the text. Notes and Queries very often does refer to other issues, so {{ NAQ lkpl }} is useful.Re. With all the coarse structure in place, filling in detail is eminently doable by crowdsourcing. this is exactly the outcome I am hoping to facilitate. Piecemeal crowd-sourcing is the only way periodicals are going to get any work done on them, because there are literally millions of pages of them, but any one article is a valid work in its own right. However, having the pieces nuked (or proposed for nuking) because they're not completed to a level that's not actually documented to be required is somewhat discouraging to drop-inners. Inductiveload talk / contribs 01:36, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Re my supposed softening. Unless you are going to provide scans of The Times and thousands of other newspapers and going to align the articles from within a page in strips for individual proofreading, then you need to allow for scanless. If maybe this only needs to be at the daily/weekly periodicals level (newspapers), rather than for journals, then I am okay with that. I do agree that we should always strive for a whole journal, or a whole scan, however, with newspapers this is just too high a bar to impose. If you look at our existing transcriptions of scans of newspapers they can be just as butt ugly, and unuseful; particularly around the advertising material, the columns, etc. and on a whole page determining when that page is actually proofread. Sites like Trove have enough issues and they have line by line systems based on article by article. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)While there should be no requirement for creating a link templates, however, where link templates are created for the purpose of linking to a work in either the short of long form, I believe that they should be used. Firstly they allow for reverse tracking of uses of works, secondly they allow for checking of the build of a work, and they allow for uniform display of works in namespaces. And for link templates they will allow for us to quickly update to a standard form of citation if we ever get to that point. Then my pipedream is that we can utilise WD to generate citations without having to manually curate, to do that we need the link templates.

Re lkpl one will often find that they are useful for interwork links in main ns where these works are cited within other publications, it is not solely for intra-work links. That said all these templates can come later. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Not having read the intervening discussion, I Symbol support vote.svg  Support this approach to adding content, but it should be a "helpful guidance" rather than a policy. In the same way that adding works without a scan is discouraged, but not against any policy. — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 02:15, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @ Beleg Tâl : to be clear: the reason this is presented as policy is that is has a bearing on multiple deletion requests at WS:PD such as American Jurist and Law Magazine/Volume 1 . There is no policy right now that says anything about such pages, so they are technically perfectly valid. This then causes understandable friction when they are proposed for deletion. There is also no threshold indicated for when such a work is clear of the threat of deletion, which is actually my bigger concern, because if someone wished to improve this AJLM, there's no "safe" benchmark standard to aim for. For example, is Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology/Volume 1 (my proposed "model" for an incomplete journal below) "safe"? Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:27, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : that is an understandable reason for wanting to establish policy. I think your proposal is overthinking it however. A few lines in WS:D#Precedent and WS:WWI#Excerpts should suffice for this purpose. Your proposal is better suited to be an improvement to Wikisource:Periodical guidelines , which is a guideline rather than a policy.—If I have time, I'll stop by the discussions in WS:PD and see what's up. — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 13:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @ Beleg Tâl : Calling it a guideline is fine by me, as the line is rather blurry to me anyway. Moreover, like I said, my main motivation is to establish a baseline for works to aim for, and specifically not to set a rule to enable easier deletions (which is why I started this bun-fight, because I don't think deletion is right method to force improvement, but it's currently our de facto "oi, fix this" signal, which isn't very friendly).I just want "the roolz" written down somewhere, with some semblance of consensus, somewhere other than a discussion archive. I'd also like to introduce the concept of using Portals for periodicals at both Wikisource:Portal guidelines , and Wikisource:Periodical guidelines , neither of which mention Portals for periodicals at all. But first we need to settle on how Portals are supposed to be used for periodicals, and how they relate to their mainspace counterparts. The main examples are Portal:Popular Science Monthly and Portal:Weird Tales , neither of which I would call examplary (though the subportal lists of PSM are exactly what I think portals are for). Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)I read the intervening discussion and I generally Symbol support vote.svg  Support this proposal. AnotherEditor 144 t - c 08:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)No-content mainspace pages[ edit ]

This one is probably even more controversial so it's a separate proposal:

Collective works are commonly referenced by other works. Due to this, it is permitted to pre-emptively create the top-level main namespace page to collect incoming links, even when there is no content ready for transclusion. This also allows labour-intensive research into location of scans to be preserved and presented to users even when no transcribed work has been completed. The following is required for such a work:

A header with a brief description including active dates, major editors, structure (e.g. series) and so onRedirects from alternative names (e.g. when a work has changed name or is referred to by other names)A listing of volume scans should be added, and it should be as complete as possible, based on availability of scans online. As always, creating Wikisources index pages is preferred, but external scans are acceptable.Creating sub-pages (volumes or issues) should follow the article inclusion criteria. This means a sub-page should not be created if there is no content.Oppose As above these restrictions are an unecessary burden that would produce no real benefit and presumably result in lot of deletions. We do not need lists of editors. We do not need a complete list of volumes. (There may be hundreds of volumes of a particular periodical that have scans. For example, a page with links to scans of twenty volumes should not be deleted because the creator failed to link to scans of another eighty volumes.) Lack of redirects is not a reason to delete these pages either. James500 ( talk ) 20:37, 29 August 2020 (UTC)Support, mostly. Generally speaking, I think that if a periodical changed its name, then there should be a separate page under the new name; however, redirection pages from alternate titles would be preferable. The other requirements are not overmuch burdensome, and would make useful a page that is otherwise empty, due to a lack of transclusions. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk ) 12:30, 30 August 2020 (UTC). None of our periodical pages includes the names of the editors, as far as I am aware. Not one. Under this proposal, every single periodical we have would be deleted. Further, it is not possible to include the names of the editors when they are anonymous. James500 ( talk ) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC) @ James500 : "every single periodical we have would be deleted" - or we could make the effort to improve such works as we find them. Generally, an except from Wikipedia or some other source would do just to provide some context. E.g. The Condor vs The Journal of Jurisprudence , which has the dates, but not other useful info, not even the country. For example, even a quick trawl would allow to write something like "The Journal of Jurisprudence was a Scottish law journal published in Edinburgh from 1857 to 1891. The first successful Scottish law journal, it covered all aspects of the Scottish legal system and included editorials, biographies and short articles as well as case law and reporting of legislation. It merged with the Scottish Law Magazine in 1867. It was largely replaced by the Juridical Review in 1891.". The editors aren't particularly obvious here (so they're not "major editors"), but sometimes editors are important to the work's history and are explicitly noted, e.g. All the Year Round or The New-England Courant .Basically, if a page has zero or near-zero transcribed content, in my mind it can edge over the line into acceptable as long as it's providing useful auxiliary bibliographic information, which might also include collation of various names. This is somewhere WS can actually provide value-add - nowhere else online, as far as I know, provides a venue for this information (IA/Google metadata is terrible, OCLC is not very good at periodicals, Hathi is not can't download easily, none are editable, often a complete scan list uses various sources, etc). However, "it was a periodical and here's a handful of raw external links, kthxbai" doesn't quite cut it, even for someone who thinks these pages can be useful like me.I've said it before several times, but the aim here is not, not, not to get all the pages like The Journal of Jurisprudence deleted, but instead figure out what needs to happen to keep them. To me, a decent blurb and a tidy list of volumes and scans will do it, but that's far from consensus. As it stands, as far as I can tell, the only reason half of Portal:Periodicals isn't getting unceremoniously dumped into Portal space (something I personally would like to find an alternative outcome to) is no one really wants to deal with it. We can fix that by coming up with a minimum level which the pages should meet and then fixing them up. Inductiveload talk / contribs 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC)@ TE(æ)A,ea. : about the names, above is an example, where the The Journal of Jurisprudence absorbed the Scottish Law Magazine in 1867. Though technically after the merge TJJ became The Journal of Jurisprudence and the Scottish Law Magazine (e.g. here , but not the title pages), it was still the same work. So in my mind, we could have The Scottish Law Magazine running up to 1867 and then The Journal of Jurisprudence for 1857–1891, with notes about the merge in both headers.Another example of a work that changed name, but remained the same fundamental work is Monthly Law Reporter , which was just The Law Reporter for the first 10 years, and even kept the volume sequencing over the name change (though it added a "new series" number). So The Law Reporter should probably be a redirect. Inductiveload talk / contribs 12:37, 31 August 2020 (UTC) The Scottish Law Magazine [and Sheriff Court Reporter] was originally called the Scottish Law Journal and Sheriff Court Record . It has a page already which includes the volumes up to 1867. James500 ( talk ) 15:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC) @ James500 : Then a link to it should have been in the description already. I have added it and expanded the description as above. Feel free to add more details. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:50, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Periodical main namespace pages should not contain the curated information of scans, etc., that is the job of the Portal: namespace. Main namespace should only contain published information for works that we have prepared. So under your proposal, the main ns can exist, and it should contain contents of works that we have transcribed, and there should be a corresponding portal: or there can be a constructed Wikisource: project page where there is a project to do the work. This was discussed years ago, and we have been moving those constructs to portal namespace for years. If there is zero content at the page, and we are unlikely to have it, then it can be redlinked, or maybe if it is that obvious then we don't need a link at all, Examples would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 30 August 2020 (UTC) You are the only person moving these pages into the portal space. I would like to see a link to the alleged discussion you refer to. James500 ( talk ) 18:24, 30 August 2020 (UTC)@ Billinghurst : I personally don't see huge value in simply shunting just scan links to Portal and leaving them there: It eventually leads to having two parallel volume lists, one with links and one without, sometimes with divergence.It tends to end up with "scratchpad-level" content in Portal, which is supposed to be a nice presentation space.Portals are badly integrated and will probably not be noticed by casual users, or even many Wikisource editors. Especially as the Portal headers never seem to actually link to the mainspace works that exist, but we can fix that.I suggest Portals like Portal:Punch provide some useful value-add, whereas Portal:Notes and Queries does not (yet), and its current content, if anywhere, should be on a WikiProject, just on the mainspace talk page, or even nowhere now all the volumes are uploaded. If the consensus truly is to shunt this all to Portal and move back once there's content, then fine, but I do wonder if that's truly the most ideal strategy. From a pure "only reproduced content in mainspace" angle, perhaps, but does that serve readers best? Inductiveload talk / contribs @ Inductiveload : Main namespace is content for the reader. There is nothing worse for a reader to go to a page and have to drill down multiple pages to find that there is no content just some dashed skeleton of hierarchy. Main namespace is not built to drive transcribers and transcriptions, that is our other content spaces. We can create a page there once we have content to display what we have to read, and point to the portal for what we have to transcribe. It is the reason we put in place the portal namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:08, 31 August 2020 (UTC) I also wish to avoid the really ugly situation of people uploading a work, creating the front page, and then just leaving it for other people. That facadism of a work is just problematic, and we know that nothing happens to it. It is why we developed {{ ext scan link }} and {{ small scan link }} for use in the author namespace to do that role of managing that list build. So portal and author namespaces play that role and keep main namespace cleaner and more functional. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 31 August 2020 (UTC)@ Billinghurst : I'm not say that we should be creating pre-emptive "empty" hierarchies. I'm saying that I don't really see the point of shunting all the scan links off to a portal where they will basically never be found by anyone who isn't extremely familiar with Wikisource and the mainspace/portal split. If a casual reader, is after, say, Volume 22 of The Atlantic Monthly , for which we have neither scans nor content, do we serve them better by placing a scan link to the IA on the mainpage next to the redlink so that can at least find what they wanted, or is better to have no redlink at all, skip Volume 22 in the list and maybe put the IA link at a portal? If the latter, I'm fairly certain 95%+ of people will just not find that link at WS. We can certainly adopt a stance of if it doesn't exist here, we don't even want casual readers to be presented with an external resource, but that seems slightly walled-gardenish for an open project."Facadism" is annoying, and it (or the perception of it) is what has brought us to this point via the proposals at WS:PD . As an example from that page, I don't find the concept of the page American Law Review intrinsically offensive in mainspace, even without any content (though perhaps it's a little untidy as-is), but I don't really see the point of American Law Review/Volume 1 as it stands (only a title page and redlinked TOC, though it's a single article away from being useful to me). Notably, I find "facadism" of a collective work much less annoying than, say, only having the preface to a novel. Collective works can have individually-useful things slotted in bit by bit, and if there's a framework around the work, it's even easy to do.And if we do want to ditch this proposal and be strict with Portals in this way, then 1) it needs to be documented that that's how it works ( Wikisource:Portal guidelines and Help:Portals don't mention use of Portals for this purpose at all, they focus more on thematic curation) and 2) most existing periodicals need to be converted over: many people reasonably imitate of existing structures, we can't blame them for that.And do we allow redirection from a non-existent mainspace page to the portal so it can be found via "normal" linking until such time as there is content? Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:09, 31 August 2020 (UTC)The word "facadism" is needlessly offensive and should be deprecated in favour of something that doesn't sound like it refers to habitual dishonesty. I would urge that care be taken when coining neologisms to consider how these words might be taken. James500 ( talk ) 15:32, 1 September 2020 (UTC) What? It means that there is a face only. Nothing more. There is no offensive with it and I don't even see where you can draw that inference. You are digging to deep or looking for insult. Front-pageism is meh! So unless you can ind a better term can you please AGF. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:58, 1 September 2020 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose I disagree with Inductiveload's position, and agree with Billinghurst's (provided I have understood them both correctly, which is not a certainty). We should significantly raise the bar in this area for mainspace pages, and anything that is not a (part of) an actual published work should be shunted to other namespaces. I acknowledge the downsides to that approach that Inductiveload brings up, but I think we should find other ways to ameliorate those. I also agree that the main purpose in setting a higher bar is to have a clear and predictable standard for contributors to aim for to enable keeping a work, with deletion being an admission of failure (i.e. deletion is a sometimes necessary, but never a desirable, outcome). I disagree that shunting content to other namespaces is a bad thing, as it is a great way to preserve content that would otherwise be deleted. Maintaining clear purposes for the namespaces makes possible technical innovation in the long term, through better integration with Wikidata and similar measures. -- Xover ( talk ) 13:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)@ Xover : Re: Maintaining clear purposes for the namespaces: I think part of my problem here is that Portal namespace is overloaded with two kinds of content: curated "exhibition-style" information and a dumping ground for lists of links shunted from mainspace, where they are all-but-invisible to the average user. IMO, either all the "volume list" pages should be in one namespace or the other. For example, The Times and Portal:New York Times are basically the same thing, but one is in Portal space and one is not. And very rough lists probably should go somewhere in Wikisource-space if they're so rough they're not suitable for public display.As an aside, this is somewhere I think a cross-namespace redirect (if the mainspace page doesn't exist yet) isn't a summary hanging offence. Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:33, 8 January 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : I agree, I think, with all your points here; but I fall down on the other side of the line on them. Portal:'s purpose is a bit overloaded, but I prefer that to overloading mainspace's purpose. I think The Times and Portal:New York Times is a bit of a distinction without a difference, and I have no clear idea of what we'd actually put at The Times that would be materially different (in terms of the principles we're discussing here) from Portal:New York Times , but I'd rather have a bright-line rule for mainspace with common-sense exceptions (after community discussion) for works like The Times .Or put another way, my highest priority is raising the quality bar for our main presentation namespace. I also care about the quality of other user-visible namespaces (Author:, Portal:, Translation:), and about practical issues like organization of work, findability of scans and bibliographic info for not-yet-proofread works, and barriers to entry and effort required to contribute; but all with a lower priority than maintaining quality in mainspace.My immediate instinct regarding the duality of Portal: is not to "pollute" mainspace, but to find some good way to clean up Portal:. Typically by thinking up some better alternative along the lines of a new namespace or pseudo-namespace (like WikiProjects) for those purposes. Ideally with some form of technical innovation that would make that alternative desirable, not just tolerable, for the relevant stakeholders. Perhaps there's an opportunity for tooling to manage scan links and bibliographic data in a structured format, possibly even integrated with Wikidata? Overlapping with the WikiCite/Worldcat-killer/VIAF-replacement effort perhaps? This might even fit into a grander vision of tooling and integration for structured data on enWS, where everything that's in {{ header }} in mainspace pages today would be editable in a GUI, backed by Wikidata, and inherently structured; and where we have a defined and tool-supported workflow from creation of Author: pages, populating them with works, adding scans, creating indexes, proofreading transcluding, promoting, etc. There is a lot of potential there, and a lot of it can be solved piecemeal: maybe a better alternative for "scan-list pages" could be the first piece of that puzzle? -- Xover ( talk ) 09:28, 9 January 2021 (UTC)I have no comment on other aspects of these proposals, but I think portals should not be used as the main linking places for volumes of specific magazines. I vehemently oppose having portals for the titles of magazines for example, in order to link to relevant volumes of that magazine. If we're going to, in the mainspace, call these volumes for example "The New Yorker/Volume 1" then having the main page be "Portal:The New Yorker" is a bit contradictory. Also, it would make searching the volumes easier, not harder to have a list of volumes in the mainspace rather than in other namespaces. I know that to the long-time editors of Wikisource and other wikis it seems trivial to ask someone to search for the portal when you need the volumes of a magazine listed. But think about the majority of our readers, who are not familiar enough with how wikis work to think "hmm, there must be a portal for this, in another namespace". I imagine most people who come to our site stumble upon it via Google search fairly randomly, and don't spend all that much time digging around here. So making it harder by moving these things to other namespaces is counterintuitive especially for readers who are generally unfamiliar with the site's practices or how the site is laid out. PseudoSkull ( talk ) 12:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @ PseudoSkull : They are not meant to be the place to where you link. All links to works are meant to be works in the main namespace. The problem is the contentless linking to some jumbled construct, so separate real transcribed ready content from some attempted misrepresenative dump of a load of links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Anything in main ns is meant to have been proofread, and ready to read. It is meant to be standard, it is not meant to have links off to here and there, it is meant to conform with our standard outputs. These pages with tens of external links, or tens of small scan links as the focus are not presentation material. If you are adding a structured or link in any work then it is meant to be main ns. Portal links are typically through portal parameter in a header, it would not be normal to put a link in the body of a work to the portal ns. WS:Links essentially says that. To me it is a discussion of where do we have an encouraging and coordinating space for these large multi-volume works. Previously, it has been the opinion of the community coordination is WS:WikiProject or Portal: sort of depending what you are doing, and as work is proofread, that is done in main ns. This may mean that there are bits in main (proofread works) and Portal: nss (coordinating components) as work continues. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 29 January 2021 (UTC)@ Billinghurst : Not to say that policy or precedent aren't important, but you mostly pointed me to policy precedent and did not address my concern that our reader base (not our editing community) would be negatively affected by having links for the same work in a different namespace. For example, the page Popular Science Monthly would not be "contentless linking to some jumbled construct". Everything on that page would link to volumes of Popular Science Monthly, not some jumble of other magazines along with it. (This particular page should not be linking to Index pages though as it actually is now, it should be linking to the actual transcluded works, especially since it appears that Popular Science Monthly coverage is pretty complete. So it unfortunately is not a very good representation of my ideal scenario, but I don't know of any more complete magazine coverages here.)I will agree that our magazine/newspaper/etc. coverage needs a massive lot of work and a lot of our mainspace magazine/newspaper pages have very little content which is an issue, but this issue should be solved by more work from the community, not by moving the pages to a place where they're harder to find. One should consider a page with very little content a sign that the coverage should be improved, not that it should be moved to some other namespace because it's so incomplete. These proposals seem to have this focus on the incomplete pages and not the final results of those pages which would be complete eventually (hopefully). In the case of a complete or nearly complete magazine coverage especially, definitely having all the volumes linked to in the mainspace is necessary. PseudoSkull ( talk ) 14:00, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @ PseudoSkull : What do readers come here to do? READ. What is produced in those pages to read? Nothing, but a volume list and a title list. What is its value? What is its purpose?

In our early years people came here and dumped scans of OCR'd text that was scraped from IA and then walked away. We are still cleaning up that unholy mess. It was useless, ugly, and unproductive and just created work for others, and made the site look poor. The original works were never out of scope.

This scenario is pretty similar. These bulk loads and dumps into the main namespace are not much different. I am all for someone coming in a working on a project to get things set up properly to present proofread data to our readers, and pathways for our proofreaders. But it takes the effort and the diligence and the proofreading, and the rigour of the community to not have a polluted main namespace that is full of someone's ideas with the sole reasoning that someone may wish to transcribe it at some point. Show me with the pathway to have quality proofread page. Also if you want to know the history of PSM and the hard work that has been done there, then come to me and talk. If you want to know about setting up a project to transcribe and transclude 63 volumes of Dictionary of National Biography then come to me and talk. If you want to talk about setting up compilations then come to me to talk. If you want to know about fixing up works and ongoing maintenance for people who come here with a good idea, dump some text and then walk away and have to have it remedied and tided and managed, then come to me and talk. I have an account with a few edits, and have a couple of bots with a few edits too.

I am all for displaying good proofread work in a logical manner, and for pathways to proofreading. One shouldn't just give us shit or shit to tidy up, and not expect some kickback because they have had a "good" idea or a feeling. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Idea: can we work on a very small periodical (only a few issues) and bring it up to "Wikisource standard", so that 1) we can all see what is "right" and 2) we have something to use as reference when discussing things? Perhaps Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology , which appears to have only 4 volumes.Unless anyone knows of an periodical that's already "perfect" (not necessarily complete) by Wikisource standards? Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:10, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Further re. best practices (@ Billinghurst : as the mover): what should be done with incoming links to things like Irish Builder , which was moved without redirect to Portal:Irish Builder ? As it stands, several pages, including a redirect, now have redlinks, and the Portal is a functional orphan (only linked to from WS:PD and its own subpage)? What is best practice for directing would-be readers to the Portal page (since cross-namespace redirects are a CSD)?And should d:Q6070563 link to the portal or what? Inductiveload talk / contribs 12:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC) The linking policy describes actions for links; the content policy describes action for content. The red linked redirects should be deleted per the deletion policy. Yes check.svg Done Why would we directing _readers_ to the portal pages when there is no content? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:12, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Directing prospective reader to what is, to my knowledge, the only (free) list of volumes with links to scans of a periodical (and certainly the only one that a user can expand themselves) on the entire Internet does not seem a totally pointless endeavour to me. Shunting the content to Portal pages just to leave them functionally orphaned doesn't seem ideal to me.It's fine to point at policy, but if the policy is actively removing valid content (maybe not valid mainspace content, maybe imperfect, but valid content nonetheless) from the web , I might suggest that the policy needs work. Which is why this topic exists up here in Proposals. Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:08, 3 February 2021 (UTC) The answer is to build proper content, not practice façadism. The content was moved and is still readily available. On that landing page the text says ...Searching Search for "Irish Builder" in other texts. If the text you are looking for is not English, see its corresponding language Wikisource. If the text is not a source text, check one of the other Foundation wikis.

