User talk:廣九直通車/Archive 1

Indian Legislation
Using sidenotes works, but I'd used my approach because it was more mobile friendly ( and is essentially how the UK legislation.gov.uk site dealt with the same issues.) It would be nice to set a site-wide style guide for this type of content, so there aren't conflicts of style regarding these. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:24, 1 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Have a look at some of the pages I've proofread. The second level clauses (1) (2) etc don't need to be indented.  Also please consider adding the anchor numbers, the 1.0, 2.0 style for single first level clauses is to avoid conflicts with the page numbering script. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:46, 4 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I'm currently working on the appendix of Jammu and Kashmir Reorg. Act.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:06, 4 March 2020 (UTC)

Maharashtra Anti-Superstition and Black Magic Act.pdf
Is this under copyright in India? If not, then the source file should be uploaded to Commons instead of here. Files should only be uploaded locally if they are under copyright in their country of origin. If they are in public domain in both the US and country of origin, then Commons is the correct place to upload the file of the original text. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:14, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I know it, but I am not sure if the file is eligible to be listed on Commons per c:Template:EdictGov-India. Indian copyright law stated that "(A)ny Act of a Legislature subject to the condition that such Act is reproduced or published together with any commentary thereon or any other original matter:", but I am not sure whether Indian state laws are "Act of a Legislature" defined in the copyright law. I have also asked on Commons at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2020/02, and they told me that if I am unsure whether the file is eligible for Commons, I can just upload a local version at here.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:29, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * So IMO, it is better to be kept local first, then after some confirmation, we'll decide whether it should be moved to Commons.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:38, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Basic Law of Hong Kong
This work has been up on Wikisource since 2018. It is not new. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:56, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I thought it was newly validated, and put it on the new text list.廣九直通車 (talk) 23:42, 15 March 2020 (UTC)
 * If it's newly validated, that just means a second person has proofread it. It doesn't mean that the text is new to Wikisource.  We don't list works on the Main Page simply for being validated, but for being newly added to Wikisource.  So a work that has been on Wikisource for a year, but then is validated wouldn't be listed. However, a work that has newly been proofread can be listed, even if it has not been validated.  --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

New Texts
When you add a work to New Texts, it should be completely proofread. The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 had two pages still marked as "problematic".

Also, please add to the top of the list.

Also, please move the last item the the top of the Older Entries. There should only be seven New Texts listed at a time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, fixed and got it, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:52, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Indian Legislation
Do you have scans or text for the current regulations/ordinance authorizing the current quarantine in India? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:04, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You're probably mean Epidemic Diseases Act, 1897? I find a dubious scan at here, otherwise I can find no other scans, given that the entire stuff is enacted in 1897, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 11:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also - https://indiacode.nic.in/bitstream/123456789/10469/1/the_epidemic_diseases_act%2C_1897.pdf for the updated version. This might be a better scan source to use. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * But this is not an official scan. Is it OK?

廣九直通車 (talk) 11:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Ask at the Scriptorum, to get a definitive opinion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC).
 * Indiacode seems to have some official backing - https://indiacode.nic.in/about.jsp, and the PDF it contains I think is the "in force" version. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * IN respect of the original (i.e 1897 version) - See - Page:A_Collection_of_the_Acts_passed_by_the_Governor_General_of_