The link search of "Irish Builder" finds the work. The same search in the search box finds the work. This community has had this conversation over and over and over about some people coming and creating a front page, and then do nothing else with the works. It has not been evident that this has been a successful strategy; compared with putting in the effort to create the framework, and building from there. Build the content, work with the users to build the content. I tried with this user, but they were not interested in building proofread content. I was basically told I didn't know what I was doing. I moved on, life is too short. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't agree that expecting the average non-editor to know that there might be a useful resource on a "portal" page which is unlinked from anywhere they might plausibly find it organically and throwing them to the search tool is a good idea.I'm not talking about any specific user, I'm not even talking about a specific work: I want to make best practice clear, and so far, it I do not see a satisfactory description of how to structure these things. Hand-waving at nearly 2 decades of archives split between WS:S, WS:S/H, WS:PD and who knows where else and saying "we've said this before" isn't helpful. If you want people to edit according to your expectations, you must make those expectations clear. And it is far from clear what expectations are. I don't know what they are, that's why I'm asking. We don't have, as far as I know, a single periodical work that we might call an exemplar. Even the PSM has a confused mainspace/portal paradigm.I mean, there isn't actually even any thing that lays out any expectations for proofreading of pages transcluded to mainspace, as was made abundantly clear to me here, with reference to a (mostly stalled, almost entirely unhelpfully titled, and, other than the place it was pointed out to me, never before or since referenced ) 2011 discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2011-11#Variance_to_a_rule_is_requested . So we really should not be surprised when people think that anything goes, because, in practise, it does (and that's just the ones that are tagged with {{ incomplete }}).As I mentioned higher up, there is also zero mention of the use of portals for this purpose in Help:Portals or Portal guidelines , and there is also no mention of portals on Wikisource:Periodical guidelines . Inductiveload

talk / contribs 11:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

One periodical I haven't seen mentioned yet is The Atlantic Monthly , which excepting the dozen or so extra articles at the bottom, is generally backed by scans, sorted into volumes and issues, has pretty good TOC coverage, and even attempts to show TOCs for periodical works that appeared in chunks across multiple issues. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 18:42, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Support, generally. I've always thought of Weird Tales as a best in class example of a periodical page.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 21:36, 3 February 2021 (UTC) That is a nice periodical, but the associated Portal:Weird Tales has a stale issues list (which is an example of what happens if you duplicate information in two places) and there's also a blurred line between "synthetic" content and "real" content (for example the manual TOCs on the year mainspace pages like WT/1923 and the external links). Inductiveload talk / contribs 11:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg   Comment Periodicals are major undertakings, and unless you approach them as such then expecting magic to occur with them is just ridiculous. I come back to the point that just getting volumes of works dropped into place and not all the project and curation aspect of such large undertakings is highly problematic and leads to a rubbish outcomes, and the problems we are encountering. Dropping them into portal is not ideal but it is better than dropping them into main namespace. That people think that making them available is going to be helpful or get a quality product is naï thinking. That people ignore the experience people who have tidied these up previously because they have a better idea, just is wearing on those who have been there before. I keep having to come back to fixing up works that are just dropped into main namespace and it is entirely shitful the inconsistency and the management that needs to be undertaken to fix these up. Excuse me if I get frustrated with explaining it, but it is not up to me to write policy or have to do the documentation, it is not my skill set. Make your decisions, do you want quality product in main namespace, or do you dribbles of inconsistent content. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 12 February 2021 (UTC)

I have to disagree with it's not up to me to write policy or have to do the documentation. As admins, it's is exactly our job to do this and facilitate other users to add to the collection. And if we don't, we can't blame people when they do it not to our liking. And it's even less surprising people aren't "doing it right" when, after 5000 words in this section alone, there's still no actual explanation of what the current expectations even are, so I can't even write the documentation, because I have no idea what it should say. If you're sick of these conversations, perhaps that's because WP:SHY people will keep asking questions that they don't see an answer to, and the WP:BOLD people will just do it a way they find reasonable.Also re Periodicals are major undertakings, and unless you approach them as such then expecting magic to occur with them is just ridiculous: Like it or not, the default state of any periodical will always be incomplete, firstly because periodicals are generally enourmous corpuses and secondly because the individual articles stand alone, and sometimes only one article is actually available and of specific value.As I said, there's nothing (policy, guideline or otherwise) that even recommends not to transclude half a book of raw, unproofread OCR, and throwing people into nearly 20 years of Scriptorium/WS:PD archives actually results in finding discussions that support a case that it's allowed.There has still been no comment on a proposal to discuss a specific, concrete example of a small periodical that we can whip into an exemplar state for an incomplete journal, which can then be used as a template for all the other, and future, periodicals, as well as a decent set of guidelines at a putative Periodical or Wikiproject Periodicals . "Don't put no-content top-level pages in mainspace." Fine, that message is received, loud and clear. Then what should be done? And what happens in mainspace when there's a single article ? What about the portal at that point? Where does Wikidata point to? In the previous section you said you'd just use {{ header periodical }}, for an unstructured list of content. At what point do we move to a more structured approach? Etc, etc, etc. Inductiveload talk / contribs 00:38, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Community writes documentation, it is neither an adminship role nor responsibilityI am not blaming people for not knowing. Though don't expect me to be chipper when a person is specifically told the process and they flip you the bird, and we end up with this conversation againWhat do you mean it hasn't been said? It has been said and said => Main namespace takes published works. It takes content, per Help:Namespaces . And the community expectation is beyond a table of contents, a cover page, or a cover page and a preface.I know that periodicals are a never-ending story. That is why they need their framework, and the work to set them up. Which is why someone dumping a list of volumes and external links into main namespace is not the process. There is no magic. That is also why the only work that has progressed so far is PSM.I have no interest in the matter of delivering that work into an exemplar status. If I had an interest I would have expressed it. If I had a particular interest in presenting any periodical in a creation to termination work, then I would have done so. I don't. In previous years, I have helped plenty of people in guiding them in setting up particular works in guidance of this community. Developed templates for them for the display of their works. Even given them my dashed experience and dratted opinion.The article in Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology and the ToC are how I would expect how a work would start where one is working with an scanned index. [I wouldn't expect to see {{ small scan link }} used in the body of main namespace.] There have been multiple decisions through WS:PD that the minimum that we expect of a work is that there not be a subpage alone, there needs to be a basepage. We long ago said that basepage holder text was insufficient for a work. [Each of these decisions clearly has had, and should continue to have, latitude where someone is actively working and developing a work.]If main ns exists and has reasonable content, then I would be pointing WD to main ns. If there is nothing there, then I would point it to the Portal: ns. A cascading approach to the links is reasonable and already part of WD practice.{{ header periodical }} is removed when there is structured content. Its purpose is to capture unstructured works to ease curation, and works at basepage or subpageAs I remember it, I argued that I would prefer that all these periodical builds go through Wikisource:WikiProjects as it was an organisational effort and the more that we have this argument, the stronger I wished I had fought that fight. One of the reasons that I ceded as it was argued that the journals and publications existed and could be developed with complementary information, and that was reasonable to interwiki link to enWP; that, and we didn't have many personnel to run wikiprojects—they are intensive.

Back at the end of the 2000s, and early 2010s we said that we wanted to concentrate on a quality product in the main namespace. No misrepresentation of what we had. We got rid of a stream of pages that had a header only and no content. We decided that we would embark on having scanned backed works, and that scans would be encouraged. That we could proliferate with index and page namespaces at the backend even if works sat there forever unprogressing. And I couldn't tell you whether it is written down or not in our help pages. I know that I have worked with 100s, maybe 000s of people over the years to assist them to work that way.

Further, to this time the removal of works that are not scan-backed, and are grossly incomplete are still problematic to remove in this community. usually with the commentary, "there is a scan for that". It is the nature of our community.

All that said, we have main namespace that we try to have to be the purest and the most presentable. Secondarily we have Author: namespace which we look at our main curated space. Followed by Portal: and Category: namespaces which we sort of do.

What should happen? People should be bringing in works they are going to undertake in the index: and page: namespaces, and start undertaking them. People should not be dumping links to internet archive into main namespace that they think others should be working on, or might work on; and rinse and repeat that. We need transcribers, and people to do the work. We could dump tens of thousand pages into main ns with links to archive.org and that would look totally shit, and help no one find anything.

To the those pages that have been created in main ns without content, we can continue to move them to another namespace to be curated; or we can delete them, or someone can bring them up to the standard of transcluded works with content. I am happy to do the first or second suggestions to resolve.

You don't want me writing policy. The few skills that I have lie elsewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

And the community expectation is beyond a table of contents, a cover page, or a cover page and a preface. It might be, but that expectation is unwritten, and we all know what happens with unwritten rules: they end up in the Supreme Court and there is drama. And when it is stated "this is just how we do things, buck up your ideas" and there is literally nothing to back that statement up (other than 100k words shotgunned though 20 years of archives, mostly in discussions that ended without consensus), I can see how people are not jumping for joy when they're in the dock.So what you would like to see is a redlink if there is no content (and summary deletion of any attempted redirects to the Portal to guide people to what we do have). Then, once a single article is created is the list is are duplicated between main and portal namespace, but without the scans links? Like this:
Main namespace Portal namespace

And then, by-subject, by-author, related things and other curated content (like Portal:Punch has the makings of).

Where the acceptability of the actual mainspace content is currently uncodified (and is de-facto "anything goes, even raw OCR" until it's trawled though WS:PD, which is what started this) and could be covered by an outcome for . Do I have that right?I want to set up a Wikiproject Periodicals to mirror the projects at WD (where they are signally uninterested in the data that would help us organise our periodicals better), but I would like to clarify the "done thing" first, because as far as I know, we don't have any periodical we can point to and say "this is how we do it". Not even the PSM is quite right in terms of Portal/Mainspace. Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:21, 13 February 2021 (UTC)I am backing out as I am now sure whether you are taking the piss. [I tried to prevent this train wreck at the beginning when I saw and was basically told to FRO by the user, so ...] I also have enough on my plate and have tasks taking my time and need my focus, and this is disrupting it. So ... I want proofread work only in main namespace; all other things that are aids, helpers, pointers, whatever belong elsewhere. I don't think that a morass of redlinks on any page is the answer. [Noting that I don't think that is the answer in any namespace, and I disagree with that approach in author: ns, but that is just probably me as a dinosaur.] I am very happy with the approach of a project as that is where all coordination belongs for long term works per Wikisource:WikiProjects , and as I did at Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries . I don't think that hard hard hard rules are the answer either, this is about a practice, and one that explains what we do and why we do it, which we did try to cover at help:namespaces . The issue is always that people just want to jump in and do their thing, they don't want to read pages and pages of help text. Which was why we set direction and guided newbies. [Now I need to back out of this conversation.] We need to encourage people to find works under progress in the Index: / Page: namespace though I think that is primarily through WS: ns somehow, and incomplete works in the Page: ns is perfect, they progress at their own rate. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose in general the creation of "pre-emptive" title pages where no actual content is present. However, I oppose even more the placement of such title pages in Portal space when they contain nothing more than would appear in Mainspace if the subpage links were blue instead of red (and perhaps the temporary presence of {{ scan }} or {{ small scan link }}). Generally, title pages should not be created at all until there is at least one portion of the work present. Of course, if a part of the work is present, even if it is just one article within an entire periodical, then the title page should be created (in Mainspace). — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 02:09, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Also, if the only part of the work that has been added is the front matter (i.e. title page and TOC), then we should treat it like any other work in progress, and the fact that it is a collective work is largely irrelevant. — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 02:19, 23 February 2021 (UTC)@ Beleg Tâl : what do you think should we do with pages like Canadian Law Times where there is no content (and, what should one do if had the same for another journal)? I understand that having no content is not ideal in any namespace (duh), but the volume link list itself is a useful resource that takes quite a bit of care and effort to ferret out and compile and is useful to anyone who does want to help later. WS is, as far as I know, the only community-editable place for this kind of information. Also, having something stable to link to is, in itself, helpful for collecting incoming links (e.g. end of here ), IMO. My proposal is to allow this to remain at Canadian Law Times (in mainspace), because otherwise it is shunted to Portal (leaving redlinks despite the presence of the list), then back (partially? without scan links? duplicated entirely? moved?—this isn't clear) to mainspace on creation of a single article. Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:12, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : Consider any "normal" work that is set up this way - say, a novel - where the only content is a list of chapters, none of which has actually been added. Depending on the circumstances, we would either delete it as G1 No meaningful content or history , or we would retain it as a work in progress. In some cases, we might move it to User (not Portal) space. Generally our discussions have resulted in keep if an Index page is present, and delete otherwise. I don't see why we would treat Canadian Law Times differently. — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 13:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @ Beleg Tâl : my thinking (which I do understand is not universally shared) is that the list of volumes, dates and scan links (internal or external) is, in and of itself, a resource with non-zero value. It takes quite some time time to seek out a the links (perhaps synthesising a complete list from Google Books, IA and Hathi and others) and present them. Moreover, that list, as a user-editable collection of links is entirely unique on the Internet (the only challenger AFAIK is OnlineBooks serials , which doesn't have entries for many periodicals, and can't be edited), so it's a place WS can actually add value (certainly of more value, IMO, than the hundreds of copy-pasted PG texts). I'd like to leverage Wikidata to help here, but they seem almost entirely uninterested in coming up with a model for storing this data.This is unlike an empty novel with redlinked chapters, because the correct place for that bibliographic information (the date and scan link) is the author page(s), but periodicals don't have authors, as such. In addition, incoming link to periodicals are much more common. Even the Canada Law Journal, a not-very-notable journal has something near 100 incoming references that could be linked, and that's just in the pages that have text layers saved. Not many non-existant novels have that. And, moreover, periodicals are also different in that single articles ("chapters" in the novel analogy) are complete works in themselves.Now, if we say the volume list should go in Portal space, that makes good sense. However, it has not been explained in all the verbiage above, at what point the Portal becomes a mainspace page, and when it does, what happens to the Portal, and whether we clone (and, unless something clever is done with LST or a template, inevitably diverge from) or delete the volume list.I'll happily go through all our periodicals single-handedly and update them to whatever, but I simple do not know what to update them to. Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : I do see your point. I think that there is a spectrum of how these pages could be presented. Something like Canadian Law Times really is nothing more than a list of redlinked chapters. Although the list of external links is beneficial, it's not really in scope . I personally put such lists in my User space . If there were an Author page, I would put them there. Perhaps I would add it to Portal:Periodicals as a single line item with a collapsible note of some sort. Or, if I really wanted to provide value, I would upload the scans to Commons and get an Index page started so that the work will have at least some content. But as it stands, neither empty TOC pages nor lists of external links are within scope here, so I would consider it a noncontroversial deletion as it stands.At the other end of the spectrum we have something like the old version of Sacred Books of the East . Observe that the page includes significant bibliographic information, including links to the text in the form of subpages, links to external scans, links to Author pages, lists of the works contained in the compilation and links to their Versions pages, and more. This would have made an excellent Portal page. However, I was able to retain most of that data in the current version of Sacred Books of the East through a combination of judicious wikilinks in the scan and supplementary use of {{ AuxTOC }}. (It also helps that some of the subpages do exist.)To sum up: a list of volumes, like a list of chapters, is not in scope per se, nor is a list of external links. Either delete it or work on it so that it is in scope as a multi-volume work (or put it in User space I guess). A Portal likewise should not be just a list of volumes/chapters and external links, it "should bring together everything Wikisource has to offer about the subject" ( Wikisource:Portal guidelines ). For example, look at Portal:Exeter Book and Portal:The Bible - they contain contents but also other relevant bibliographic information.(sorry, kind of rambly) — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 15:07, 25 February 2021 (UTC) @ Beleg Tâl : as you can probably tell, I kind of think they should be in scope, but I'm not dead set that they have to exist in mainspace. In fact, I have a very sparse similar thing in my sandbox that needs more work before going anywhere. Like I said, I'm just not sure at what point you move what to mainspace. E.g. if the Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology was out of scope and at risk of summary deletion when it was just a list of four volumes, is that entire subtree now in scope because a single article exists? This is a kind of a reverse Sorites paradox . And then should the volume list + scan links exist there or elsewhere? Should the redlinked volumes be removed from mainspace until they also have any content? Redlinked issues in a volume with partial issues?Ideally, the Portal would contain things like a thematic index, a by-author index and, like PSM, recurring section collections. That's the natural value-add that we should be aiming for, but which might (might) be better served by something like Listeria or some other data-driven process than relying on hundreds or thousands of manually-maintained portals. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:24, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Copydumps[ edit ]

Inspired by the above discussions, I would like to suggest that "copydumps" be added to WS:D#Precedent as they are frequently nominated on WS:PD and are generally uncontested. By "copydumps", I mean works that consist of copy-pasted OCR text, generally including page breaks and so forth - the sort of text that ends up in Category:Texts requiring OCR fixes . It is usually much faster to delete these works and then proofread them from scratch, than to try and clean them up before a match-and-split. There are occasional exceptions to this, which is why I am suggesting to add them as deletion precedent and not as a category for speedy deletion. — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 14:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support if it's just raw OCR, there's basically no benefit. My usual request that a scan is found and linked from the authors/portals to accompany the red links via ext/small scan link. Inductiveload talk / contribs 19:33, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support -- Xover ( talk ) 18:26, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Bot approval requests[ edit ]See Wikisource:Bots for information about applying for a bot statusSee Wikisource:Bot requests if you require an existing bot to undertake a taskInductivebot[ edit ] The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Bot flag granted.

Hi! Could I please request the bot flag back for User:InductiveBot ? I'm starting to thing about making a fix for the {{ TOC begin }} family and that might need a bit of bot finagling to remove things like blank lines that will cause issues after the fix is made.

Also I'd like to use it for general maintenance task, moves, replacements, etc., like it used to do 10 years ago.

None of the tasks it would run are run constantly, they're started manually and supervised. Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:09, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Just noting that since this is a request for reactivation of a previously approved bot—and one with an extremely low potential for controversy or disruption at that—the bot policy allows for an abbreviated approval process rather than a full minimum 4 days discussion + 7 days trial period. It does require the flag be granted by a `crat though (so ping Hesperian and Mpaa ). original (2010) authorisation , 2013 confirmation , and I think the flag was removed when we purged the inactive bot accounts in 2017 or thereabouts but I couldn't be bothered to dig it up just now. -- Xover ( talk ) 09:47, 9 January 2021 (UTC)Flag set. I did not wait long, given the history of Inductiveload and their bot here. In case of disagreement, please continue the discussion and the outcome will be considered, as per process. Mpaa ( talk ) 18:31, 9 January 2021 (UTC) Thank you! Inductiveload talk / contribs 23:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)Checkmark  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover ( talk ) 18:31, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Repairs (and moves)[ edit ]

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

Animal Life and the World of Nature/1903/06/Notes and Queries[ edit ]The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:All files moved as requested.

Please move file:Animal life and the world of nature - Notes and Queries - Alice Foljambe - 1903-06.pdf and the two associated pages to "Animal Life and the World of Nature - Notes and Comments - Alice Foljambe - 1903-06.pdf". Apologies for the error. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 23:04, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

I can find no indication of why the above request was removed from this page; so I've restored it. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 17:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC) The file is on Commons, so you should make your move request there. Once that's done let me know and I'll move the Index and pages here. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 18:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Pigsonthewing : Put a simple TO DO note at my talk page at Commons for move FROM => TO and I will get both done. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Beeswaxcandle , @ Billinghurst : Conflicting instructions (but thank you). I have now moved the file on Commons (I thought this should not be done unilaterally). Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 21:58, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Alternative, not conflicting. I have advanced rights at both sites, so can offer different alternatives. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:07, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Yes check.svg changes made Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 23:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Checkmark  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover ( talk ) 18:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Missing pages, unsure how to proceed[ edit ]The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived:Replacement scan uploaded.

So after a brief discussion at Author talk:David Hume , I uploaded two volumes of the same work to the Commons: File:Hume - Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects - 1809 - Vol. 1.djvu and File:Hume - Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects - 1809 - Vol. 2.djvu . After uploading both of these files, I proceeded to make Index pages for each work, only to find (very disappointingly) that Vol. 2 was missing about 4 pages. I documented the issues on the Vol. 2 Index Talk page .

I'm unsure how best to proceed. Part of me feels that I could/should just delete both files and try again with a different edition of the same work that is in fact complete, as no edition of Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects appears on wikisource yet at all. I selected the 1809 edition because it was the first complete edition with good-looking scans and no use of the "long s", but the scan quality on volume 2 is actually kinda bad the further you get into it, and of course the missing pages. There is not another scan to my knowledge of the same edition+volume (1809, vol. 2) on Archive.org or similar, though I wouldn't be surprised if the missing pages are exactly the same as the same numbered pages in a later edition.

Advice? Thoughts? -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 15:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Mathmitch7 : A wild Google scan appears: it's super messed up! There's a nicer 1809 v.2 scan at Hathi (also scanned by Google but not compressed half to death), but it'll take a short while to download and convert to DjVu. Inductiveload talk / contribs 16:06, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @ Mathmitch7 : updated version uploaded: Index:Hume - Essays and Treatises on Several Subjects - 1809 - Vol. 2.djvu . Enjoy :-) Inductiveload talk / contribs 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : omg THANK YOU, I truly love the wikisource community -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 19:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Checkmark  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Xover ( talk ) 18:34, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Move proofread pages after fixing DJVU[ edit ]

I missed that the pages were out of sync originally because they were equal numbers of additions (for the issue front matter) as deletions here Index:The New Monthly Magazine - Volume 097.djvu . I uploaded a fixed DJVU with the missing pages but now need the proofread pages to be moved to be back in sync. Thanks! MarkLSteadman ( talk ) 13:41, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ MarkLSteadman : Build a list somewhere of what needs to be moved (Index talk???). You can do either start and finish wikilinks, or a list of pages with the increment value of pages that are progressed. Any built list it best later pages first as that will prevent any overwrites. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC) To move 373, 372, 371, 246, 245, 244, 243, 243, 241, 240, 220, 219 all to increment by two pages. MarkLSteadman ( talk ) 18:33, 19 February 2021 (UTC) @ Billinghurst : Is this done or still todo? (asking mostly in case it slipped through and I don't want to wade in there and make a mess). -- Xover ( talk ) 18:38, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Yes check.svg

Yes check.svg Done billinghurst sDrewth 10:40, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. MarkLSteadman ( talk ) 13:19, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Other discussions[ edit ]PD-anon-1923 again[ edit ]

The discussion of Happy Public Domain Day! has slipped into the archives without getting into some conclusion, so I would like to remind that the last suggestion in the above mentioned discussion was to create {{PD-US|year of death}} and deprecate {{ PD/1923 }} and {{ PD-anon-1923 }}. Is this solution OK?

BTW: if we decide to keep calling the license templates for pre-1925 works {{ PD/1923 }} and {{ PD-anon-1923 }}, it would be necessary at least to adapt the latter one so that it could be used for 1924 anonymous works too. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 16:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support the change — I don't really care but it makes sense — Beleg Tâl ( talk ) 16:36, 20 February 2020 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support likewise — Nizolan ( talk ) 01:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose because the name emphasizes US. The point of the templates is to cover both US status and international status. A template that names the US will cause confusion, especially to newcomers. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 02:02, 21 February 2020 (UTC) @ EncycloPetey : So under your opinion, fixing a math wrong do even require consensus? Without consensus we should believe 1+1=3 rahter than 1+1=2? -- Liuxinyu970226 ( talk ) 01:37, 1 April 2020 (UTC) Changes to established templates require consensus. We've had previous discussions and the community is divided on the issue concerning these templates. Proceeding with a change when the community has expressed such division is inappropriate because of the community discussion, not because of my opinion. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 02:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support. We are US-centric in our copyright approach. Given the number of times I've had to look up these type of templates here and on Commons, I might buy the idea that we should copy them, but otherwise, I think this is going to be as non-confusing as we get.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 04:35, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment In your proposal, how do we code the year of the author's death for anonymous works? -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 04:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I am afraid I do not understand the question: anonymous works do not have any known author. I propose that for anonymous works we would have a template with similar wording as {{ PD-anon-1923 }}, but it would be called {{PD-anon-US}}. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 09:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC) That's also problematic, because the US is just one place that we display license information for. The current template displays that information for both the US and for countries with 95 years pma. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 19:46, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg   Comment If there is a consensus to act, my recommendation is that we just move/rename the templates

pd/1923|yyyy -> PD-US|yyyy, yyyy=YoD, displays two templates as nowPD-1923 -> PD-US, where no $1 parameter it displays the one templatePD-anon-1923 -> PD-anon-US|yyyy, year of publication

and update the documentation around the place. Do any internal required tidying around internals of templates, and fixing double redirects. No need to deprecate anything, just move to the new nomenclature, and not worry about any of the old usage, or anyone continuing its use, as it matters not. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Symbol oppose vote.svg  Oppose Firstly, because of the US emphasis. Yes, we follow US copyright law, but we also serve an international readership, not to mention contributors who are also bound by the copyright laws of other countries. Secondly, I think replacing "PD-1923" with "PD-US" is confusing. "PD-US" sounds like a generic template for "this work is PD in the US", but under this proposal it would mean "this work is PD in the US for the specific reason that it was published more than 95 years ago". BethNaught ( talk ) 22:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC) I do not understand in what way "the readership" is concerned in this… They see only the text of the template which is going to stay the same. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I do not think that the suggested name of the template is more American-centred than the old one. E.g. {{PD/1923|1943}} has got two parts: "1923" is the American part referring to the American copyright laws, and the parameter "1943" is international referring to the countries where PD depends on the year of death. Nothing would change, only the American part would be called "US" instead of the nowadays non-sensical 1923, I really do not see any problem in that. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 23:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC) @ BethNaught : The thing is that the only consideration we give to copyright compliance with regard to hosting is to the US copyright. Unlike Commons, we don't really care whether it is copyright in the country of origin. It is for this reason that I am reasonably comfortable with just stating PD-US and variants. The additional PD-old-70 and variants are for information only. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I think this is an important issue, and I'd like to weigh in. I'm probably as familiar as (almost) any Wikimedian with the considerations around copyright law in various countries. But I do not see a clear statement of what the problem is that we're aiming to solve, or what the pros and cons are. I'm sure if I took an hour or two to dig through various archives, I could probably figure it out, but I'm not likely to have the time for that...nor should we expect every voter to do that. So given all that, I'm inclined to gently oppose, simply because I can't figure out what's going on, and it seems unwise to make a change that is difficult for community members to evaluate. Is it possible to sum up the issues more concisely so that I can give it more proper consideration, without having to do all the research myself? - Pete ( talk ) 22:44, 21 February 2020 (UTC) The problem I see is this: Until 1923 it made quite a good sense to have a template called PD-1923, because it referred to the fact that only pre-1923 works are in the public domain. However, the situation has changed, currently the time border is 1925-01-01 (or 1924-12-31) and it shifts every year. I perceive it as very confusing to call the template for pre-1925 works PD-1923 (why 1923???). At the same time it does not make sense to change the name of the template every year (PD-1923, …, PD-1925, …), it would be better to find a fitting universal name. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 23:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Ah, that's very helpful @ Jan.Kamenicek :, thank you. I had misunderstood, I thought you were proposing a change to the functionality in addition to the name change.I agree that changing the name (a) such that it specifies "US" and (b) such that it references the 95 year rule, rather than the (now outdated) 1923 rule would be worthwhile. I agree with others that we should be cautious about US centrism; but the reality is, with a current title that assumes that it relates to US law, without stating it, we already have a high degree of US centrism in the title. In my view, it's better to state "US" as part of the name, to make it clear to editors (who are the primary audience for a template name) that it's about US law. So, my suggestion would be {{ PD-US-95 }} or similar. That conveys that it's about US law, and it's about the 95 year rule. Text on the template page/docs could clarify that the 1923 rule is now outdated, and subsumed under the 95 year rule.A related issue that I find confusing: I don't understand why we need two separate templates for {{ PD-1923 }} and {{ PD/1923 }}. I think this proposal only relates to the latter; would we be leaving PD-1923 intact? A decision on this is probably a matter for a separate discussion, but I'd like to know for sure what the intent of this proposal is. - Pete ( talk ) 23:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC) PD-1923 has no decision-making applies just a single template, it does not add the PD-old-nn variants. It has been utilised where we have been unable to determine a date of death, or for corporate publications which do not have PMA decisions. I addressed above that they would morph into PD-US, though we would need to handle them as parameterless. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Jan, that's not quite correct. Works published before 1923 are still in PD in the US for the same reason they were before. The 1923 date was a cutoff date beyond which we have never had to check. What has changed is that works that were under copyright later than that (from 1923 and 1924), and had their copyright renewed at one point, have now had that copyright protection expire. The works published before 1923 were not eligible for renewal and entered PD for a different reason than the works published in 1923 and 1924. It is one view to see the date as a shifting cutoff, but the cause of works from 1923 and 1924 entering public domain is actually different from those that were published prior to 1923. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 03:13, 22 February 2020 (UTC) All works published more than 95 years ago are out of copyright because of the time since publication, no matter whether that's due to copyright notices, or renewals, or being in copyright for a full long term. For a work published before 1923, we've never been concerned about copyright notices or renewals, nor how long work published with copyright notice and renewal got in copyright. Why does it matter that a work published in 1924 may have got 95 years of copyright, whereas a work published in 1922 may have only got 75, when we don't really care about that 95 or 75 in the first place? We have no tag for "published abroad before non-US works got copyright in the US in 1891", because we don't care; it has always been sufficient for our purposes to say that it was published before 1923, and I don't see why it is not now sufficient to say that it was published more than 95 years ago.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 04:59, 22 February 2020 (UTC) @ Prosfilaes : I am presuming that this is in reference to the primary notice about copyright within the US, not the secondary notice for PD-old-nn which relates to copyright elsewhere in the world. The secondary notice can still apply for those of us not in the US, which is why we added it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:08, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Yes, the primary notice. There's no need to worry about now-historical features of non-US countries, but certainly helpful to list the years since death.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 05:18, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Yes and no. There are authors who have works published prior to 1925 who died late enough to still have works in copyright in their home country, so those notices are still very pertinent per Category:Media not suitable for Commons . — billinghurst sDrewth 05:30, 22 February 2020 (UTC) Right; I didn't mean to imply we should change the current secondary notices.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 06:42, 22 February 2020 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support U.S. copyright is of primary concern to Wikisource. Fixing the license so more 1923 and 1924 works appear on Wikisource even if still under copyright in other countries is so important. Abzeronow ( talk ) 19:46, 16 March 2020 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support as this seems like the least problematic solution to the problem, and it doesn't make sense for us to keep delaying a resolution. Kaldari ( talk ) 18:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment It looks as though some people are hedging their bets: arguing for deprecating the template on the one hand but arguing for improving the template on the other. Since the template content has now changed, before this discussion has concluded, then proceduraily we should recast all votes, since the template named in this discussion thread no longer has the content it had at the start of this discussion. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 20:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC) Hedging their bets? It is somehow improper to try and improve Wikisource for now, whether or not this template gets deleted? If we're going to get pedantic about policy, where is it written on the English Wikisource that we should recast all votes?-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 06:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC) No need to restart the votes, as the changes have been reverted. The template is the same as it was before the voting started. No changes should be made to any template if there is a discussion and voting ongoing about its future. If the changes were allowed and at the same time we would have to restart the voting after every change, we may never come to a conclusion; not everybody has time to vote about the same problem again and again. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 09:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support If there must need a consensus to fix math wrongs, let it be. -- Liuxinyu970226 ( talk ) 09:01, 7 May 2020 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Please note that the new date, 1925, applies to all works except sound recordings (and maybe architecture). The date for sound recordings is 1923. That isn't shown in the local summary of the Hirtle chart, but is in the original. (I dropped a more detailed comment below.)-- Sphilbrick ( talk ) 14:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Interesting point. If it is really so and if we need to show a license for sound recordings somewhere, we would probably have to create a specialized template for them.-- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC) Yeah. Sound recordings have a tortured history in US copyright law, but the end point is that the first recordings to have their copyright expire in the US will be in 2022, for those published before 1923. See w:Public_domain_in_the_United_States#Sound_recordings_under_public_domain .-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 00:51, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So it seems to me that there is a weak consensus for the change. If so, it might be better to make it before the end of the year, so that works newly entering public domain can already be added with new templates.

The less important change is renaming the templates from {{PD/1923|year of death}} and {{PD-anon-1923}} for {{PD-US|year of death}} and {{PD-anon-US}} . It is only a change of the names of the templates, what the readers see will not be affected by this.

The more important change is adapting the latter one so that it automatically counted the years as {{CURRENTYEAR}}-95 , similarly as it has been done e. g. here .

-- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 11:44, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Looks like an interesting, but a very long, discussion. Is there a way for a newbie to get involved without spending hours and hours? Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk ) 18:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

I have updated {{ PD-anon-1923 }} and moved it to {{ PD-anon-US }}, and also moved {{ PD-1923 }} to {{ PD-US }}, per discussion above. However, {{ Pd/1923 }} is locked and so I asked it to be moved to {{ PD/US }} at the Admins' noticeboard. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 14:20, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

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, orDo 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)

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).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)@ 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)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)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) @ 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) 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) 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) 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) @ 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 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) 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)

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:

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 Put further research (on other editions, context, possible wikification, etc.) on that Index_talk page.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)

@ 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) I meant the namespace. Clarified now. JesseW ( talk ) 05:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)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-backedcomplete 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 section). -- Xover ( talk ) 09:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)Symbol oppose vote.svg  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) @ 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 above, which proposed to reboot Wikiproject OCR as a scan-backing Wikiproject. Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC) 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)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) @ 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)@ 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)@ 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) @ 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) @ 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)

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)

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)

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)

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 above. Inductiveload talk / contribs 11:00, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

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)

Collaboration with Google around Children's literature[ edit ]

Hello everyone,

Wikimedia Foundation is planning a collaboration with Google Read Along for a project around illustrated children’s literature. While the entire project is being scoped out, in the first phase Google Read Along will take works from Wikisource and integrate on their platform. This will allow younger audiences to access works from Wikisource in a mobile-friendly platform and also learn how to read the language, which, as the name suggests, the Google Read Along platform is basically designed to do.

We have shared the Portal:Children's literature with Google so far. There are certain books here which match the expectations and requirements of Google, such as the poems in The Real Mother Goose . It has good illustrations and short poems. I would like to request your help in transcluding this book .

Additionally, it would be really helpful if you can help identify other children’s books that have short tales, poems, stories etc. accompanied by good illustrations. Perhaps you can add those in the portal itself.

You can read more about Google Read Along here: https://readalong.google/

Feel free to ask any questions that you might have. Thank you so much!

-- SGill (WMF) ( talk ) 07:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@ SGill (WMF) : What does Wikisource get out of this? Step one basically sounds like "help Google slurp our content". Of course our mission is to create high quality, open source digital books, but I don't want to let Google take the credit. Or, why don't they hire or train a Wikimedian to improve the content they want to reuse, instead of asking us to do that work for free? BethNaught ( talk ) 08:39, 14 January 2021 (UTC) Seconded. At the very least, I hope they put a nice big pretty notice saying (paraphrased) "This comes from, and was prepared by, Wikisource. They'd love for you to get involved in preparing more Public Domain books for children and adults alike. Come on over and have a chat :-)".I'll be thrilled if it genuinely gets us more exposure, but less chuffed if we're just a cost-saving on a Mountain View management spreadsheet to avoid them having to pay an intern to transcribe a couple of hundred poems (a task that would be substantially easier if the millions of books they've scanned weren't scanned in bottom-drawer quality, and compressed so hard the words literally fall out). If that's their aim, I might suggest Portal:IWW instead! Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:48, 14 January 2021 (UTC)Wikisource gets someone else getting access to these works, which is the point of site. You won't find many who dislike FAANG/Frightful Five companies more than me but 1.) they are undeniably good sources for getting our work out to the public and 2.) free licenses mean free licenses. I second Inductiveload's proposal for more I. W. W. works being propagated. — Justin ( ko a vf ) T C M ☯ 10:06, 14 January 2021 (UTC) @ BethNaught :, @ Inductiveload : and @ Koavf : Thank you for your comments. The idea here is definitely to get more exposure to Wikisource and its content. We have been talking with other organizations regarding the same as well and hopefully we will share those with you soon. There will definitely be attribution for Wikisource, perhaps even a separate section on the application, but exactly how this happens still needs to be figured out. The first phase essentially is to integrate existing content which meets their specific needs (good illustrations and relatively short pieces of text). We are already discussing the idea to hire/train a Wikimedian to help them in this in the next phases. The questions before the next phases can be envisioned is: Are there a lot of works on Wikisource that would meet their requirements or are there only a handful one?It would be really good if you can help surface some of the proofread/validated texts that you feel might fit into these requirements (good illustrations and relatively short pieces of text).Also, what do you think would be the best way to search for texts on Wikisource that have illustrations and are written for a the age group 3 to 8?I looked at I.W.W. works but they don't look like works written for children that Google Read Along can integrate as it is basically a platform for children, ideally between 3 and 8 years of age. -- SGill (WMF) ( talk ) 10:18, 14 January 2021 (UTC) @ SGill (WMF) : To be clear, the I. W. W. reference was (partially) a joke: I don't think that anyone would seriously expect that Google would make a bunch of union songs available for children. (But we can always hope!) That said, I think the best way to find relevant texts is thru the portal linked above, which also includes some suggested reading levels. There is also Category:Children's literature and the related portals here . I suppose I would be concerned that kids just may not be interested in older material but I'd be happy to be proven wrong (I loved The Box-Car Children when I was nine.) Additionally, a Wikisource-adjacent project is Wikijunior which has some original works intended as reference volumes for children. I'm not sure if Google are motivated to include those as well but I figured I would point it out as specifically kid-friendly Wikimedia content. — Justin ( ko a vf ) T C M ☯ 10:28, 14 January 2021 (UTC)@ SGill (WMF) : Yes, that was supposed to be a joke. I'm not against free use of Wikisource content. Indeed, that's the whole point of WS. And I'[m CERTAINLY all for exposing Wikisource more, because awareness of Wikisource is near zero in the general public. Even people who know Project gutenberg don't know us. I just don't want to end up having WS users faffing about to help Google scrape up content, for free, to put into a walled-garden Google-branded mobile-only app without some kind of reciprocity. Inductiveload talk / contribs 12:12, 14 January 2021 (UTC) hardy hardy har. really laughing at the google bashing, smdh. as someone in the room, when author's guild said "hathi trust is just a pirate like google", i regret i did not respond: "arrrrgh". the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 02:46, 15 January 2021 (UTC)There is also Portal:Children's fairy tales and Portal:Children's poetry . -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 11:49, 14 January 2021 (UTC)@ SGill (WMF) : The Real Mother Goose is done. It may not be the best example since some of its formatting is awkward and the images relatively low resolution, but it's probably roughly representative. @ Inductiveload : Could you give it a "Ready for export" check? Also, since this is a relatively novel application for us, it would be interesting to get feedback on our markup structure, metadata, and visual layout from the perspective of the Read Along project. What makes it hard for them to reuse our content and what made it easier? What would be their wishlist for what we should provide? Does connecting our pages to Wikidata help them at all? Are they able to reuse our formatting or will they end up having to do a lot of transformation?Let me also take the opportunity to echo Inductiveload's comments regarding Google Books. If an opportunity should present itself to channel feedback in that direction there are a number of issues that makes Google Books close to net negative value for our purposes, and we would love for the opposite to be true. Scan quality is the biggest issue (and without decent scans we can't add works with nice pictures for the Read Along guys!), but there's also things like lack of stable URLs, arbitrary copyright practices, hard to download scan images, bad bibliographic metadata, etc. @ Xover :Yes check.svg Done ; a few tweaks were needed (an align=center; the first few poems were using blank lines to separate lines), but it now renders well in Koreader and "OK" in Moon+Reader. The images are actually pretty nice and big at Commons (e.g. File:The Real Mother Goose pg 5.jpg is over 1000px wide), we just don't embed them at a very large size (in this case, using the default "frameless" size of 180px). Presumably Google has enough nous to get the originals for processing into whatever internal format they need for their app. Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:32, 14 January 2021 (UTC) yeah, +1 picking picture books which is a wikisource>gutenberg, but a single book of fifty pages is not much of a challenge. rather they should double down with a list from Category:Children's books or https://ufdc.ufl.edu/juv , or Roller Skates or Newbery Medal , with some prizes to get some traction. (we need better tools to generate list of works by subject with status; now that all the IA books are at commons, a work list would be helpful ) Slowking4 Rama's revenge 02:30, 15 January 2021 (UTC) FYI, Roller Skates' copyright was renewed (Renewal: R341460 ), so it's not PD until 2031. Though Google can probably license the rights from Saywer's grandkids, we can't host it yet. In fact, every Newbery winner from 1926–1950 was renewed. :-( Now, if Google really cared about providing full access, they'd buy the rights to them all and donate them to the PD. Inductiveload talk / contribs 11:19, 15 January 2021 (UTC) i see 9 texts on Newbery 1922-25. but they are older more text than pictures. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 00:57, 16 January 2021 (UTC) SGill (WMF) : How long is the longest individual work that is desired? Certainly, short, multi-page poems would be appropriate, but for stories, how long would be too long? I am interested in adding new works for this project, but I don’t want to add any work which would be too long to be useful. TE(æ)A,ea. ( talk ) 01:46, 20 January 2021 (UTC).Apologies for the delayed response and thank you for the useful feedback everyone. @ Slowking4 : Better tooling for building various lists is definitely required and a challenge with related books sounds really good. @ TE(æ)A,ea. : Ideal works on Google Read Along have 170 to 220 words. Longest work can be of at-most 450-500 words. If there are even longer works that have really good illustrations then Google might take it and split it in parts. I will share more details once there is some progress. -- SGill (WMF) ( talk ) 02:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC) @ Xover : and @ Inductiveload : Thank you so much for your support. -- SGill (WMF) ( talk ) 03:00, 5 February 2021 (UTC) Category:Professors is not an occupation[ edit ]

As Professor is a title rather than an occupation, I was thinking that this may be better described as "Academic" though would like to hear the opinion of others of what to do with this category. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

that is a German view: for Americans, titles are a job description. but i leave the ontology fight to you. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 14:36, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Hm, does it mean that in American English all titles including PhD etc. qualify as "jobs"? I also would not include "professor" or any other academic title into the category of jobs or occupations, but I admit that my native language connotations interfere here too. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 17:09, 21 January 2021 (UTC) I think it kind of does double service in English. "Sam is a professor at the university" kind of implies Sam works there and performs certain duties (and might be an answer to "what does Sam do?"), whereas "Sam is a professor of geology" speaks mostly to the title rather than the occupation (and might be an answer to "is there anyone who can comment at length on this rock?"). Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:28, 21 January 2021 (UTC) Well, Billinghurst’s suggestion of making it a subcategory of Academics in fact admits them as a sort of occupation too, as Academics are a subcategory of Authors by occupation. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 21:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC) My recommendation is that wherever we see occupation listed as "professor" that we are replacing it with "academic". So authors who are professors will be "academics as authors" and where we have biographies they will be "biographies of academics". I was not planning on retaining an open active category for professors, that would become a category redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Across the parts of academia that I'm most closely associated with (NZ, Australia, UK), Professor is a title of a senior academic. An institution only has a certain number of professorships and it is rare to grant a professorship to someone who does not hold a doctrate. A family member's academic career saw them move through the ranks of Tutor, Senior Tutor, Junior Lecturer, Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Associate Professor, and Professor. The whole way through, they regarded themself as an academic. From this perspective, I agree with the proposal to convert any "Professor" categories to "Academic". [I am, of course, aware of the American way of calling most of those ranks "Professor", but regard this as a regional quirk.] Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 06:45, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I don't think it's correct to say that professor is a title rather than occupation. w:Professor describes it as an occupation; arguably without that title, academic is just a job. w:Academy#Academic_personnel puts academic as a larger, somewhat fuzzier category (sometimes including academic librarians). For me, using "academic" reminds me of the way that the Library of Congress uses "cookery" whereas LibraryThing users use "cooking" or "cookbook" As for regional quirk... 64.3% of the world's native English speakers live in the US. I'd be interested to see what India uses, but even tossing Ireland into the countries Beeswaxcandle mentioned, you still haven't hit 1/4 the world's native English speakers.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 22:21, 22 January 2021 (UTC) @ Prosfilaes : I will agree that it can be a labelled position/rank which may be more accurate than my original statement of title, eg. Professor of English. It is a title that shows a rank (there are of course further subdivision these days within professorship). We don't categorise someone based on "Reverend", we call them clergy or similar. I will also see that I have seen the title used by people heading up 19th century schools, though no clarity on how or what it portrays, beyond a leadership role. Someone may achieve the rank of professor, however, what is it as an occupation? They all start out in a profession at a lower rank and work their way up.

Maybe we are missing classification based on "rank" or "position" at Category:Authors though in a tenured sense it is hard to capture that and would hate to have to manually assign. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:31, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

As a general note that WD item you linked to is professor (Q121594) academic title at universities and other education and research institutions and the article lede is => Professor (commonly abbreviated as Prof.') is an academic rank at universities and other post-secondary education and research institutions in most countries. Literally, professor derives from Latin as a "person who professes". Professors are usually experts in their field and teachers of the highest rankWarning: template has been deprecated.— Excerpted from Professor on Wikipedia , the free encyclopedia. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:38, 22 January 2021 (UTC) professor tends to imply a tenured faculty, academic implies that plus adjuncts, non-tenured teaching assistants, etc. but not "Herr Professor", as Americans really don't do titles. "Is professor a formal title or just an academic qualification? Neither. It is a job description. Like a military rank, you only have it while you are doing the job." [2] but if you insist on imposing UK/German nomenclature, [3] go for it. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 04:56, 23 January 2021 (UTC)As a practical matter with respect to the category tree itself, one can be employed as a professor without being an author. Although it is almost impossible to land a professorship without at least writing a thesis and dissertation along the way, one need not be either publishing or recognized for one's writing to get such a position. I suppose that professors who aren't authors will be of little interest to this project. BD2412 T 23:59, 22 January 2021 (UTC) Not certain where that is leading. I am currently working on author pages, so all are authors while redoing the framework for occupations so we can list "as authors", "biographies of"—later we can work out what to do with portal namespace pages. I am currently adding new hierarchy, moving pages, and converting the occupations to utilise {{ meta category occupation }} making them unable to be automatically categorised with HotCat. If "Professor" is an occupation it should be dealt with, if it fits elsewhere then it will be moved and reviewed at another time. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC) I see what you mean. We don't have as a subcategory of Category:Authors by occupation people whose occupation is "author". BD2412 T 01:46, 23 January 2021 (UTC) Well ... whoever as a paid author has just ever been a paid writer? Authors will typically do something else whilst they create or supplement a literary career. If you are looking for classifications of "professional" writers then you typically see them sorted into Category:Authors by type or Category:Authors by genre ; again these are a different issue. I am trying to resolve our issue where main namespace works are sorted into author: namespace categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC) At the risk of falling into something of a more philosophical discussion, we have, for example, Author:Benjamin Disraeli in Category:Novelists because he wrote novels, but this was by no means his occupation; we similarly have Author:Victor Hugo in that category, and this was very much his profession, the labor that was the source of his income. We should have some way to delineate people for whom writing was their occupation from those in other occupations who wrote works of a particular type or in a particular genre, but not as an occupation. This is, of course, completely tangential from the question of professors. BD2412 T 06:54, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @ BD2412 : Novelists is category:authors by type not by occupation. That said there are other problems that I have been tripping over and fixing. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 26 January 2021 (UTC)call me lazy, but i would just import the values from wikidata. this is the kind of ontology wrangling, and maintaining that should be done at a central location, rather than deciding on each wiki. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 20:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC) @ Slowking4 : Sure, however, the categories are still in a built hierarchy, and that is what needs fixing, and what I am fixing. The populating is just an artefact, and what I am working towards. The categories also still need to exist. I have also reached out to someone in d:Wikidata:WikiProject and occupations to discuss what they are doing and helping fix our mess. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:29, 26 January 2021 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg   Comment for the moment, I have moved Category:Professors to by Category:Authors by type and I am thinking on whether we have a by title or by rank or by position criteria missing,or something like that. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Add export/ebooks links to {{ new texts }}[ edit ]

I think it would be a good idea to take a leaf out of frWS's book and add export links to the {{ new texts }} list. For example, see Template:New texts/item/testcases for a comparison.

The export links being visible drive a lot of downloads: the featured texts get around 4000 downloads each: https://wsexport.wmflabs.org/statistics (which, if I'm reading that page right is about 2/3 of all epub downloads) and nothing that's not a featured text gets a look in. Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)

@ Inductiveload : (CC Samwilson ) I think the current plan at Community Tech puts a big honkin' download button right next to the title of every single mainspace page. However that ends up we should rethink our own strategy in light of that.PS. Sam: I've not had the cycles to think this through, but it occurred to me that that "in your face" download button is a bit of a different beast than the sidebar links. On enWS we have typically put download links front and center only on featured texts, and more recently we've been trying to surface texts that are ready for export . My gut tells me we may want to be able to control when that Download! button appears, possibly in the form of only showing up on pages in a given category. Or, you know, something smarter. In any case, throwing it out here for lack of a better way to raise the issue. -- Xover ( talk ) 14:15, 21 January 2021 (UTC)@ Xover :I think the current plan at Community Tech puts a big honkin' download button right next to the title, sure, but that still needs a click-through, whereas this is about getting some download links on the front page as a "hook". Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:19, 21 January 2021 (UTC)@ Xover : Yes, thank you for raising this, we've been thinking about it a bit. One idea was to add the download button on every page but make it possible to remove (e.g. via a magic word). The current task for it is phab:T271869 . One issue with hiding it by default is that for lots of wikis it may never be enabled, and so readers will be less likely to know they can download epubs etc. Very happy for any suggestions of course! And there's always scope for per-wiki differences. :) — Sam Wilson 01:58, 22 January 2021 (UTC)I made the change. Let's see what happens to https://wsexport.wmflabs.org/statistics . @ Samwilson : can you see the most downloaded books for a given language in a given month? Inductiveload talk / contribs 18:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)@ Inductiveload : You mean e.g. filtering the 'recently popular' list to only show a given language? Very good idea. (By the way, the current top three in that list are from here: The First Men in the Moon , The Life of the Spider , and The Vampyre .) I don't think there's a phab task for such a thing yet (there's phab:T267963 but that's only for access data; still interesting). I'll create one. The whole stats page needs an overhaul I think; not sure if CommTech is going to have time to do all that this month, because we're trying to move on towards the OCR stuff. — Sam Wilson 23:24, 28 January 2021 (UTC) @ Samwilson : yes, exactly. Even better, show a complete list of ebooks by title and type for a given language, and maybe an hourly graph so we can see the patterns (i.e. we can know if we get hits after we change things, etc). Or just make the stats available by REST (or even DB read access for tools?) and let people fill their boots that way, then upstream any useful analysis into the stats page later. Might be worth tracking downloads from OPDS vs Website too? I don't really have great ideas for what highly granular data is for other than stats porn, mind you! Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:41, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : The database is readable by anyone with a toolforge account, and nightly dumps are available at https://wsexport.wmflabs.org/logs/ if anyone wants to go the DIY route. But I agree: better graphs and tables would be great. Feel free to open tickets for specific reports that would be good. They don't all have to go on the same statistics page. Maybe we could make stats feed that could be displayed on works' talk pages (just a little thing, similar to the XTools info line)? You might be right though, and overly-precise statistics might look good but not be completely useful all the time! — Sam Wilson 00:55, 1 February 2021 (UTC)@ EncycloPetey : The change you just reverted was proposed and discussed (such that there have been no objections and mostly tangential conversation) over a week ago. Inductiveload talk / contribs 18:54, 29 January 2021 (UTC) I looked and found no links to the edited template, nor discussions in the Scriptorium using the word "Main Page" on the subject. I point out that while there were no objections raised, there was also no support. I am now objecting. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 19:03, 29 January 2021 (UTC)The current listings of new texts include films, for which the proposed download icons do not function. Having brightly colored buttons next to each work listed on the Main Page, that do not do what they are supposed to do, is not a good idea in my opinion. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 19:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC) They do work, they download what is essentially a script. Perhaps not incredibly useful since 1926 was still very much the silent film era, but not useless. Better might be to add some kind of indication that the item is a film. Inductiveload talk / contribs 19:12, 29 January 2021 (UTC) As the main person working on film here right now, I can attest that a film transcript in print is not useless. For example, what if someone were to hold an event where they were to show the film in public, and wanted to print out copies of the transcript for the audience to go along with as they watched? I myself have actually thought about having paper versions of these film transcripts to give to family members as I showed them some silent movies. And as for sound films, which have transcripts that include who says each line of dialogue, they are even more useful, because those can be used as full-on scripts and can literally be used to conduct a play or something with the exact same storyline. So I support the inclusion of download tools supporting film transcripts at Wikisource. I also support having PDF download links within the New texts section, if we are going to also have them there for books. PseudoSkull ( talk ) 20:05, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Re: "They do work". No, they do not. I tried grabbing a download and got only a title page. Nothing but a title. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 20:11, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @ EncycloPetey : Which one doesn't work? Because in general, they work for me. There some ongoing snags with a few works (e.g. phab:T270367 ) but the majority of works have functional exports, including all the films currently on the front page. Inductiveload talk / contribs 20:19, 29 January 2021 (UTC)Epub is not working for the films currently listed on the main page. If they are working for you, there may be platform-specific issues. I am using a Mac. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 20:25, 29 January 2021 (UTC) @ EncycloPetey : The Epubs work for me in Koreader, Moon+Reader, FBReader and Nickel (the Kobo stock reader), as well Evince, XReader and Okular and any WebKit- or Gecko-based renderers (Firefox EPub reader extension and Calibre). Are you sure it doesn't work on whatever software Macs have? For example in Evince, it doesn't change page on scroll-down. Can you change section manually? Inductiveload talk / contribs 20:45, 29 January 2021 (UTC)@ Xover : you're a Mac user, are you not? Do you see technical issues with the epubs like this one ? If so could you report at Phabricator for eyes on while the tool is still being worked on? Inductiveload talk / contribs 23:59, 29 January 2021 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment May want to double check whether this is a {{ page }} issue. Dim dark memories that the template caused some weirdness at some point. @ EncycloPetey : do you get the same issues with the pages if you try and create your own ebooks using the export means from the page? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 30 January 2021 (UTC) I do not have difficulties if I pull from the Epub link on the page itself. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 01:25, 30 January 2021 (UTC) The link is the same either way, AFAIK. All the new texts work via the {{ export }} template for me. Does this work for you? Download ePub (all e-readers except Kindles)   Download PDF   Download MOBI (for Kindles) Inductiveload talk / contribs 01:52, 30 January 2021 (UTC)@ Inductiveload : I'm not a big ePub user so I have limited experience for comparison, but so far as I can tell all the Little Nemo links in this thread produced ePubs that look fine to me in Apple Books on macOS 11.1. Ditto the PDF, but I don't have anything that can read the mobi file so I haven't checked that. -- Xover ( talk ) 06:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC) @ Xover : thank you for checking!@ EncycloPetey : is it still not working for you? Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:35, 1 February 2021 (UTC) The Little Nemo test above works for me at this time, yes. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 23:09, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @ EncycloPetey : and are there any now that are not working? {{ export |The Title}} will generate the same links that that fail for you. The only difference between that and the new links in the sidebar is that {{ export }} uses + between works (using the {{ urlencode }} magic word and the sidebar uses "_". @ Samwilson : is one better than the other? Inductiveload talk / contribs 08:48, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : No, they function the same. We could use {{urlencode:The Title|WIKI}} to produce slightly more readable URLs with underscores, but it doesn't really matter. — Sam Wilson 09:39, 3 February 2021 (UTC) @ Samwilson : OK, I've updated the templates so the URLs are the same to keep the links consistent. Inductiveload talk / contribs 10:04, 3 February 2021 (UTC)I don't see any that aren't working now. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 19:57, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Tech News: 2021-05 [ 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

IPv6 addresses were written in lowercase letters in diffs. This caused dead links since Special:Contributions only accepted uppercase letters for the IPs. This has been fixed. [4]

Changes later this week

You can soon use Wikidata to link to pages on the multilingual Wikisource. [5] Often editors use a "non-breaking space" to make a gap between two items when reading but still show them together. This can be used to avoid a line break. You will now be able to add new ones via the special character tool in the 2010, 2017, and visual editors. The character will be shown in the visual editor as a space with a grey background. [6] [7] Advanced item Wikis use abuse filters to stop bad edits being made. Filter maintainers can now use syntax like 1.2.3.4 - 1.2.3.55 as well as the 1.2.3.4/27 syntax for IP ranges. [8] Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 February. It will be on all wikis from 4 February ( calendar ).

Future changes

Minerva is the skin Wikimedia wikis use for mobile traffic. When a page is protected and you can't edit it you can normally read the source wikicode. This doesn't work on Minerva on mobile devices. This is being fixed. Some text might overlap. This is because your community needs to update MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to work on mobile. You can read more . [9] [10] Advanced item Cloud VPS and Toolforge will change the IP address they use to contact the wikis. The new IP address will be 185.15.56.1. This will happen on February 8. You can read more . Tech news

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

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

As the way Tech News is written is the most common feature to be pointed out both in positive and a negative feedback , I have been making an en-gb version of Tech News for some months now. It's not necessarily British, but it merges extremely short sentences together and allows for terms that anyone well-versed in the English language would understand. Well-versed for example is a term you probably wouldn't find in the regular Tech News. Here's the above issue in en-gb. I also occasionally add some additional explanation or the situation for a particular issue on English-language projects. I haven't really advertised it, pageviews are generally disappointing. I'd like to hear some feedback. Do you like it? Do you have suggestions? Alexis Jazz ( talk ) 06:18, 2 February 2021 (UTC) @ Alexis Jazz : I like information that's not pared down to the smallest common denominator, and I would like my Tech News to be written for a fairly technical audience. I would also like to see more information for the items that are of interest to me, and the way you've expanded the item on the Minerva changes are a good example. However, I don't think you're doing this effort any favours with the br-eng schtick (it took me a while to figure out what you were on about), and I probably won't go looking for an alternate version of the text. I scan Tech News when it lands on my watchlist, so whatever is in that MassMessage is what I'll read. If there's to be any point to your effort it needs to replace Tech News' writing, not supplement it. -- Xover ( talk ) 07:50, 2 February 2021 (UTC)"Fine print: Tech news in British English (en-gb) does not necessarily use British spelling. It is only British in spirit, unoversimplified when compared to the regular English version, allowing more complex terms (e.g. "issues" instead of "problems") and constructions." is offensive bullshit. Desist. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 09:40, 2 February 2021 (UTC) Certainly, Henry Watson Fowler would disagree that British English is in opposition to plain English, along with George Orwell ! Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:30, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Made a central feedback thread at m:Talk:Tech/News/2021/05/en-gb . Maybe should have done that from the start. Alexis Jazz ( talk ) 15:02, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Wikisource highlights[ edit ]

I wanted to highlight two points above, which are (or in the latter case may be) particularly relevant for en.Wikisource:

You can soon use Wikidata to link to pages on the multilingual Wikisource. [11] Minerva is the skin Wikimedia wikis use for mobile traffic. When a page is protected and you can't edit it you can normally read the source wikicode. This doesn't work on Minerva on mobile devices. This is being fixed. Some text might overlap. This is because your community needs to update MediaWiki:Protectedpagetext to work on mobile. You can read more . [12] [13]

-- Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 09:59, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The overlapping text thing doesn't apply to Wikisource, as one could have gathered from the en-gb version of the newsletter. Alexis Jazz ( talk ) 15:08, 2 February 2021 (UTC)Editor's note[ edit ]

Newbie here. I was working on this page and noticed a reference to page 69 of Hittell 's History of California , which doesn't appear to be on Commons or Wikisource as yet. Is there a way for me to add an editor's note or similar pointing the reader to this page on the Internet Archive? unsigned comment by AleatoryPonderings ( talk ) .

Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment Not directly helpful to you right now, but perhaps what we could do in this case is have a template that links to the work via Wikidata with something like {{work link| Q105297614 }}. If a WS page exists as a sitelink there, then the link leads to the sitelink (i.e. enWS's own History of California ). If it does not, the link either leads to Wikidata, and/or pops up a dialog with whatever authority control data exists at WikiData and some useful links like "visit the IA", "import from the IA", "see OCLC record", "create this page", etc. (which would need a JS gadget).In the mean time, we usually just redlink the work title and cross our fingers and hope that one day it'll get linked up if the page is created. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:41, 4 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : {{ Wikidata entity link }} looks like it would work well as a stopgap measure in this case? Unless there's policy against that, I might just drop that in to the relevant page. AleatoryPonderings ( talk ) 18:05, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Aha, such a thing already exists: {{ Wikidata link }}! It will link to WS if possible, and then fall back to enWP and finally Wikidata. I don't think there would be a policy against it, since it's a lot better than a redlink IMO, but I could be wrong. Inductiveload talk / contribs 18:25, 4 February 2021 (UTC) Can I have a differing opinion. If we are indicating a work that we wish to have a red link is better in the body of the work as it indicates that we don't have the work, and aligns with Wikisource:Wikilinks . We definitely would create the author page and list and link to the scan there. We can also add a note in the notes field of the subpage work if it is considered pertinent to do so. Our task is producing English language works, and obfuscating that we don't have the work nor to where it leads is contrary to my understanding of our current philosophy for main ns.Machine readable[ edit ]

Uploading my first book is impossible for maschiene to read, I think that's the prerequisite for further editing. Can someone give me a tip how I can continue. Thank you https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/File:The_Renaissance_In_India.djvu -- Riquix ( talk ) 15:16, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Riquix : thanks for the upload! This was because you did not include a license template. That is mandatory when uploading files, as we can only accept works that are public domain in the US at Wikisource.Because Aurobindo died in 1950, this work should have been uploaded to Commons, as it is PD in both the US (because it was published before 1926) and in India, because the author has been dead for more than 60 years. I have now moved it - the filename remains the same. You can now create Index:The_Renaissance_In_India.djvu as normal. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:33, 4 February 2021 (UTC)Harmonizing[ edit ]

Is it worth harmonizing these: Category:Obituaries in The New York Times by adding in the year, or taking out the year in the one with a year? And removing the word "obituary" from the ones with it? -- RAN ( talk ) 06:42, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) : It seems that the preferred format for New York Times articles (at least when they are backed by a scan) is to include the full date if it is known, as The New York Times/YYYY/MM/DD/Title. If no scans back them, they should at least be listed on Portal:The New York Times with complete information so that they can eventually be migrated to a scan-backed version (a cursory view of pages in the obituary category seems to show that they're listed on the portal page). As long as all the articles are accounted for, I don't think it really matters if they all follow the same convention or not, as New York Times article coverage is pretty spotty anyways. Personally, I'd move the one with a year in its title back to its old location and leave it for the time being. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 16:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @ Mathmitch7 : What do you think of removing the word "Obituary" from the titles? I don't see that anywhere else, and as I look at the actual scan, it is not present. I think the editor added it so it is recognized as an obituary, but we have the category giving the same information. Also, have you noticed that there a half dozen different ways that newspapers are aggregated? If you go to Category:Newspapers of the United States and click on a few, you can see six different ways that articles are aggregated, there are manual bulleted lists, automated aggregated lists, manual sortable tables, there are empty calendar indexes like New York Post , and a few one-off experiments. There are lists and charts with annotations and summaries of the articles, and ones with just titles. Do you have an opinion on what is optimal, or should we let people keep experimenting for a while? Article titles have no standard, some have years, some have full dates. Articles themselves are a mixture of djvu files, jpg index pages, raw unformatted ASCII text, and formatted Unicode/HTML text. -- RAN ( talk ) 21:25, 2 March 2021 (UTC) @ Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) : I think removing the word "Obituary" makes sense except in cases where it is apparently the article title in the text itself. One thing that I recently came across was some old discussion on a proposed redirect policy , which points out that as wikisource is a source for other wiki projects like Wikipedia, moving (particularly moving without leaving a redirect) can create issues when those projects depend on, transclude, or link our source text. This seems like an issue that could especially come up wrt obituaries. Not that we're responsible for WP's links being accurate, but something to keep in mind as we contemplate this kind of change. I say move the pages to the same title without "Obituary" for now and leave other moves (to dates subpages, eg) for when somebody (perhaps, you) takes it upon themselves to clean up NYT articles more generally. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 16:25, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Our newspapers and periodicals are a mess, and in desperate need of tidying up, but there is no universally accepted "best" paper to use as a model. I think harmonising the titles (particularly moving articles to a subpage of their parent work, rather than floating untethered in mainspace) is a good first step as at least they are all together. Advice from Wikisource:WikiProject Newspapers is Newspaper Name/YYYY/MM/DD, but usage of this is spotty. The use of Portals for article content needs to be standardised too, but that's a far bigger job. Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:01, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Download links appearing in Page: namespace[ edit ]Tracked in Phabricator   (?) Task T274027 Open

Very recently a "print/export" box has started appearing when editing a page in the Page: namespace. This is a nuisance as it then pushes the "templatescript" and "page tools" boxes so far down my screen that when using them the page image goes off the top of my screen. This is increasing the time it takes to proofread a page. I can't conceive of any reason why a page in this namespace would be exported, particularly while editing it. Is it possible to have the box restricted to not appear while editing in the Page: namespace? Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 22:27, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Beeswaxcandle : the download links are now provided by mw:Extension:Wikisource , not local JS. @ Samwilson : is there a configuration hook for this?As a short-term workaround, this would work in personal or global CSS:.ns-104#p-wikisource-export-portlet{display:none;} Inductiveload talk / contribs 22:56, 5 February 2021 (UTC)@ Inductiveload , @ Beeswaxcandle : Yes, this isn't terrific is it? I wanted to know what namespaces to display the links on, and $wgContentNamespaces seemed a reasonable cross-wiki choice. However, ProofreadPage adds the Index and Page namespaces to that. I think possibly sticking with $wgContentNamespaces makes sense, but removing Index and Page — that way we still get Translation, Work, etc. The same list of namespaces could also be used for the download button , which currently is only going to show on mainspace. I've made a ticket . — Sam Wilson 04:57, 6 February 2021 (UTC)@ Samwilson : Removing Index: and Page: nss from Content namespaces would be my preference. I cannot think of why we would would want any working namespaces in Content search. It would be preferable any wiki that wants that added that they add a phabricator tasks to make the case, not as a default. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC) $wgContentNamespaces doesn't affect on-wiki search, just indexing hints for external search engines (i.e. Google). But I agree, conditionally on the docs being up to date, none of the things conditioned on $wgContentNamespaces seem relevant or desirable for Index: and Page:. @ Tpt : Is there a particular reason Proofread Page needs these as $wgContentNamespaces? -- Xover ( talk ) 08:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC) have you tried timeless skin? (as it pushes sidebar menus to the top as a dropdown) Slowking4 Rama's revenge 15:23, 6 February 2021 (UTC) Is there a particular reason Proofread Page needs these as $wgContentNamespaces? That's a good question. I don't think here is but I might be wrong. $wgContentNamespaces is mostly used as a namespace whitelist on special pages so I don't think it would break ProofreadPage itself if we remove the Index: and Page: namespaces from this list. Anyway, we probably don't want the export link to be displayed on some namespaces that are definitely content namespaces, like Author:. Tpt ( talk ) 17:35, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks! @ Samwilson : Based on this it doesn't look like $wgContentNamespaces would work for this purpose, and I am unsure a namespace-based approach will work at all unless you make it entirely configurable per-project. But every page that should get the links would by definition contain an invocation of <pages … />: can you trigger off that? It could certainly be done client-side, but I don't know what visibility extensions have at what stages of the pipeline. -- Xover ( talk ) 18:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC) @ Tpt , @ Xover : That's a good point about Author namespace etc. I don't know about just doing it when there's a <pages /> element though, because that'd exclude works that are manually done (like lots of Translation pages are). Maybe it catches the bulk of works though, and then we can have some auxiliary method such as a magic word to enable the button on other pages? It does feel like it'd be nice to not have to have a per-wiki config, especially if it doesn't catch everything anyway. — Sam Wilson 00:44, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Yes, but … There is (inevitably?) a problem with the pages command approach. Not everything with pages commands is complete. As I write this, I have at least 13 works in progress that have pages commands, but are incomplete. There's also the problem with the 42% of our works in the mainspace that are not scan-backed and therefore cannot have a pages command at present. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 04:39, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Hmm. Ok, thinking out loud trying to find an angle where it makes sense…What if we start from an assumption that no sidebar links are shown and no download button is shown.Anything with a <pages /> tag is at least nominally scan-backed and should get both sidebar links and button by default. If they are {{ incomplete }}, or have other magic word-containing maint. templates, they have in effect been manually tagged as inappropriate for export (for the target audience/purpose). Maybe the toolbox links should be there so that WS contributors who know what they're doing/getting can easily use them, but the big honkin' download button is suppressed to avoid "false advertising" to visitors.Texts that do not have a <pages /> tag but the local community wants to make available for epub export need to be manually tagged as such; either in bulk by placing them in a special category, or individually by including a magic word. Wikisources (like enWS) that have a lot of non-scan-backed works can choose to bot-add the category to all of them (I would argue against doing that, but the technical facility gives the community the choice). For these works too I would like to differentiate so that one category turns on the download links in the sidebar and a different one turns on the download button, and with equivalent magic words for individual control.I think that gives all links by default for scan-backed works, except where tagged as deficient. Links by default on pages we choose to tag as eligible even if not scan-backed. For either category we have individual overrides using magic words. And we can differentiate between just the sidebar links and the prominent download button. And it should work for all the Wikisources, not just enWS, without a lot of project-specific config for eligible namespaces.And since wikipages without <pages /> don't get the links without manual tagging, just done as bulk tagging, the logic in the software is much simpler (no divining based on $wgContentNamespaces, and no "Do we show on sub-pages?").@ Samwilson , @ Beeswaxcandle , @ Tpt , @ Inductiveload , @ Billinghurst : Makes sense? Anything I didn't think of? Thoughts? -- Xover ( talk ) 08:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) @ Xover : That sounds pretty good. So the features needed are: a) show the button whenever the pages tag is used; and b) two magic words, for opting in and out. Also: does it make sense to show the download button and the sidebar links with different rules? Additionally, phab:T272254 is about customizing which links are shown, and if that means we have to have an on-wiki config, then it could also be used for other purposes. — Sam Wilson 01:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Promotional aside, the " Quick Access " tool allows keyboard-driven access to all the sidebar tools, whether or not you can see them in the current viewport. Inductiveload talk / contribs 22:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 is back![ edit ]

Please help translate to your language

Wiki Loves Folklore Logo.svg

You are humbly invited to participate in the Wiki Loves Folklore 2021 an international photography contest organized on Wikimedia Commons to document folklore and intangible cultural heritage from different regions, including, folk creative activities and many more. It is held every year from the 1st till the 28th of February.

You can help in enriching the folklore documentation on Commons from your region by taking photos, audios, videos, and submitting them in this commons contest.

Please support us in translating the project page and a banner message to help us spread the word in your native language.

Kind regards,

Wiki loves Folklore International Team

MediaWiki message delivery

MediaWiki message delivery ( talk ) 13:25, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

A table of a geometrical progression[ edit ]

Please help to format a table in reference: Page:William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (3rd ed, 1768, vol II).djvu/218 . I can't figure out how to do it properly Emojione 2639.svg Ratte ( talk ) 19:19, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

See User:Beeswaxcandle/Sandbox4 for four possibilities. I'm not happy with the last, and wouldn't use it. Depending on my mood at the time, I'd go for either the second or the third, as they both adequately reproduce the authorial intent. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 02:20, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you very much for the whole four possibilities! Each one is good. Ratte ( talk ) 11:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)@ Ratte : Gave it my best shot minutes ago. (My approach involved a little something they call {{ dotted cell }}, which I've ushered into my toolkit thanks to its occasional need in the Malagasy grammar primer I'll finish covering by Monday.) -- Slgrandson ( talk ) 03:53, 7 February 2021 (UTC) Thank you, you’re amazing! Using dotted cell is a very elegant solution, such option never even crossed my mind. I have also used your approach on another table . Ratte ( talk ) 11:12, 7 February 2021 (UTC)Portal vs Author[ edit ]

Is it ok to create a Portal and have it redirect to an Author page? -- RAN ( talk ) 01:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

No, that would be a cross-namespace redirect and those are speedy deleted under rule M3. One or the other, but not both. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 02:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC) If you are moving from one to the other you can utilise a substituted {{ dated soft redirect }} as a temporary measure so that the bots catch up. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Commons categories—editions vs works and wikidata items[ edit ]

Hi to all.I have recently noticed that there has been some movement of categories at the edition level at Wikidata to the work level. This should not be happening where we have populated the Commons category with images from one edition. I would like to recommend that we look to better name such categories at Commons so they are clearly evident that they relate to a year of publication or the edition. I think that there is value in looking at what we have done historically at Commons and start on a means to do some clarification. If we don't do this, the consequence is that we lose the automated Commons categorisation in our headers when they are attached to the work, not the edition. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Sharing en.ws main page in Facebook[ edit ]

I have shared the link to en.ws main page in the Czech Wikipedia Facebook page , but the displayed thumb contains an extract of the text on a Well’s novel (which was featured in our main page some time ago) instead of the current featured text. Is there anything that could be done about it next time? -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 12:07, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

<shrug> Facebook??? <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Well, I thought that they take the thumb from us and so the problem is in updating something here… -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 14:18, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @ Jan.Kamenicek : I think it's a good thing to put Wikisource out there in from of new eyes! I don't know anything about Facebook's systems, but a quick good leasts me to thing we should be embedding something called "Open Graph" metadata in our pages (specifically in the <head> section). Also apparently, there's a way to refresh the "preview", but you might need to "own" the domain to do that. Whoever operates https://www.facebook.com/Wikisource/ might know (and also make it possible to view the page without logging in?)There is a tool to show what Facebook "sees" when it looks at Wikisource: https://developers.facebook.com/tools/debug/?q=https://en.wikisource.org (needs login). Pressing "Scrape again" there refreshed the page, but it seems not to have propagated to the Wikipedie page yet (not sure if it will). Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Further digging on why we have no image but enWP does: enWP uses an extension called mw:Extension:PageImages to provide the image via the og:image tag, so when someone social shares a link on certain platforms, the link gets a nice image to go with it. enWS doesn't have this installed. Should we ask for it to be installed? Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC) That would be great, but it also depends on how difficult it is. I personally post a link of en.ws to Facebook about once a year, so yes, it would help me, but I am not sure if it is enough to bother about it for you… On the other hand, we never know, who else wants to link us to a social networking site and maybe there are more people (not necessarily contributors) who it would help to as well. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 16:33, 8 February 2021 (UTC) I think I've managed to work around it by using a larger image in our header template on the Main Page, which is big enough for Facebook to see it as a default image candidate. By making it a JPG, it's about 30kB smaller than the 200px PNG we were using before. There is also a description for Wikisource in general when you share the main page (articles should use the lede of the text on that page, which sadly doesn't always go brilliantly ). Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC) @ Quiddity (WMF) : Can you add to this discussion with your gorgeous hat on? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Hallo. I will ping the Reading Web team to take a look at this, and they should be able to either answer or find the best place/person to ask. There are a large number of related Phabricator tasks (e.g. phab:T213505 and phab:T56829 and the many tasks they connect to), and I cannot easily determine what the current short-term or mid-term options are. (Plus I try to never click Facebook links, so I can't see the examples above!). Cheers, Quiddity (WMF) ( talk ) 23:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)@ Billinghurst : (or other Commons admins): it might be a good idea to protect File:Accueil scribe invert.png and File:Accueil scribe invert_300.jpg , since they're both often used at Wikisourcen and they're open for abuse at Commons. Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:43, 8 February 2021 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done permanent protection for both images at Commons. You may wish to also consider protecting the empty files here at enWS so someone doesn't upload into the space (though vaguely think that there may be some system components that inhibit that.) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 9 February 2021 (UTC) Tech News: 2021-06 [ 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

The Wikipedia app for Android now has watchlists and talk pages in the app. [14]

Changes later this week

You can see edits to chosen pages on Special:Watchlist . You can add pages to your watchlist on every wiki you like. The GlobalWatchlist extension will come to Meta on 11 February. There you can see entries on watched pages on different wikis on the same page. The new watchlist will be found on Special:GlobalWatchlist on Meta. You can choose which wikis to watch and other preferences on Special:GlobalWatchlistSettings on Meta. You can watch up to five wikis. [15] Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 9 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 10 February. It will be on all wikis from 11 February ( calendar ).

Future changes

When admins protect pages the form will use the OOUI look . Special:Import will also get the new look. This will make them easier to use on mobile phones. [16] [17] Some services will not work for a short period of time from 07:00 UTC on 17 February. There might be problems with new short links , new translations, new notifications, adding new items to your reading lists or recording email bounces . This is because of database maintenance. [18] Advanced item Last week Tech News reported that the IP address Cloud VPS and Toolforge use to contact the wikis will change on 8 February. This is delayed. It will happen later instead. [19] Tech news

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

17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Ellipses and asterisks[ edit ]

One curiosity I've noticed in old texts (eg, this page of " Some Fundamental Legal Conceptions as Applied in Judicial Reasoning ") is that ellipses in quotations are rendered in asterisks ( * * * ) as opposed to periods ( . . . ). Is this the sort of thing that should be rendered as it was in the olden days, or is it OK to silently modernise it? I'm thinking the asterisk-ellipsis might confuse the contemporary reader (extrapolating from the fact that I was initially confused until it clicked). AleatoryPonderings ( talk ) 18:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Both ways are quite OK, imo depending on what the contributor prefers. I personally would stick to the original, showing the readers that historically other ways of expressing ellipsis were used too. It comes from my experience as a reader: when I read old texts, I enjoy them more when they contain original typography, which gives them a sort of historical touch :-) -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 18:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)@ AleatoryPonderings : I'd go with the original. Also, I'd use {{ ... |3|*}} as that inhibits line-breaks between two of the dots/stars. Inductiveload talk / contribs 20:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)Films on the main page[ edit ]

It has been suggested in some other discussion to introduce a new section on the main page containing new films. I do like this idea not only because of the current admirably large supply of film transcriptions by PseudoSkull . It is great that they are so many and so they deserve to be promoted in their own section. Other reasons are:

the New Texts section is getting quite monothematic with only a minority of non-film texts, which do not stay there long before they are pushed away by other new filmsour readers have no chance to distinguish films from other texts before they open each of them, which is slightly uncomfortable for those seeking only something to readat the same time quick passer-bys who just glance over our main page without clicking any entry may not notice we have some films here, and while some of them may not be interested in the other content, the films could catch their attention, if they had a chance to notice them

At the same time the section Current collaborations is currently placed in a box which is unnecessarily large and partly empty. So I suggest to move the section Highlights to the left under Featured Text, making the Current Collaboration container smaller, and placing the new section with films under New Texts.

The name of the new section can be discussed, I suggest New Films or New Film Text Transcriptions. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 10:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg  Support I agree that film presentation here is at certain places a bit confusing, and a lot of that is because there isn't enough specific labelling of information about the films, or that they are even films at all. So I do think that films should have a separate section on the Main Page, as this will provide clarity to people looking for new books versus people looking for newly added films (as films and books are two completely separate kinds of media).For the record as well, I am not the only one popping film transcriptions out, there are also M-le-mot-dit and TE(æ)A,ea. who have been contributing admirably in this area. While films had not received very much attention from contributors at Wikisource until just recently, there is some level of interest now to the point that I think considering adding a section to the Main Page for them is reasonable.I also think that there should be a new template like Template:New text/film item , or a modification to the current template to support films better. As I have noted in the past, saying that a film is simply "by D.W. Griffith " because D.W. Griffith was the director is too vague. No other source on film words things this way. I think templates, including our header template, should say "Directed by D.W. Griffith" or "Produced by Biograph Company", or something of that nature, instead.On another note, I think that a mention of our film content should also be in our Highlights section, if we are also to have an entire section for new films recently added. PseudoSkull ( talk ) 11:14, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Strong Symbol support vote.svg  Support: Perhaps we don't as many of the films as texts, since they're currently very short and can cycle quickly. Having them under their own heading would mean we wouldn't need a special film indicator on the new items.With reference to the formatting of the item (director, etc), you can always use the nowiki option, but a Template:New text/film item is probably easier to use.Film absolutely should be in the highlights, but Portal:Film isn't looking too smart at the moment, I think this is an opportunity for it to get a haircut. Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:56, 9 February 2021 (UTC)To assist with the idea of giving this a box under the collaborations, I've trimmed back the overly long list of previous PoTM works to 10. In general, I'm supportive of moving films out of the new texts area. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 21:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Symbol support vote.svg  Support Some form of featuring these in a way more appropriate to their different format. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 06:14, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Tarzan and the Ant Men (1924) done transcribing[ edit ]

I am now done transcribing Tarzan and the Ant Men. There are a couple of pages with images I marked as problematic. The rest of the text needs proofreading/validation. This was one of the requested texts from 1924 and I hope I was helpful. ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 22:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC))

Great! If you believe you transcribed the individual pages well and checked typos, you can mark them directly as "proofread", so that another person who may have a look at it later could mark it as "validated". I went quickly through a couple of pages and they look fine. The only minor problem I have noticed was that sometimes you used curly quotation marks (such as at Page:Tarzan and the Ant Men.pdf/171 ) and sometimes straight ones (such as at Page:Tarzan and the Ant Men.pdf/347 ), which should ideally be unified (no matter which of the two possibilities you choose), but it is not a big issue. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 22:26, 9 February 2021 (UTC) I'll unify with straight quotation marks, as I suspect that's the main issue and I think Wikisource prefers straight quotes. Thanks for your advice! ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 22:38, 9 February 2021 (UTC)) @ SurprisedMewtwoFace : Well, different contributors have different preferences, you can really choose, as far as you are consistent within the given work :-) -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 22:46, 9 February 2021 (UTC)Improving old editions by Wikisource contributors[ edit ]

I would like to ask about the general opinion of changing some parts (e. g. pictures) of old book editions by WS contributors in our main namespace. An example is at Page:Field Book of Stars.djvu/25 where the original picture from the 1907 book was replaced by a modernised version by RaboKarbakian . To me it seems like creating a new edition of the work instead of transcribing the original 1907 edition. The problematic interventions imo include:

Colouring originally black and white picturesAdding legends to pictures which were not present in the originalChanging the orientation of the labels with names of stars was imo also not necessary and the original idea of the author, i. e. to enable the reader to rotate the picture, was lost by it (although readers cannot rotate monitors, they can still rotate mobiles or they may want to print it).

Another example from the same book is here , notice especially the added legend.

As a result readers may get a false idea of what the original pictures in the book really looked like.

Although neither WS:Annotations nor Help:Annotating speak about altering original pictures, I would say that this falls under the annotations policy. However, before I intervene, I would like to know other opinions. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 01:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Tending to agree that these changes are undesirable. Surely it would have been possible to make a faithful representation of the original in SVG, and we want a faithful representation of the original. I think your first example is definitely covered by the (proposed) policy, because the added legend is "additional text that is not part of the source work". BethNaught ( talk ) 08:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC) That is true. But I think that the colours, whose aim is probably to make the picture more comprehensible or something like that, are a sort of annotations too. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 08:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

It is the result of a clash of wikimedia projects. The commons has guidelines for making suitable images. I requested that the images for that book to be redone as SVG. In my mind, at the request, were sharp, readable, and scalable line-drawings and what I got were the beautiful, legended, and colorized for improved readibility for color-blind as per commons guidelines.

First of all, I couldn't say no to the artist for several reasons. The first being beauty, which I am so weak for. The second would be the good guidelines there -- I would need a different set of guidelines, (authored by people who are not looking at beautiful as I was) for the requirements of images for wikisource to be made and posted at the commons, eventually to be translated for artists of different languages. Third, this particular book is timeless(?) or only a little dated. In several hundred thousand years, a different star will be "the north star" but even then, the constellations will be mostly the same.

So I have taken one more step towards the modernization of this Field Book by using {{SIC|binoculars|an opera-glass}} to put the name old device into the tooltip and to display the name of the modern device.

It is a rare book here that is both technical and (mostly) current. It is also an example of how separated the wikimedia projects are. I think that there can be a style that would flip between the faithful old version and the mildly modernized new version, which might be useful for other projects. By other projects, I mean in particular, math books and technical drawing books. I found a bunch, looking with SVG on my mind. Mathmatics too is (mostly) timeless.

Summary:

Couldn't say no, guidelines (and beauty)Need for guidelinesNeed for style (innovation suggestion)The need for this one indulgence regardless of decrees against innovations.-- RaboKarbakian ( talk ) 14:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)@ RaboKarbakian : Thanks for explanation. The book is really interesting and I understand you are trying to make it as perfect as possible. The clash of the projects is not as big as it might seem, because (as discussed above) Wikisource enables contributors to make annotated versions which may contain some kinds of improvements to the original works. So the correct solution is to make a version as faithful to the original as possible and with original pictures (called A Field Book of Stars ), and in addition to it the annotated version with the coloured pictures, added legends and possibly other improvements allowed by WS:Annotations (which would go into e. g. A Field Book of Stars (Annotated) ). What do you think of that?There is only one problem: it is probably not possible to make two versions of the same book based on the same scan (each scan can have only 1 index), and so it would probably not be possible to make the annotated version scan-backed and the text would have to be just copypasted. Or does anybody have any other advice? -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 14:39, 10 February 2021 (UTC)As for the binocular/opera glass: {{ SIC }} should be used for typos, "The purpose of the template is not for indicating a different or obsolete spelling, nor for attaching definitions, synonyms, commentary…". For this purpose {{ tooltip }} may be used and it should also be done only in the annotated version.As for "colorized for improved readibility for color-blind": I personally doubt that turning the sharp black ecliptics into light yellow (on white background) helps people with sight problems. The same with turning sharp black lines into light grey ones. As for "beauty": that is really subjective, the original black and white pictures seem much more beautiful to me and imo they also suit the old book better than the loud flashy colours. But I am not writing this to discourage you from the work, this book is very useful and it is great that you decided to work on it! Just the improvements should be done only in the annotated version. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 15:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC) BTW Re: two versions of the same book based on the same scan this is tracked in phab:T259963 . We did previously have a {{ modern }} template but it created an enormous mess in the wikitext and was killed . Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:09, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Can we call it "traditional" rather than "correct" solution? I used the word "innovation". I think it is possible to switch between images via a style, making it possible to present one book both ways. Although, I admit it would take a "style jockey" much better than me to do this."Correct" was done, by everyone, right up to the up-cycling of the SIC template by me. I really would have needed guidelines at the commons to make things "correct" for here.Another thing, that should be in guidelines there is something I picked up from gutenberg, that JPEG is better for ereaders than PNG, especially if you are like me and want to read/use these books on ereaders. Commons guidelines are that all non-photographic images be rendered as PNG, but the losslessness of the format really has an affect on the size of the epub or mobi (probably PDF also). It is another ocassion at Commons where my "knowing No" was silenced by existing guidelines.-- RaboKarbakian ( talk ) 15:05, 10 February 2021 (UTC)"Beauty" is subjective except for it was the reason I was stymied. "My weakness" is also subjective. The conflict of guidelines is real, objective, and correct. Wikimedia is what wikimedia is.-- RaboKarbakian ( talk ) 15:14, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @ RaboKarbakian : I hope I did not offend you by anything, it was not my intention. As a non-native speaker I sometimes fight with expressing what I want to say and forget about the form in which I present it. By "correct" I meant in accordance with Wikisource policy.As for "switching between images, making possible to present one book both ways": I am not technically very skilled so I do not know how to do it and I am afraid that only a tiny fraction of our readers could do it, so it would not help us at all.As for Commons guidelines, I do not know of any that would really forbid to do what we need. It is possible that they prefer png, but they have never deleted any non-photographic jpg file I uploaded there (and they were really many), so you do not have to be afraid of that. Some of their guidelines may prefer coloured SVGs, but if a contributor makes it black and white, nobody will delete it because of that either.Nevertheless, in Wikisource we have to comply with Wikisource guidelines above all, and these tell us to have one version faithful to the original and optionally we can also have an annotated version too. If Commons did not want to accept some image that we need here, we can upload the image directly to Wikisource, but this will surely not be necessary. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 16:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)When it comes to PNG vs JPG, the issue is really that for images with very adjacent "flat" coloured areas and sharp edges, JPG compression is a poor fit, because the compression artifacts that are stronger near sudden colour changes are visible over the adjacent flat areas. For example this is a zoomed-in version of a JPG'd bitonal image next to a lossless image: Bitonal extraction from PDF - TIF vs JPG.png Engravings and illustrations like these star maps show the same kind of properties as "non-photographic" graphics. For example, here's the difference between a JPG and PNG with compression damage in red: April 01-40N-2100-Fieldbook of Stars-025 - JPEG noise.png This is why they are generally recommended to be saved as PNG. Furthermore, the JPG compression is irreversible, so every time it's edited and re-saved, further damage creeps in. Furthermore, a greyscale PNG is often about the same size as a JPG (depends on the image). However, for the purposes of e-books, it might (might) indeed be better if the export tool re-encodes from the Commons PNG to JPG, as there are probably some savings to be had, and on an e-reader screen the difference is unlikely to be noticeable. If a user really wants a full-quality image, they will still need to come and get it anyway, as export images are nearly always much, much smaller than the available Commons image. Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)A Sample

original

guideline accordance

Her Benny page 220 blurred.[ edit ]

Page 220 of Her Benny appears blurred. I have been using the copy of the Book from Hathi Trust to add the images, and this copy has a clean page here . Is it possible to overwrite the blurred page with the clean page? Thanks Sp1nd01 ( talk ) 10:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

While I have no objections to replacing the page by somebody skilled with DjVus, it is imo not absolutely necessary. It might be enough to present the link to the other copy in the discussion page. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 10:56, 10 February 2021 (UTC) We can certainly replace the page if needed. But since this work is already proofread I don't really see the point. Fixing the DjVu makes the most sense (and has the most value) before starting proofreading a work. Fixing it after that is mainly if there are problems that makes proofreading difficult. -- Xover ( talk ) 13:03, 10 February 2021 (UTC) I understand, Thanks for the suggestion, I've add the link to the clear page on the page discussion for reference. Sp1nd01 ( talk ) 14:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC) you could overwrite the page image over on commons, by inserting image in a publisher program, but not for faint of heart. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 16:33, 10 February 2021 (UTC)I'd already given the URL of the source of the text for my transcription, in both my edit summary and an HTML comment. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy ; Andy's edits 21:07, 13 February 2021 (UTC)New download button in mainspace[ edit ]

The new 'download' button is now live on pages in the main namespace. There were some tweaks to Vector.css that were making it overlap the bottom border of the title, so I've removed them ; let me know if there are any issues with that (most changes were for IE, which is no longer supported by MediaWiki). There's a plan to make it possible to control when the download button appears. — Sam Wilson 23:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Samwilson : wonderful, thank you! Is it supposed to appear in mobile, or is that separate task? Also, it should appear in the Translation namespace. Inductiveload talk / contribs 23:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @ Inductiveload : Good point about Translation; there are other namespaces that we will support too, but first we have to figure out which ones (probably it's a matter of first stopping ProofreadPage adding Index and Page to $wgContentNamespaces, and then we can use that, and display the download button wherever the sidebar links are used). — Sam Wilson 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC)@ Samwilson : why are license templates not included in the exported work (PDF at least)? For non-PD works, we'll now be offering people downloads without the necessary free content license information. BethNaught ( talk ) 23:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @ BethNaught : The {{ license }} template stopped being exported in August 2019 ; that's unrelated to the recent work with WS Export. Worth talking about though! I think we could do something about adding license information to the About page that's appended to every export. — Sam Wilson 23:24, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @ Samwilson : Ok, that's ridiculous IMO but not your fault. Thanks for the diagnosis. FYI I raised phab:T274452 before seeing your reply. BethNaught ( talk ) 23:27, 10 February 2021 (UTC)What should I do in the preferences if I don't want to see this button? How to hide it? Ratte ( talk ) 10:47, 12 February 2021 (UTC) @ Ratte : There's no facility for that just now, but it is likely this can be achieved with user stylesheets or a local gadget. But the download button is ongoing work so it is premature to implement something for this just now. -- Xover ( talk ) 11:25, 12 February 2021 (UTC) The following user CSS will work for now (unless the ID changes), but implementing a proper toggle depends on wether that's something the extension will build in natively, or whether it's something we end up addressing locally via JS.#mw-indicator-\~ext-wikisource-download{display:none;} Inductiveload talk / contribs 16:21, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Reinstate license templates in exported texts[ edit ]

In August 2019 , Kaldari stopped license templates from being exported on the grounds that they're not part of the original work.

I think this should be reverted for the reason I noted : if a non-PD work is exported--that is to say it is copyrighted but under a free license--then typically we will be required to indicate that license to reusers. This may be different from our site licenses of CC BY-SA 3.0 and GFDL. Therefore PDF downloads for e.g. a CC BY 4.0 work, not including the template, may be a copyright violation.

Not sure how much consensus is required for this and Kaldari should have an opportunity to weigh in, so posting here. Thanks, BethNaught ( talk ) 23:41, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

The licenses certainly should be exported, not least because its a hard requirement of some licenses, but it's also good digital citizenship.However, I think it probably makes sense to have the licenses use a class like "ws-license" to allow the exporter to identify them unambiguously. This firstly allows it to be written into ebook metadata in a machine readable way, but also allows it to be placed in a dedicated section of the TOC for easy access (perhaps next to the "about this book" section). Inductiveload talk / contribs 23:53, 10 February 2021 (UTC)That's an interesting point. I note that {{ license }} already has licenseContainer and licenseBanner classes, would those do? But then, how does that relate to {{ translation license }} or {{ license container begin }}? (Both have licenseContainer, it turns out.) Just throwing it out there, I really should go to bed now... BethNaught ( talk ) 23:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC)P.S. [20] would also need undoing under this proposal. BethNaught ( talk ) 23:59, 10 February 2021 (UTC) @ BethNaught , @ Inductiveload : If a text is freely licensed, wouldn't it normally mention that as part of the work? If there are any examples of the situation you are describing, that might help inform our discussion. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea of including the license template, but if we do, it would be nice if it were included in a standardized way that didn't interfere with the formatting of the original work. Personally, I would prefer that it be included on its own dedicated page and not inside a damn box. Perhaps the template could have different CSS for the exported version (via the ws-noexport class). Let me know your thoughts on this and I'd be happy to work on it further if we can come to a consensus on the best way to implement it. Kaldari ( talk ) 00:38, 11 February 2021 (UTC) @ Kaldari : not really, plenty of works are released under a license that's not in the text itself. For a start, most of the Translation namespace is CC-BY-SA by default under the general WS contributor license, and anything with OTRS clearance is also licensed "out-of-band".I think the first step will be to get the exporter aware that "things with x class go in a separate license section somewhere at the end". Then it's a matter of the CSS to style (or not) as needed. Inductiveload talk / contribs 00:46, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Pictogram voting comment.svg  20 cent opinion The license and the wikisource components sit outside the work, though should be present and exported. They should be presented with a separation point from the work itself. Page pagination with a section break of some sort sounds fine to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 11 February 2021 (UTC)@ BethNaught , @ Inductiveload , @ Billinghurst : I reverted my 2019 change , but added a page break before the license so that it doesn't get dumped into the content of the original work. Once the caches clear, the change should take effect in exports. Please let me know if anything looks amiss. Kaldari ( talk ) 03:48, 13 February 2021 (UTC)Thank you, I've checked a couple of works and it looks good so far. BethNaught ( talk ) 09:02, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Trumps 2nd impeachment trial[ edit ]

Just wondering if there are any plans at Wikisource to capture the proceedings of this impeachment? Many USA stations have been broadcasting the complete proceedings for the 3rd day. Thanks in advance, Ottawahitech ( talk ) 21:34, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Ottawahitech : Not sure if there are any active efforts, but the best source is probably the Congressional Record PDFs, for example, yesterday's , which can be uploaded to Commons Category:Congressional Record Volume 166 and an Index created as usual. Inductiveload talk / contribs 22:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks for responding. I asked after I saw at least one editor at Second impeachment trial of Donald Trump putting in a lot of effort to , what seems to me, manually duplicate the effort of documenting these proceedings. Since wikiquote is short of volunteers it would sure be nice if another wmf-wiki could help in this respect. Opnions? Ottawahitech ( talk ) 22:45, 11 February 2021 (UTC) We can and do accept the Congressional Record , which is solidly {{ PD-USGov }}, and since the recent ones are PDFs with text layers, with additional text transcripts (e.g. here ), it's not too hard to add extracts. Ideally, they would be scan-backed with the PDFs, which are the authoritative text source.I'll be happy to assist in induction, if needed. Inductiveload talk / contribs 16:09, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks again @Inductiveload. Does wikisource maintain any audiovisual records? The testimony presented at the impeachment trial, very effectively IMO, is mostly audiovisual testimony. Ottawahitech ( talk ) 16:29, 12 February 2021 (UTC)Note that commercial video broadcasts are likely to be protected by copyright and cannot be used, unless they are just rebroadcasting video captured by a PD-USGov source. Video recordings are generally eligible for independent copyright. Audio is… complicated. Best to stick with the Congressional Record is what I'm saying. -- Xover ( talk ) 16:38, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks for commenting @Xover. It was my understanding that the audiovisual recordings are done by the US goverment itself and provided to the various media outlets. I am not sure though. Ottawahitech ( talk ) 16:51, 12 February 2021 (UTC)as far as " Audio is… complicated. Best to stick with the Congressional Record " Yes it might be more complicated, but that should not stop the effort to have it incorporated. I know Commons has an audiovisual category, don't know much about it though. Ottawahitech ( talk ) 17:00, 12 February 2021 (UTC) @ Ottawahitech : Video from the Senate may be captured by CSPAN, or the news networks may have st up their own cameras. We'd need to determine which it is to be sure. Regarding audio, I was referring to the copyright situation. Audio recordings are sometimes eligible for independent copyright and sometimes not, so it'd be complicated to figure out the copyright situation. Merely uploading audio or video is relatively straightforward, but that would be an issue for Commons. Our bread and butter here on enWS is text, so the PDF transcripts are the most apposite source. We can transcribe audio and video too, but our tooling isn't optimal for that. -- Xover ( talk ) 17:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC) Tech News: 2021-07 [ 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 were problems with recent versions of MediaWiki. Because the updates caused problems the developers rolled back to an earlier version. Some updates and new functions will come later than planned. [21] [22] Some services will not work for a short period of time from 07:00 UTC on 17 February. There might be problems with new short links , new translations, new notifications, adding new items to your reading lists or recording email bounces . This is because of database maintenance. [23]

Changes later this week

Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 16 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 17 February. It will be on all wikis from 18 February ( calendar ). Tech news

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

17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Found another version of The Lost World (1925)[ edit ]

@ PseudoSkull : I have found another version of The Lost World (1925) without the inserted credits and music credit. The only challenge I now face is getting the older file removed from Wikimedia Commons so I can upload the new one. What should I do? ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 22:29, 15 February 2021 (UTC))

I am sorry for the late response. For some reason, I didn't get the ping and I'm not sure why. Anyway, thanks for finding this. You could name it whatever you want, as it could always be renamed later. The important thing is not necessarily the naming, but that we have the film archived in the WMF space, so it can be presented on Wikisource and other WMF sisters. @ SurprisedMewtwoFace : PseudoSkull ( talk ) 17:01, 17 February 2021 (UTC)You can also nominate the old file for deletion on Commons, press CTRL+F to find "Nominate for deletion" or similar in the Tools sidebar if I remember correctly. PseudoSkull ( talk ) 17:02, 17 February 2021 (UTC) Don't fuss the existing file, give the new file unique name and explanatory name, and all will be fine. Different versions of files are acceptable at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 18 February 2021 (UTC)On future texts I'd like to work on[ edit ]

Afternoon, fellows. In case you're keeping track, it's been a month and a half since I came back to WS—after an eight-year lull induced by Google+ and whatever else. (Already did a Thornton W. Burgess story about an otter family on the final weekend in January; spent more than a fortnight on an 1880s Malagasy grammar [because Madagascar isn't that well-represented here]; and at this writing, have begun transcribing that 18th-century history on my homeland by Thomas Atwood [because coverage of the Nature Island here is similarly all but nonexistent].)

That said, there are no fewer than three works presently on my wanted list, all of which I've tried to track down with the help of my home county's inter-library loan service. In order of publication, along with status checks:

The Fairies That Run the World and How They Do It (1903, Ernest Vincent Wright ): At least a couple of decades before Gadsby (a.k.a. the novel with [almost] no "e"s), Mr. Wright dabbled in poetry. While the later Thoughts and Reveries of an American Bluejacket is on IA and the earlier The Wonderful Fairies of the Sun is already on WS, The Fairies That Run the Worldis practically MIA at our usual sources, being so extremely scarce to begin with; Hillsborough County, FL's ILL team tried their best last month, but found no loaning institutions. (For those with pretty pennies and eBay accounts, it's all yours for at least US$185 —way out of my current budget. A white whale if I ever needed one; wanna pony up some funds?) Čudnovate zgode šegrta Hlapića (1913, Ivana Brlić-Mažuranić ): Some time ago, . Sad to say, you'll have to wait a while for a new, scan-backed version of those Brave Adventures. Help wanted, thousands of miles away: Anyone in that work's native Croatia with a pre-1920s copy and a scanner to deliver it with. Otherwise, see above for how well that turned out where I am. Doctor Dolittle's Circus (1924, Hugh Lofting ): . Now up for pickup at my hometown library—but with a catch: We'll be likely dealing with a reprint à la Gatsby , whose U.S. PD début was the catalyst for my comeback in the first place. (Recall that I was aiming for a first-edition copy.)

Honorable mention to...

Happy Jack (1920, Thornton W. Burgess): Which ( and whose original cover ) has surely seen better days—because what GBooks and Hathi have got has clearly shown its age at the dawn of the 2020s, not helped by the more or less dismal quality that plagued early scans of theirs. (Originally announced on my user page as one of the four titles marking Burgess' début at WS; The Adventures of Jerry Muskrat has since replaced it in my queue.)

To Xover ( talk contribs ), SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk contribs ), Jan.Kamenicek ( talk contribs ), and anyone else interested: If you've got anything further on the matter, then please ping back. Take care, see you in the backlists, and happy Ash Wednesday . (Which a lot of folks outside the Catholic movement are hardly aware of.)

"Never ends for this Captain, does it?"

Slgrandson ( talk ) 17:16, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Slgrandson : The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (who provide lots of scans to the IA/HT) have a copy of Fairies in the rare book stacks . They might throw you a bone with their digitisation service considering it's not a very common book (only 3 entries at Worldcat, all in the US) (or they might want their palms crossing with silver like the NLS). Inductiveload talk / contribs 17:51, 17 February 2021 (UTC)@ Slgrandson : I would be happy to help you with Dr. Dolittle's Circus once you upload the scan of it. I know one of the Gatsby's is a reprint, so I don't think we'll have too much of a problem even without a first edition. I look forward to working with you on it! ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 19:49, 17 February 2021 (UTC))If you want a first edition, several libraries near me have it but it might take me a bit to get them, take pictures with my phone etc. MarkLSteadman ( talk ) 00:32, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Request to upload The Greek Anthology[ edit ]Tracked in Phabricator   (?) Task T275100 Open

Following the discussion at User talk:FabioDiNinno#Anthologia Palatina I would like to ask for uploading of the DJVU version of The Greek Anthology to Commons. The file has already been uploaded there by somebody as PDF, but its quality is very bad. Unfortunately, I cannot use the IA uploader because it does not allow to upload the file as DJVU once it has already been uploaded as PDF :-) I tried to convert it to djvu using some online converters, which sometimes works, but this time the result was very poor. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 22:24, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Jan.Kamenicek :Yes check.svg Done file:The Greek Anthology, Vol. 3.djvu billinghurst sDrewth 01:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Billinghurst : Thank you very much for uploading it and my big apologies for not thanking for your help immediately… Actually, I thought I did so, but apparently I did not :-( -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 16:36, 24 February 2021 (UTC) @ Jan.Kamenicek : all good, think you clicked the thank button which is enough from my perspective. (It is why it is there) — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Samwilson : I think that we should remove that restriction in IA-upload, or at least only have it as a warning? With Fæ's uploading of the PDFs, it has become a horrible nuisance in so many senses to be forced to use the pdfs with inferior images, and inferior scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

I have added a phabricator ticket with three options in order of preference (depending on complexity of task) if IA's uri fragment exists: 0) decline if same file type; 1) challenge, if file type differs, accept if forced, or 2) accept if file type differs, 3) just accept. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:25, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Billinghurst : yes, actually I started work on this yesterday. There were three tickets for it; I merged into phab:T269518 . I was thinking of just adding a warning that the IA item is already referenced (and link to the file it's referenced from). Do you think we'd get too many duplicates uploaded if it was that simple? Would it need an extra checkbox to allow overriding or something? — Sam Wilson 01:35, 18 February 2021 (UTC) I would give them sort of positive action/choices buttons … "DO IT", "MEH, DOESN'T MATTER". I don't think that we will get too many uploads that shouldn't be. No one wants to repeat an extant transcribed and transcluded work. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC) Actually, I consider it very positive when there are duplicates of the same file in PDF and DJVU in Commons and it should be encouraged. We do not upload the files only for Wikisource, but for other users too, some of whom may prefer PDFs, other DJVUs. I have already uploaded there several duplicate files in the two formats. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 07:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Uploading Open Access Scientific papers[ edit ]

Probably been asked many times, I am the lead author of Taxonomy based on science is necessary for global conservation which is an open access paper from the journal Plos Bio. As an author on this paper and it being Open Access can this be uploaded to Wikisource. A second paper I am interested in uploading is this one Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species of which I am also an author and is also Open Access. This second paper mentions Wikispecies and a couple of editors have asked me to upload this paper to Wikisource. However I wish to check on policies for this. Cheers Faendalimas ( talk ) 17:37, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Faendalimas : At a quick glance, these appear fine for upload. PLOS Biology meets the previously published and notability requirements of our scope , and since "Open Access" in this case means specifically {{ CC0 }} it also meets our copyright policy . Note that "Open Access" is an orthogonal issue to copyright, so it is the specific license that matters; and not all "Open Access" articles will be acceptable (the weaker forms use non-commercial licenses that are not acceptable here).I'll leave our standard welcome message on your talk page shortly, with some useful links to get started. The process in short is: upload the PDF to Commons; create an Index: page for it here; transcribe the text page by page in the Page: namespace; and then transclude it for presentation on a wikipage derived from the article's title. Feel free to ask for assistance: our tooling is specialised and not the most intuitive for people trying to use it for the first time. -- Xover ( talk ) 18:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Faendalimas : Peer-reviewed and a suitable public domain licence are our requirements, so yes. Conflict of interest for us in main ns is not particularly an issue for us due to the governing principles. Preferably you could do author pages if possible, so we don't have the works sitting in isolation. Modern science is not a well-populate space for us, so we may also need to do some categorisation work too. Asking you to do wikidata links is not necessary to be said. Just to remember that typically we do publish editions, and that may impact how you think about the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:30, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Billinghurst : The second paper I have started on with help from some more seasoned editors here, it already has a wikidata item as do all the authors of the paper. I will look at an author page for each of the authors also. Many of my own works are open access as I am no fan of paywalls, so a number are probably able to be uploaded here, though noting Xover's point on this, it will depend on the individual journal. Cheers Faendalimas ( talk ) 21:46, 18 February 2021 (UTC) @ Faendalimas : the primary thing is that it's licensed in a way that means our users can reuse it for any purpose. So the journal and/or all authors need to agree on a license that's suitable. Generally CC0, CC-BY or CC-BY-SA are the most common these days. Any commercial restrictions (eg. CC-BY-NC) are not acceptable here as it restricts the ability to reuse the material.If all the authors agree (and are allowed) to release under a license different to the journal, they can use the commons:OTRS system to file a formal declaration of that, if it is not in the work itself. Inductiveload talk / contribs 22:04, 18 February 2021 (UTC)Problems with opening DJVU files and their Index pages[ edit ]

I am not able to open any index of a DJVU file. I always receive the message "Incorrect file format. The provided file is not a DjVu document". I receive also the same message when I try to open the djvu file directly. Does anybody know what is happening? -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 23:48, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

I am having no issues with Index:The Indian Biographical Dictionary.djvu or Page:State directed emigration.djvu/14 billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 21 February 2021 (UTC) I am still experiencing the problem, including the above linked index page of the dictionary (not the "Page:" page) but it is limited only to Firefox, now I can see that I do not have the problem in Chrome, so it is probably related only to something connected with my browser. Thanks. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 09:19, 21 February 2021 (UTC)Articles from The Conversation[ edit ]

In the series I am trying to do there is a short article in The Conversation (this is the original article as published by them) that I want to include. The article itself is free to be redistributed. Their licence info is on the right hand side, they include permission to use their logo. However, the images are not ours. This was kind of like an interview where we explained how this seminal series came about. The pictures are all stock images, one from a museum one from the EPA the other two I do not know. They put the images in not us. When the story is downloaded as a pdf it includes the images, I have no interest in using the images here, but they are in the pdf. I can upload the pdf I have the rights for that, but I cannot separate out the images and do the same as far as I can tell. I can leave the images out, they are not actually relevant to anything in the story, or I can replace them with images I do have rights to. What would peoples advice be? Thanks Scott Thomson ( Faendalimas ) talk 10:16, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

this blog has a Creative Commons — Attribution/No derivatives license https://theconversation.com/us/republishing-guidelines . which is a problem, as commons will delete it. also need to research the license on each photo. we could talk about a "ND fair use" but need a consensus. unclear what the value added is, given search engines can find the text layer of the blog. (we tend to work on public domain texts) the PLOS biology article has a different license, and lacks the images. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 00:32, 23 February 2021 (UTC) We have no issue with author: ns pages having links to such works where we cannot host them. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 23 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks for the comments, honestly I do not want to use the images, they have been added as fill, amongst some ads also if you look at the online version, because it is as you say a form of a hybrid blog/online magazine. The images were not ours, the one from the QM is likely CC-0 at a guess as its a stock image that many Museums provide for press usage. The others I would have to check. This will be used as part of the seminal series I am creating, which will also have a page on Wikipedia about the IUBS Working Group for the Governance of Global Lists a newly formed international commission that I am Secretary for. This "blog" gives some good easy to digest background and discussion on how this all came about and hence is useful for some context to the general reader. I hope it will all make more sense when all the papers are up and the Wikipedia Page created and I categorize it all to tie it all together. I have created this its at the stage of needing to be proofread which I will do today. I have deleted refs to the images at this point. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 17:11, 23 February 2021 (UTC)Tarzan and the Ant Men (1924) done proofreading[ edit ]

@ Jan.Kamenicek : I have finished proofreading https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Tarzan_and_the_Ant_Men.pdf There are only two problematic pages here, one that is an image and one where I cannot create Minunian glyphs represented on page without an image. (Gutenberg's pdf has the glyphs as an image, so they're readily available online.) This work should be done by someone more skilled with image manipulation on Wikisource than I. All the rest can be validated now. My work on this text is now complete, thanka for all the help you provide. ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 20:13, 22 February 2021 (UTC))

@ SurprisedMewtwoFace : Well done! I have added the image, but I am afraid I am not able to hellp with the glyph :-( -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 22:39, 22 February 2021 (UTC) @ Jan.Kamenicek :: Update: I have now rendered and implemented the Minunian glyphs on the page using .jpgs of them from the Gutenberg file. I have also rendered the cubed numbers correctly (the original file on Wikisource messed them up) using the Gutenberg file as a reference for how they should look. I think https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Tarzan_and_the_Ant_Men.pdf/205 looks quite good now and have put it down as Proofread as well now. Since the entire text is now Proofread, my work on it ends and others will have to validate it. Thanks for the work on the other image for me! ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 23:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)) @ SurprisedMewtwoFace : Perfect! I have just improved some formatting in the front matter of the book. Usually it is not necessary to wait for validation and the work can be transcluded into the main namespace immediately after proofreading. However, if you wish, I will go through the rest of the book first. If you want, I can do the transclusion too. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 10:07, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @ Jan.Kamenicek : It looks excellent! Could you please do the transclusion for me? I don't think you need to validate the entire text beforehand, I've gone through it twice and it looks quite good to me now, certainly good enough for people to read for their enjoyment. Your help will be much appreciated, and I'll enjoy seeing it in the main space! ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 20:38, 23 February 2021 (UTC))Long s and Ligatures[ edit ]

Although I'm fairly new here, it seems that there is no consensus on the inclusion of long S and ligatures during proofreading. Currently, there appears to be no requirements for either. The help page states that "Some works, especially older ones, use ligatures, diacritics, and alternate letterforms. Whether or not to transcribe this formatting is left up to the transcriber. " I was wondering if we could have a vote on whether or not to make these a requirement. It appears to me that the most accurate proofreading would requiring their preservation. Could we have a vote on whether we should make transcribing "ligatures, diacritics, and alternate letterforms" a requirement? If the vote passes, then could we make templates for all the ligatures and then add them to the editing toolbar? Languageseeker ( talk ) 20:52, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

The only ligatures that are accepted here are æ Æ œ Œ. All the others (ct, ff, fl, fi, &c.) are print artefacts that are kerned automatically in modern fonts. When the ligature glyph is used for these text-string searches are broken and thus are not accepted. Diacritics such as accents, diereses, and macrons should be reproduced (this is easily done through the extensive lists of characters in the drop-down menu. Which leaves only alternate letter-forms from the list you quote. We have gone through several long discussions on the long-s character, which is the main alternate letter-form that we see (with the two forms of the lower-case kappa, being the second). The consensus from these discussions is that the decision as to which form to use is up to the initial transcriber/proofreader of a work, but that it must be consistently applied throughout that work. Other editors assisting and/or validating the work should not change the form decided on to the other. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 01:06, 23 February 2021 (UTC) @ Languageseeker : We do not mandate that ligatures like æ / Æ are used, and if someone through the work did ae / AE, that is acceptable and the wording is meant to cover. We want consistency through the work.

To use long s in the Page: namespace the template is {{ long s }}/{{ ls }} and that displays with the character in the Page: ns, and as a standard letter when transcluded to main namespace. Long s is allowed in main namepsace on a case by case basis where the long s is significant to the work. For example a modern work made to look like an older work, or evidence that long s is purposeful to the actual work; again consistency through the work. Community reached a consensus on this PoV. Otherwise it is exactly as Beeswaxcandle says. We are not looking to be a replica site, we are looking to reproduce works of those times. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:31, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-08 [ 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

The visual editor will now use MediaSearch to find images. You can search for images on Commons in the visual editor when you are looking for illustrations. This is to help editors find better images. [24] Advanced item The syntax highlighter now works with more languages: Futhark , Graphviz / DOT , CDDL and AMDGPU. [25]

Problems

Editing a timeline might have removed all text from it. This was because of a bug and has been fixed. You might need to edit the timeline again for it to show properly. [26]

Changes later this week

Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 23 February. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 24 February. It will be on all wikis from 25 February ( calendar ).

Future changes

Advanced item There is a user group for developers and users interested in working on Wikimedia wikis with the Rust programming language . You can join or tell others who want to make your wiki better in the future. Tech news

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

00:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Portal and Author names[ edit ]

Is there a strict rule about the name of an Author entry? I created Author:Eddie August Schneider (2,220 Ghits) and another editor insists on moving it to Author:Eddie August Henry Schneider (453 Ghits), twice now. I could see moving it if we had to disambiguate between two people of the same name. "Eddie August Henry Schneider" only appears on a birth certificate. Is there a hard rule, or is the editor enforcing their personal taste as if it were Wikilaw? They also keep truncating the description of the person from a few sentences to a fraction of a sentence, is this a rule or are they again enforcing their personal taste? I could see if the other editor was contributing to the transcription project, they would have more of say on the esthetics. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:40, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikisource:Naming conventions You are talking about what I am doing and what we have been doing for years, so clearly there is some decent background to what I am doing. The description field is not meant to be an essay or cut down biography, it is a simply identifying the person, and may have a little explanatory especially relating to how other components on site. With names we expand to full names, and you can have a redirect from a shortened version. Please follow the conventions of our other author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:27, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Wikisource:Naming conventions reads: THIS IS A DRAFT!!!, and it was created by you, so yes, you are selectively imposing your personal style preferences on my entries, and pretending it is Wikilaw. Please stop. You are also migrating them to name that may not even be correct, you are taking my alias entries from Wikidata, and assuming that they are the proper full name, when they may only appear in a single document. The example you give in THIS IS A DRAFT!!! is with "E. E. Cummings", my entries, that you are changing are not pen names, you are are changing from their proper name, to a rare variation of their name because it is longer. I also don't see anything saying that the description has to be cut from a few sentences to a fraction of a single sentence. Wikidata already has a problem trying to connect to the correct person here, the less information here, the more likely they will be linked to the improper person. For instance VIAF and LCCN may have a dozen entries on an author with a common name, because there is no way to connect them, they are so information sparse. If it is your personal preference why don't you concentrate on entries that you have created. Since you are concerned about author space for Author:Eddie August Schneider , I can migrate him to Portal:Eddie August Schneider so all the author entries can be consistent. I would also like to hear from other people. -- RAN ( talk ) 01:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Meh! I don't record conversations of the community, I get hassled. I do record conversations of the community and I get hassled.

If you bothered to read the history of the document, I transferred the information to the document from a conversation that took place here 11 years ago and has been the guidance that we have been utilising. You will also see that there is information on the corresponding talk page. You will also see that there have been multiple other people editing that document. That guidance and convention has been in place for ten years, and came about due to issues that we were having with author pages at that time, and multiple versions of pages. In the end the community made the conventions document. So, no, I am not imposing my personal style preference.

The description lines is just that, it takes the relevant data, it is not a pen biography. If the person is an author they belong in Author: ns, if they are not an author they belong in Portal: ns. Nothing is perfect. The author page is linked to WD and to WP, it has birth year, death year, and occupation categorisation. I understand some of the difficulties of WD, and the issue is not those with VIAF data, and there are numerous ways to connect them. There is also the ready ability to merge items at WD when there are duplicates. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Do not impugn reputations just because you don't like their interpretations. Would you like me to reflect on your editing? Please be civil. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 24 February 2021 (UTC)I have not impugned anyone's reputation. You misrepresented THIS IS A DRAFT!!! as !Wikilaw to justify moving something from what already was a full name to a fuller name, just because it existed. THIS IS A DRAFT!!! says nothing about moving entries to the longest possible version of someone's name. I simply said you were imposing your personal preference, and misrepresenting it as !Wikilaw. As I pointed out "Elizabeth II" does not exist as "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor", which also means you are selectively moving my entries. -- RAN ( talk ) 13:31, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg

Pictogram voting comment.svg   Comment I have removed "this is a draft" from Wikisource:Naming conventions . As that is problematic and the only argument that is being brought. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I started this thread to hear from other people, I already know your opinion. Why don't you give others a chance to express their opinions. If we go by strict naming rules will have to change "Elizabeth II" to "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor". Even excluding nobility, I can easily see a dozen people that have a longer birth name at Wikipedia or Wikidata. -- RAN ( talk ) 05:28, 24 February 2021 (UTC)If someone has authored anything that has been published (which it appears that Schneider has), then they have an Author page. If the person is significant but has not authored anything, then they have a Portal page. This has been covered with you on multiple occasions that I can recall. The naming convention of using the author's full name (and redirects from the shorter forms) was developed over time and therefore there will be examples that are waiting to be moved. Those that appear in Recent Changes come to our attention first. The suggestion of moving HM is a red herring and does not derogate from leaving Eddie Schneider at his full name in the Author: namespace. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 06:12, 24 February 2021 (UTC)While I would personally prefer we adopt a policy somewhat closer to enwp's COMMONNAME for person pages, Billinghurst is entirely correct that the enws policy is to use full names, and it has stably been so for over a decade following community discussions of the issue. If you believe there is a problem with the specific name being used for a particular person then do please feel free to bring up that issue for discussion, but railing at the policy and the person you disagree with is unlikely to persuade anyone of much of anything. -- Xover ( talk ) 06:55, 24 February 2021 (UTC)I am not against the policy, I have always advocated for using a full name. As I pointed out above, "Eddie August Schneider" is his full name. "Eddie August Henry Schneider" only appears in a single document and should not be used. Can I change "Elizabeth II" to "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor" in accordance with the stated policy? Now answer why we cannot have a few sentences to describe a person, why it has be chopped down to 4 words? Does it take up too much space? -- RAN ( talk ) 07:45, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Description should only be brief because the detail belongs on the Wikipedia article. We only need enough to explain nationality and occuation(s). In other words, a single sentence that covers what is being put in the author categories. If there are significant relationships with another author, then links to those are appropriate (see Author:Robert Browning as an example). Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 08:14, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Where is that written down as a rule? A few sentence is "brief", no one is advocating copying and pasting the entire Wikipedia article here. Look at Author:Alfred Neave Brayshaw where is nothing about him, why not have a few sentences. Look at Author:André Breton , why does he get a few sentences instead of a few words? I can't understand why you fight to the death over such a trivial issue. -- RAN ( talk ) 13:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC)What is that "single document"? -- Xover ( talk ) 08:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC) I can see use of the full name in two documents from a really quick check. Used in a news article "The Des Moines Register" 28 Jun 1934, Thu, Page 12 for his wedding. Used in a baptismal record "Evangelical Lutheran Church in America Archives; Elk Grove Village, Illinois; Congregational Records in 1911. Seems reasonable enough to use the extended name. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Can I change "Elizabeth II" to "Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor"? -- RAN ( talk ) 13:21, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Instead of arguing over minutia, why don't we work together on what needs to be done. There are millions of entries waiting to be transcribed, and as I pointed out in a previous post there are half a dozen different ways that newspaper entries are being named and indexed, and they eventually need to be harmonized. There is plenty of opportunity for cooperation. -- RAN ( talk ) 14:34, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Without getting into the specifics, I'd like to validate RAN's frustration. There are many things in Wikisource that people treat as though they're formal policy, but are not clearly documented as such anywhere, and in some cases not clearly documented at all. It makes things difficult for those of use who have not been deeply involved in these discussions for decades. That said, it's not necessarily any individual person's fault. IMO the frustration is valid, but I don't think anybody is trying to snow anybody else here. It's a good idea to have a common standard for how we title author pages, and clear guidelines for how much text about the author goes into them. Seems worthwhile to have some discussion about that, and document the outcomes. I'll try to come back with my take on the specifics after reading through the comments more thoroughly. - Pete ( talk ) 18:03, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

If I have not made it clear, this is an amazing project, everyone deserves praise for their hard work. The project reminds me of the medieval monks preserving literature during the dark ages between the Fall of Rome and the Renaissance. -- RAN ( talk ) 00:11, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Author names for the most-often used point of discussion on the names used on Author pages. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 00:44, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

That page reads: "This is an essay; it contains the advice and/or opinions of one or more Wikisource contributors. It is not a policy or guideline, and editors are not obliged to follow it." Again, we are fighting to the death over minutiae, while millions of texts await transcriptions. Some people are weaponizing these poorly worded drafts of rules, and essays to rationalize implementing their personal preferences onto the work of others. -- RAN ( talk ) 07:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)The Lost World (1925) New version available[ edit ]

@ PseudoSkull : The new version of The Lost World (1925) is ready. You can find it at https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:TheLostWorldSilent.webm This should clear up any of the problems with the music credit and anything else available on the other file. Hope you find it useful! ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 04:58, 24 February 2021 (UTC))

Tall s's[ edit ] Page:The History of the Island of Dominica.djvu/141

Why on earth are old tall s's being retained? Outside of historical discussions of typography, no one, absolutely no one prior to Wikisource says to transcribe this way. It makes word indexing and searches confusing if not impossible altogether. Deisenbe ( talk ) 09:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Deisenbe : The template used in those pages displays a proper s in main namespace and is indexed in main namespace with a standard s. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 24 February 2021 (UTC) Fwiw, I vaſtly prefer retaining the tall ſs where they appear. Most web browsers index it as an "s" if you do a ctrl-f on the page, and changing their appearances from ſ to s in the encoding removes information rather than reproducing it. Changing it seems like an annotation?Ultimately, the general practice tends to be making that decision on a work-by-work basis, which I'm fine with. For example, Bible (King James Version, 1611) has a work-wide style of using the long ſ, the tironian et ⁊, the double hyphen ⸗, and combining certain letters (u and v, i and j), but doesn't reproduce the particularly uncommon characters of the capitulum ⸿ and the rotunda ꝛ. Seems fine for other works/editors to decide differently. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 18:18, 2 March 2021 (UTC) It's not annotation; it's not adding comment on the work. It's simply recognizing a certain glyph as representing an s, instead of hard-encoding a position-dependent glyph variant.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 08:05, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Well then we get into a real philosophical question of who is representing what and how. Does the "ſ" ink-mark on the page represent an imaginary letter "s" in an imagined ideal form of the text, that I as a wikisource editor should also attempt to represent clearly? Or is it just an ink-mark, and is it my job as wikisource editor to represent the ink-mark itself? My understanding of parallel discussions on re-creating images is that WS tries to emulate the document scanned, not emulate what that document is trying to say. I see an "ſ", my preference is to transcribe an "ſ". That being said, the purpose of the WS project is to create usable source texts that are verifiable, and an "s" is arguably more usable in most cases. I am personally pretty comfortable saying "an ſ is an s" and not claiming that as merely my interpretation. My point is that it sometimes that decision might be interpretation, rather than emulation. Again, my preference is for this to be a decision made on a work-by-work basis.There are all sorts of typographical innovations that have been made through the centuries, and how best to transcribe them isn't always obvious. I ran across an obvious eszet (ß) in an English text the other day, used in a way that the same work had elsewhere used an "ſs" or "ſſ". I transcribed it as "ß". Was that the right call? Who's to say? But it seems more correct to me than changing it to an ſſ, ſs, or ss merely to standardize orthography within a work or across them. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 17:13, 3 March 2021 (UTC) We don't represent ink marks; that's what PNGs are for. Text files represent abstract characters. Neither "А" nor "Α" are acceptable for use in English, no matter what the ink marks are, since they are Cyrillic and Greek characters, not Latin. Using "ß" in English text is just wrong; it, in Unicode, specifically in represents the German character, not the sometimes similar ligature found in other scripts.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 03:10, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Removing references to Wikisource in Wikipedia[ edit ]

While I'm at it, I have removed the reference to Wikisource " The Barbarism of Slavery " from w:Charles Sumner . WS's text is completely undocumented, has no authority, and users of Wikipedia are not helpfully referred to it. They would be better referred to archive.org, where at least you can see the publication information for what you are looking at.

Many texts exist in multiple, differing versions. There's only one version of "The Barbarism of Slavery"? OK, but say so. Otherwise WS is unreliable.

Undocumented texts like this are worse than useless. They are outright harmful, because they give a misleading impresion that sometthing reliable has been created. I'm not doing this systematically, but I will continue deleting links in Wikipedia to undocumented texts in Wikisource. I think by doing so I am helping WP users.

I had exactly the same argument with Project Gutenberg when it started. Udocumented transcriptions of texts create more problems than they solve. Deisenbe ( talk ) 10:08, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Deisenbe : If you are following enWPs processes, especially with consultation at w:Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard , then I am not certain that we would have an issue if you can demonstrate that the work is unreliable. enWP is enWP and they have their guidance for editors to follow. The early additions here are early additions, and they are not how we would do a work today; that said if we don't have evidence that a work is truly problematic, they stand as they are as unsourced, supplied transcripts. Please utilise {{ no source }} if a work has no source; please use {{ fidelity }}if you think that the transcript is an issue. If you think that a work is truly problematic then consider nominating it for deletion at WS:PD . — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 24 February 2021 (UTC)Obligatory soapboxing: this is why we need to start raising our quality bar, and most critically to start requiring works to be scan-backed and Proofread. Deisenbe puts it more directly than most, but the points are well made and valid regardless of whether most reusers of our texts are able to articulate them. Our balance is far too far in the direction of contributor convenience and preserving sunk cost (expended effort) no matter what, and we need to start shifting it toward better quality and a higher bar if we're ever going to make any appreciable progress (our backlogs are growing by the day). -- Xover ( talk ) 12:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC) this is what they do at german wikisource, and we are ten times their size (proofread pages), and widening the gap. is that what you want? Slowking4 Rama's revenge 15:59, 25 February 2021 (UTC)While it's obviously suboptimal to have unsourced versions kicking about, they're still better, IMO, than no version (unless there are actual concerns about fidelity, which is extremely rare). In this case, the source text is evidently the 1863 edition: Index:The Barbarism of Slavery - Sumner - 1863.pdf . Of course, the original IP contributor should have made a note of the edition and provenance back in 2007, and failing that, should have been prompted for one at the time, and {{ no source }} applied until such source was provided.In my opinion, it's more constructive to report such issues here and request research be done to isolate the exact edition and/or scans (or do it yourself if so inclined), than to just delete the links from enWP. As a community, we are generally pretty amenable to making our works useful to enWP, but due to immense backlogs of unsourced junk in the mainspace (driven by the mismatch between how easy it is for a new user to drive-by with a dump and the effort and learning curves of doing it right <insert moan about lack of documented expectations>), we simply can't fix everything up front. But, if something is specifically reported to us because it's linked to by enWP and needs a bit of digging, I don't think I'm overstepping to say we'd happily do it when we can. Inductiveload talk / contribs 18:40, 24 February 2021 (UTC)"Undocumented texts like this are worse than useless." no, deletionists are worse than useless: some of us are here to write an encyclopedia, and some of are here to delete one. pontificating tl;dr on "partner" projects about quality issues, is a profound culture problem that is a cancer eating away at the community. and in this case the scan is ready to be migrated. after all, we transcribed the 12000 EB1911 article references, that were cut and paste in wikipedia with only an endnote. i leave it to others to interact with the adversarial, and their issues. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 15:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Don't forget to update the Wikidata entry The Barbarism of Slavery (Q19079234) with the publication information, I connected it to the author. -- RAN ( talk ) 00:18, 26 February 2021 (UTC) The Wikisource copy needs to be placed on a separate data item, because it is an 1863 published edition, and not an 1860 copy (the date on the main data item). When we have a sourced edition of a work, it should be placed on its own data item so that the publication information can be added to that data item. It would be cross-listed on the main data item using the property "has edition" on the work's data item, and "edition of" on the edition's data item. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 00:34, 26 February 2021 (UTC)I leave that to the more experienced editors working on publications, the speech itself could have its own entry at Wikidata, and an entry for each published edition. I usually create one entry, and let the more experienced editors break them into smaller pieces. Recently at Wikidata, people have been breaking churches into: the building, the congregation, and the cemetery. -- RAN ( talk ) 02:40, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Two versions of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes[ edit ]

We currently have two different versions of The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes : one that – according to the talk pages – seems to be proofread from facsimiles of the original publications from The Strand Magazine (though we have no links to these scans, as this seems to be an early text from before the current sourcing and proofreading mechanism), and a recently uploaded one sourced from a PDF scan of book that collected the stories, published circa 1892.

However, these aren't exact duplicates of each other. The magazine version has a number of illustrations not present in the book publication. I haven't compared the text content, so I'm not sure if there are other differences (such as typos) between these editions, but based on the illustration differences there would be value in keeping both versions and just distinguishing between the editions.

I'm fairly new and not sure if there's a policy for situations such as this. @ Slgrandson has begun replacing the content of the magazine version pages with the PDF one, but I'm not sure if this is the bes way of doing things. What if we instead moved the magazine edition pages, appending something like "(The Strand Magazine)" to the page names, reserved "The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes" for the book version, and made a distinction between the magazine and book editions on pages that link to The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes or the individual stories? Or is there already a naming policy/precedent for cases like this? Veikk0.ma ( talk ) 18:51, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Veikk0.ma , @ Slgrandson : Yes, indeed. We do not generally replace one edition with another, but preserve both. In this case we would have a versions page at The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes that pointed to disambiguated names for the two editions, typically disambiguated by year (e.g. The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes (1892) ). We only replace one edition when it is problematic for other reasons, for example that it is an amalgamated text that cannot be matched to any specific edition (or that it just raw OCR, or other such problems). -- Xover ( talk ) 18:58, 26 February 2021 (UTC) @ Veikk0.ma , @ Xover : WP:AGF applies here; otherwise, after weighing my options some twelve hours ago, here's how things might play out from here. To compensate: The base page of Adventures is likely here to stay...while, for the eight segments affected so far, things might get a bit complicated based on the above evidence that slipped right past my radar at the time. First, the original non-scan, Strand-sourced text will be restored, and the titles will follow the schema of "Title (The Strand Magazine)" by the next page move. (Although, I've just realised, WS does already have a base page for The Strand Magazine 's coverage—which might as well prompt further renaming of those versions once we locate [and port over] the original copies.)Next, the original WS links for the segments (e.g. " A Scandal in Bohemia ") will be recycled and converted into "Versions of..." rundowns, each both listing the Strand version and its Adventures counterpart.Thirdly, the Adventures subpage links will likewise be renewed with the transclusion code from the latest edits, fetched from the history.Finally, the remaining four segements will be retitled with "(The Strand Magazine)" tag, while the old name will point to "Versions of..." and fresh new Adventures subpages will be created.I've been recently aware that conflated Gutenberg texts are one thing altogether—but a unique case like this one (no pun intended), right now, is another. (Enough to hold up my workflow from the time I got that message.) Of course, this sort of stuff can happen once you're an overeager, prodigal proofreader such as myself. — Slgrandson ( talk ) 20:23, 27 February 2021 (UTC)Which dynamic layouts are actually used?[ edit ]

As part of the ongoing cleanup of the JS that provides Dynamic Layouts , I'd like to canvass opinions on which of these people actually use:

Layout 1: default (full width with narrow gutter for page numbers)Layout 2: 36em column (similar to itWS and frWS)Layout 3: wide right gutter, header on right (but seems this isn't working: the header is off the screen for me). A little similar to deWS, but they have a much more data-heavy, vertical, header format (e.g. Ein Friedensstörer ) Only 5 pages set "Layout 3" as defaultLayout 4: identical to Layout 2, but with a width 540px (this is not ideal, as it encodes a fixed concept of pixels:font size,. At the common default of ~16px=1em, it's about 35em, so functionally the same as Layout 2). Notably, this will look very constrained if a visually-impaired user has set a higher default font size.Proposed Layout: Appears similar to Layout 3, but with a full-width, working header. Confusing name, since it's been "proposed" for nearly a decade. No-one appears to set this as default.

My personal feeling is that we should:

Replace Layout 3's CSS with the Proposed Layouts, then scrap the Proposed Layout.Scrap Layout 4 as redundant to Layout 2 Inductiveload

Inductiveload talk / contribs 10:42, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Layout 2 was the one I've used most often if I have set one.I also note various layouts set up directly using <div class="prose">..<div class="pagetext"> and others from earlier periods of Wikisources development, are there plans to deprecate those so they can be removed?Additional layouts might eventually be needed for things like playscripts.. (see {{ stagescript/s }} for example), The intent with that template was to eventually make it so the script formatting could be changed by user preference, like with dynamic layouts. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk ) 11:20, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @ ShakespeareFan00 : <div class="prose">..<div class="pagetext"> are separate, but allowing dynamic layouts to work on non-scan-backed pages is also on my hit-list, but it will have to come later. At that point those classes would be fully obsolete.Additional layouts are fine (by me, at least), but we can come to that later. For now, I just want to know if we can trim the existing layouts. Inductiveload talk / contribs 11:29, 1 March 2021 (UTC)I passionately loathe all except No. 1 to the point that I don't work on texts with any of the others forced on me. I don't believe that we should be dictating to the end user a constrained width of what's displayed. By all means, have a couple available for readers to use as they choose. Every work that we make available should work and behave under Layout 1 (including playscripts). It doesn't help that I find the others to be ugly and stale in their design. Also, sidenotes are bad enough in Layout 1, they're dreadful in the others. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 17:37, 1 March 2021 (UTC)@ Beeswaxcandle : You are absolutely right that all works should render as well as possible in all layouts. Default layouts are one thing, but if a work is actively broken in any layout, that's a problem. To bang on my one of my many favourite drums, making sure that things work in both Layouts 1 and 2 is the bulk of the work of ensuring a work can export (because layout 2 is not far from the size of the content on a mobile/e-reader screen.BTW, you can disable the ability of pages to use {{ default layout }} to override with "Allow pages to override my dynamic layout preference on a case-by-case basis" in your gadget prefs . Making this a user toggle next to the layout selector is on my list. Inductiveload talk / contribs 08:19, 2 March 2021 (UTC)I use Layout 2 frequently for poetic and dramatic works, where (a) a margin constraint is necessary to keep the text alignment, and (b) serifs are almost necessary to be able to distinguish I, l, and 1 throughout the text (in various combinations as words and abbreviations, e.g., III. vs. Ill. or Roman numeral 3 versus the abbreviation for Illiad). But otherwise, I do not apply layouts at all. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 01:20, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Links to another wiki, in another language[ edit ]

Is there a method to create links to another wiki, such as French Wikipedia, Wikionary, etc., etc.? AnotherEditor 144 t - c 18:02, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@ AnotherEditor144 : w:fr:Main Page , wikt:ontology , c:COM:VP/T . See w:Help:Interwiki linking for some guidance. But please do not add such links to transcribed works here (except the occasional Wiktionary link). See WS:Links and WS:Annotations . -- Xover ( talk ) 18:52, 1 March 2021 (UTC) @ Xover : Ok. I was planning to put it on my user page anyway. AnotherEditor 144 t - c 19:18, 1 March 2021 (UTC) Tech News: 2021-09 [ 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

Wikis using the Growth team tools can now show the name of a newcomer's mentor anywhere through a magic word . This can be used for welcome messages or userboxes.A new version of the VideoCutTool is now available. It enables cropping, trimming, audio disabling, and rotating video content. It is being created as part of the developer outreach programs.

Problems

There was a problem with the job queue . This meant some functions did not save changes and mass messages were delayed. This did not affect wiki edits. [27] Some editors may not be logged in to their accounts automatically in the latest versions of Firefox and Safari. [28]

Changes later this week

Recurrent item The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 2 March. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 3 March. It will be on all wikis from 4 March ( calendar ). Tech news

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

19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Why not acceptable[ edit ]

Can someone other than Billighurst explain why this letter is not acceptable at Wikisource: letter concerning Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) a letter held in a state archive.

Louis Julius Freudenberg I (1894-1918) war history written by his mother, page 1 of 3.jpg

See https://wwwnet-dos.state.nj.us/DOS_ArchivesDBPortal/WWICardDetails.aspx?CardID=809 -- RAN ( talk ) 21:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, I do not consider it suitable to exclude anybody from expressing an opinion on inclusion or exclusion of a work. We already have Billighurst's opinion, he wrote "out of scope" when he made the move. I am looking for third party opinions. -- RAN ( talk ) 23:25, 1 March 2021 (UTC)As for the question itself: The letter was published (on the New Jersey State Archives website) and is verifiable as WS:What Wikisource includes demands. As for copyright licence, I would use {{ PD-US-unpublished }}, but I am not an expert on US copyright law. The only reason why its inclusion might be doubted is its content. As it has no artistic value, only its documentary value can be considered, which is not very high, but there is imo some, considering that the person was not just a no-name soldier, but was an object of some local press articles at least. I tend to agree with its inclusion, but I am curious about other opinions too. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 22:28, 1 March 2021 (UTC) "Artistic value" is subjective, we need objective reasons to include or not include, otherwise people's personal biases skew what we keep and what we discard. What is art, and what is not art is very personal, and museums and archives, are now confronting their past biases. Don't you think it would have been better for Billighurst to bring the move up for consensus before moving the letter from mainspace? Is Wikisource designed solely to contain art? Then why are we attempting to transcribe the entire New York Times up to 1925? You write that the letter's "[value] is not very high", again why aren't we taking the word of the archive that chose to preserve it, and display it at their website. We have too many subjective rules that are selectively enforced. That lets the rules be used to punish people that you don't like or don't get along with. I understand Billighurst has admin rights, but that shouldn't preclude him from gaining consensus first. He shouldn't be enforcing his personal preferences, or punishing people with audits for speaking out against him. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:35, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

That a work is at an archive, does not in itself does not make it notable for reproduction at enWS. The criteria of WS:WWI is quite more specific than that.

Documentary sources are characterized by one of two criteria:

They are official documents of the body producing them, orThey are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events.

If we apply the presence of a document in an archive, then we can reproduce every probate document that has been registered, every land transaction, every police record, we can include every convict court case, and that becomes an unholy mess to manage and curate, and makes our scope extraordinarily large. WWI says we take published works, then expands into what are documents related to more issues of notability. We are not trying to be a family history website, we are not trying to be a local history website, we are not trying to be an archive office.

Verifiability relates to source, and only applies after scope has been confirmed. The copyright issue is another issue in itself, and not one that I was addressing. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:13, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

First of all: "They are official documents of the body producing them" and "They are evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events." are both listed under Works created after 1925, I think you just randomly cut and pasted two phrases from the page. This work was produced in 1919. It is not a probate document, or a land transaction, or a police record, or a "convict court case", whatever that is. Again, why aren't you getting consensus, before moving documents, since this is not any of the forbidden documents that you just described? You again are using poorly worded, subjective interpretations, and selectively applying them, which feels like harassment. -- RAN ( talk ) 06:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Pictogram voting comment.svg  Comment I think this letter is certainly in scope in my book. It's "evidentiary in nature, and created in the course of events", where the event in question is World War I. IMO, this is an interesting document in its own right. Not earth-shattering, but a certainly a small window into the past. Since WS:WWI is clear on pre-1926 works with Most written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1926 may be included in Wikisource, so long as it is verifiable. Valid sources include uploaded scans and printed paper sources., that's rather moot. Eloise Lindauer died in 1935, so there's no issue with the unpublished copyright side of things.As an aside, the work itself could really do with proper scan-backing to an index, and the wikilinks are a little OTT. But honestly, I don't mind the concept of wikilinks, and in fact I like the idea. Perhaps we can come to a different solution, for example making the default interwiki link colour in the text body closer to the surrounding text color? Or improve and promote Visibility.js , which allows the links to be unstyled entirely. Inductiveload talk / contribs 08:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

So by your reasoning any document created prior to 1926 is acceptable? How many pre-1926 probate testaments would you like to see onsite? Do you think that is our scope? How about a receipt book from 1899. A store ledger from 1852 from the Victorian goldfields? What about the brand plate of a late 19th century piano? The most boring letter ever written by my great great grandfather of his trip to the UK from Australia in the late 19thC. I have those and never would have considered them in scope for WS. All written prior to 1926. They are documents or similar, not published works. The current modification to the policy came about re a discussion about notability, and was worded to address that we were not wanting non-notable documents per [29] The intent of that change was not to give pre 1923 and post 1923 documents that sort of differentiation that you are mentioning as year is clearly about PUBLISHED works.

Wikisource, as the free library that anyone can improve, exists to archive the free artistic and intellectual works created throughout history, and to present these publications in a faithful wiki version so that anyone may contribute added value to the collection.

Wikisource:What Wikisource includes

If we are changing our scope to now have family history type information, and anything written anywhere prior to 1926. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Noting the 2009 change to WS:WWI [30] billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 2 March 2021 (UTC) WS:WWI is explicit, and it's the most policy-like policy we have. It's not RAN's fault if you don't agree with it. I might add that that what the letter of policies like "no-cross namespace redirects, even from Author: to Portal:" and "people with no extant works on site should be Portals" is also often used for unilateral action and complaints about people not adhering to the policies. Either what "policy" says goes, or it doesn't. It's not immutable, but, for now at least, it is there.I'm not sure what that change in 2009 is relevant to. The salient part of the policy (emphasis mine) ("Any written work (or transcript of original audio or visual content) published (or created but never published) prior to 1923 may be included in Wikisource") has been there since 2007 (the referred discussion is Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2007-09#Change_inclusion_policy ), more than a year before your linked discussion. The change to the current "Most written" happened in in 2012 and the narrowing was apparently related to copyright, not notability. Furthermore, before that it said [Documentary sources] may range from constitutions and treaties to personal correspondence and diaries. We can argue whether or not this letter is truly under that definition, but there's certainly a case to be made that it is. I'd say, since WWI was kind of a big deal, it would be. It looks to me like this kind of thing has been explicitly allowed for over 15 years.And, to be quite honest, all your examples sound fine to me, as long as they're scan-backed and formatted sensibly. I find it hard to get upset about too much material, only poor quality material. One's man's rubbish and all that. Ephemera is a whole, perfectly valid, historical field in itself. Inductiveload talk / contribs 13:04, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Without digging too deep into every single argument presented in this discussion, I think I agree with Inductiveload 's perspective on this. If an editor is putting up high-quality scan-backed and externally verifiable material, who am I to say that it doesn't count? There are literally hundreds of books with scans uploaded to WS that people arguably don't care about, so truly what is the difference between a published book and an archived letter for the purposes of establishing "notability"? As long as the allowance of ephemera doesn't make Wikisource un-navigable (which I don't think it would beyond its present state), I'm in support of the inclusion of any published work/archived work so long as there are editors to maintain it. -- Mathmitch7 ( talk ) 16:44, 3 March 2021 (UTC)Furthermore, "Published" is a very crude proxy for "notable/interesting/useful". Considering the immense quantity of published newspapers, periodicals of various degrees of specialism and general governmental/official effluent, I'd say that if something is interesting enough to someone that they'll spend the time and effort to present it (and well!) at WS, it's already proved that it's of more interest than, say, a classified ad offering a sewing machine for sale in Caspar, Wyoming . Inductiveload talk / contribs 16:57, 3 March 2021 (UTC)I'm going to be singularly unhelpful and say that I agree entirely with Billinghurst in this individual case, but that I don't think it is reasonably possible to read that out of WS:WWI (e/c, but otherwise essentially what Inductiveload said above). It's written as an unholy hybrid of a user help page and a policy, and as such it fails at being either. Unless you were intimately involved in the discussions around the time it was written it is impossible to figure out how it applies to the situation at hand. For example, coming at it without context, a straightforward reading of that page would lead one to believe that anything created prior to 1926 is in scope so long as it is 1) verifiable (anything held in an archive is verifiable for this purpose) and 2) public domain. That is of course ludicrous as an inclusion criteria, but it is the plain reading of that page.On that basis I'm tempted to be unconstructive and say that until we actually fix our inclusion policy we really can't make any blanket statement and have to have a discussion for every single work individually. Very tempted. But as that would achieve little beyond annoying almost everyone I'm going to settle for my standard plea that we give some priority towards developing proper policies for the core issues, scope and inclusion—exclusion criteria foremost among them. I'm happy to help drive that, but only so long as the community actually wants a real policy framework for this. Based on every indication I have so far the community actively does not want more or better defined policy, and certainly has no appetite for the effort involved. I live in eternal hope that one day I will turn out to be wrong about that. -- Xover ( talk ) 13:37, 2 March 2021 (UTC) While I agree that WS:WWI is far from perfect, it is the only guidance we have here at the moment and so until the community decides to change it we cannot blame anybody for following it. Of course that the community vote can overrule it in this (or any other) specific case, but it was very unfortunate that the letter was removed from the main namespace without a proper discussion at Wikisource:Proposed deletions , which is exactly what we have that page for. Had it been done so, we could be spared from a lot of bitterness now. So my suggestion is to return the work back into the main namespace for now, and delete it only if the community decides to overrule WS:WWI in this particular case.At the same time I absolutely agree with the need to refine WS:WWI, and although I do not think that the points raised by Billinghurst here apply to this specific case, I understand them generally and I will definitely take part in discussions trying to implement them into the rule in a sensible way. -- Jan Kameníček ( talk ) 21:00, 2 March 2021 (UTC)First, I think it problematic that wasn't taken to Proposed Deletion instead of summary deletion. Secondly, WS:WWI doesn't support the deletion here, and I don't think it was intended to. I was told, I don't recall by whom, that the then-1923 line was good enough, because the time alone would be enough to keep people from posting vanity junk. I can't say I'm always stunned by the value of what other people chose to work on, and I lack any evidence that there's enough problem with people posting pre-1926 works problematically to justify arguing about which vintage works are acceptable.-- Prosfilaes ( talk ) 08:16, 3 March 2021 (UTC) @ Prosfilaes : The created work at enWS was never and still is unlabelled as being from an archive. I will note that the actual images are so labelled, though it was not images that are immediately evident, and Commons inclusion criteria is different from ours. So the action that I took has to be seen in that perspective. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:43, 3 March 2021 (UTC)I still do not see a rationale based on !Wikilaw for you finding the document ineligible for Wikisource. So far you have only used the slippery slope fallacy, that if this letter is eligible, it will allow "every probate document that has been registered, every land transaction, every police record, … [and] every convict court case." I still get the vibe it has more to do with personal animus toward me after I complained that you were using your admin rights to enforce your personal tastes. -- RAN ( talk ) 15:00, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Interaction ban proposal[ edit ]Can I also suggest an interaction ban with Billinghurst, someone else should be patrolling my entries, if they need patrolling. Someone that does not have the record of enforcing their personal preferences as !Wikilaw. As I reported above he was imposing his THIS IS A DRAFT!!! as !Wikilaw and instead of acknowledging it, his response was to remove the THIS IS A DRAFT!!! title, instead of having a proper consensus !vote. As I also pointed out there is a half-dozen ways that newspaper entries are being presented, and there seems to be no rush to harmonize them. When there is a rush to change my entries I get the vibe that there is some personal animus involved, hence the inquiry about an interaction ban. I feel like I am getting a punitive audit from Billinghurst for bringing up the previous THIS IS A DRAFT!!! interaction. -- RAN ( talk ) 22:16, 1 March 2021 (UTC)can we trout both of you?"So by your reasoning any document created prior to 1926 is acceptable? " i love the parade of horribles; could you please not do enforcement with RAN, he is mostly harmless, if obstreperous. how are you going to decide which manuscripts to include? you understand the Smithsonian is transcribing Freedman's Bureau log books, and LOC is transcribing Women's Party meeting minutes.but "!Wikilaw...THIS IS A DRAFT!!!" you are well aware this is how admins behave. you are lucky he did not make a filter just for you, as some admins do. if you could organize a task flow, with a newspaper (i.e. [31] ) rather than clippings, or pitch in at POTM, you would have more sympathy. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 23:40, 2 March 2021 (UTC)@ Slowking4 : I think I mentioned earlier on this page, there are half a dozen ways newspapers are being organized, and an equal number of ways clipped articles are being named and formatted. I have seen the New York Times portal, but even that is a hybrid mixture of formats and clipped articles using various naming schemes. What do you consider the best formatted newspaper collection at Wikisource? -- RAN ( talk ) 23:59, 2 March 2021 (UTC)the fact that newspapers are a mess, with raw clippings from 2012, is not a good argument to spread the mess. i would like to see a migration from non-scan back clippings, to scan back works using chronicling america. https://chroniclingamerica.loc.gov/ a portal sweep up of clippings is a start, but the scans need to be incorporated. Slowking4 Rama's revenge 12:32, 3 March 2021 (UTC)@ Slowking4 : when has a filter ever been used to target non-vandals/spammers at enWS? Inductiveload talk / contribs 09:58, 3 March 2021 (UTC)filters are routinely used to block youtube, stopping work when government documents use them as references. but i guess the "admin may i" works for you. it is not a leap, to imagine RAN being summarily labeled as a "spammer". Slowking4 Rama's revenge 12:10, 3 March 2021 (UTC) That filter was actually turned off , because, recently, Youtube links are becoming more common in WS works than in spam (and we have more granular abuse filters now, partly because a fixed blacklist is a blunt tool, so we can target actual spam more effectively). This adversaralism is ugly. Just because you've received bans elsewhere doesn't mean all admins here are power-tripping maniacs. And no one is calling anyone a "spammer", and the suggestion that they might is, IMO, entirely unjustified in this context. Inductiveload talk / contribs 12:46, 3 March 2021 (UTC) FWIW technically Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist and Special:AbuseFilter are different things. So trying to add some clarity and difference, not stir the pot. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Disambiguation downloads[ edit ]

Is there any way to deactivate the big "Download" button on disambiguation pages, or do we want those to be downloadable? Visually, the button implies that the disambiguation page is a work in its own right. -- EncycloPetey ( talk ) 01:16, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

It should be easy to code to deactivate, they have __DISAMBIG__wikicode and are automatically categorised. I don't think that people would need to download, though at the same time it is out of the way of the body so not causing issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Tracked in Phabricator   (?) Task T273708


Open This is phab:T273708 and the idea is that when done it will provide a magic word that we can add to templates like {{ disambiguation }}. Inductiveload talk / contribs 20:14, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikifunctions logo contest[ edit ] Hello. Please help to choose a design concept for the logo of the new Wikifunctions wiki. Voting starts today and will be open for 2 weeks. If you would like to participate, then please learn more and vote now at Meta-Wiki. Thank you! -- Quiddity (WMF)

01:49, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Wikilinks[ edit ]

When I asked previously about Wikilinks, I was told not to overlink, and no interpretive links. The example given was linking "Lewis Carroll best known book" to "Alice In Wonderland" because it is a subjective interpretation that can change over time. Why are my links to real objective people and real objective places being deleted? Again, this feels like tag-team harassment. Especially when I am probably going to be the only person on Earth using the entry for research over the next decade. -- RAN ( talk ) 06:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

The links that I removed were all going off-site and not here on Wikisource. A Wikisource page should have minimal linking in the text, except to authors and other works. Links within text to Wikidata items are outside the intention of the Wikilinks policy (which was written before Wikidata existed). Links within text to Wikipedia are covered in the policy. "Myrtle Avenue" (to pick a random example) can reasonably be assumed by the intelligent reader to be a residential street based on the context. I intended my edit to be an exemplar of good practice, but I see you have just pasted your version over the top of my edit and removed the layout formatting I had done at the same time. Beeswaxcandle ( talk ) 07:55, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Fiction and non-fiction should not be treated the same. No links may be good for fiction, but for non-fiction news articles, Coroner Rollins really is somebody, there is no speculation, it is not a roman à clef like Primary Colors where people endlessly speculate who corresponds to the fictional person portrayed. I can see where the London of Alice in Wonderland, may not be the real London, it may exist only as a fictional London. Non-fictional news-articles are different, and the reader loses, when the real historical Coroner Rollins is not identified and linked to his entry in Wikidata. I can search for all the entries for "Coroner Rollins" even if he is called "Aaron Burr Rollins" in another article or called "Sheriff Rollins" using insource. Fictional speculation should not be treated the same as identifying real people in news-items. The reader should get help and identify Moscow as "Moscow, Idaho" and not "Moscow, Russia" or "Moscow, Tennessee" or "Moscow, Kansas". People read fiction for entertainment, people read the news-articles because they are researching someone for a Wikipedia article or a Wikidata entry or a class paper, or a Ph.D. thesis. The links are part of being scholarly. No one is forced to click through to Wikidata, I have been reading from the Wiki Universe for about 20 years and I never felt compelled to click on a link I had no interest in, or was distracted by a word in blue instead of black. But I have come across places like "Myrtle Avenue" (to pick your random example) in news articles, and wondered if it was the same Myrtle Avenue from another news article I read earlier. -- RAN ( talk ) 13:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)I have on my todo list trying to gain support for revisiting our linking policy. It is confusingly written and as written it excludes links to Wikipedia that were actually explicitly supported in the discussions leading up to it. I want to revise it to allow links to Wikipedia but to limit under what circumstances they can be used. It would seem sensible in such an effort to also address Wikidata and interlanguage links to other Wikisources. Possibly to explicitly outlaw them, but also possibly to explicitly allow them under certain constraints. For Wikidata, for example, we migh require the use of a template that has logic like "Link to Author: page if it exists, otherwise to Wikipedia article if one exists, otherwise add a tooltip with the Wikidata ID or a summary card of the Wikidata entity, and add the page to a tracking category" (randomly picked off the top of my head; community discussion would be needed to determine the details). My main goal would be to make the policy much clearer as to what is allowed, what is not allowed, and why. -- Xover ( talk ) 13:47, 2 March 2021 (UTC) I prefer linking to Wikidata because the links are more stable. In Wikipedia people are constantly being moved from name to name, and redirects are not always left behind to create a synonym. Especially where there might be a dozen people with the same name. "John Smith (politician)" might be moved to "John Smith (lawyer)" or "John Smith (New Jersey politician)" or "John Smith (mayor)" and a different person then occupies the previous "John Smith (politician)" or it may become a disambiguation page. Link rot is higher in Wikipedia. Usually the bare minimum information is just what I am looking for, not a full biography. Locations in Wikipedia are more stable. What do you think? Will the new rules allow a choice between Wikidata and Wikipedia by the person doing the transcribing, or will we insist on a Wikipedia link? -- RAN ( talk ) 13:58, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Without thinking in depth about it I suspect I would actually disagree with you on that, but that would in any case be up to the community to decide iff there was support for revising that policy. As it stands it certainly doesn't allow them. -- Xover ( talk ) 14:24, 2 March 2021 (UTC) Without wishing to get too bogged down in details, using the WD Q-id probably is the most reliable link target, and because we have JS and Lua access to Wikibase, it means that we can actually be much smarter about where we link to (i.e. fall back though Author/Portal, Wikipedia, then Wikidata, as well as show WS interwikis contextually—handy for foreign authors that we won't likely have here for a long old time). I would also say that, unless the user specifically asks for it (e.g. by clicking a Wikidata icon) delivering a user directly to Wikidata, as opposed to, say, Wikipedia, is a last resort, and that keeping them on Wikisource is preference when possible. Inductiveload talk / contribs 15:10, 2 March 2021 (UTC)Also, we should bear in mind that Wikidata hardly existed when most of this policy (such that it is) was written, and the ability to use Lua to deal with that data in a more sane way is even more recent. Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:02, 2 March 2021 (UTC) And I agree with the policy of not overlinking, no need to link to commons words, you usually only need to link to a person, or place name, the first time they are mentioned in a news-article. I agree with the policy of about being vigilant with speculative links within fictional works per my examples above. -- RAN ( talk ) 14:22, 2 March 2021 (UTC)@ Xover : Can you quote me exact phrase at Wikisource:Wikilinks that bans links to Wikidata. I see a ban on "interpretive links" to things like "favorite book", I can see where two people would interpret "favorite book" differently, or that it may change over time. I see a ban on links external to the Wikimedia Universe. That makes sense because of link rot being detrimental to long term stability. I can see the possibility for controversy over adding links within fictional works. -- RAN ( talk ) 04:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)@ RAN : Sure. It's Links to Wikimedia-project pages are acceptable and considered to be annotations. [my emphasis]. The key here is that the linking policy says Wikimedia links are "acceptable" and in the same breath that they are "annotations". And annotations are, according to to the annotations policy , not allowed in works. In other words, the text that is phrased as if it is saying such links are ok is actually saying they're forbidden. This is incredibly confusing and nearly impossible to figure out without assistance (I had to have it explained to me after I had merrily added Wikipedia links to works for a good long while). -- Xover ( talk ) 07:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Then it is a good time to revisit policy pages, two policy pages I am constantly referred to, were marked "draft" and "essay". Eventually all lists of laws become self-contradictory when you have enough of them. -- RAN ( talk ) 14:04, 4 March 2021 (UTC)Also to make it even more of a mess, WS:ANN has never graduated to policy, it's still a proposal! Inductiveload talk / contribs 14:18, 4 March 2021 (UTC)@ Xover : The most recent ruling based on a consensus RFC was in 2013 and reads: " Wikilinks are annotations and are allowed in Wikisource . The creation of wikilinks is optional, where created they should be based on context, the type of work and the likely reader. There are a number of ways wikilinks could be miss-used (interpretative vs. non-interpretative) and a separate discussion will identify acceptable types of wikilinks." (2013) -- RAN ( talk ) 14:42, 4 March 2021 (UTC)This is why I hope people will support the interaction ban between myself and the person with admin rights who keeps enforcing their personal preferences as if it were !Wikilaw. There are plenty of other people to patrol new entries that can interact with me. -- RAN ( talk ) 14:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)"rescuing" works no longer in publication[ edit ]

This is for far into the future, but is there some means by which works that are no longer being published can be made "public domain" in the last 20 years of their copyright? I was thinking about this in terms of the recent Dr. Seuss controversy. As it is, some of his books will be effectively mothballed for decades at the publisher's request. "If I Ran the Zoo" was originally published 1950 and would have been public domain 2025 under the pre 1998 copyright, but will effectively have no new printings for over 2 decades from now since the copyright ends on 2045 under current law. If the company doesn't want to publish it anymore, could it be made available on here in 2025, or is this another "Disney Vault" type scenario? ( SurprisedMewtwoFace ( talk ) 16:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC))

What you as an individual do for an out of publication work is for you do decide. Copyright is the right to make a copy, and we don't have that right for works that are under copyright in the United States. The copyright holders are able to do as they wish, and are not restricted by copyright law by what a publisher decides. There may of course be other considerations that limit people's actions under other laws. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:30, 3 March 2021 (UTC)The concept is called an " orphan work " and has been the subject of $$$ legal cases involving Google and Hathi Trust. I'm not sure there's a solid case for being able to slap "free for commercial reuse" on them (specifically under US law) as we would need to be able to do to host them here. The Internet Archive has the Sonny Bono collection , but, crucially, they don't claim that you're allowed to freely re-use the works, they just claim they have the right to host and show them. Inductiveload talk / contribs 10:49, 3 March 2021 (UTC) Retrieved from " https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium&oldid=10987172 " Categories : Wikisource Bots/Archival Hidden category: Pages containing deprecated templates Navigation menuPersonal toolsNot logged in Talk Contributions Create account Log in Namespaces Project page Discussion VariantsViews Read Edit Add topic View history MoreSearch
Navigation Main Page Community portal Central discussion Recent changes Subject index Authors Random work Random author Random transcription Help Donate Tools What links here Related changes Special pages Permanent link Page information Wikidata item Download/print Compile a book Download as PDF Printable version In other projects Wikimedia Commons MediaWiki Meta-Wiki Multilingual Wikisource Wikispecies Wikibooks Wikidata Wikinews Wikipedia Wikiquote Wikiversity Wikivoyage Wiktionary In other languages العربية ������� Azərbaycanca Беларуская Български ����� Brezhoneg Bosanski Català Čeština Cymraeg Dansk Deutsch Ελληνικά Esperanto Español Eesti Euskara فارسی Suomi Føroyskt Français Galego ������� עברית ������ Hrvatski Magyar Հայերեն Bahasa Indonesia Íslenska Italiano 日本語 ����� 한국어 Latina Limburgs Ligure Македонски ������ ����� More languages Napulitano Nederlands Norsk ����� ������ Polski Piemontèis Português Română Русский ��������� Slovenčina Slovenščina Српски / srpski Svenska ����� ������ ��� Türkçe Українська Vèneto Tiếng Việt ייִדיש 中文 Bân-lâm-gú Edit links This page was last edited on 4 March 2021, at 16:35.Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License ; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Privacy policy About Wikisource Disclaimers Mobile view Developers Statistics Cookie statement Wikimedia Foundation Powered by MediaWiki
© 2014-2021 ЯВИКС - все права защищены.
Наши контакты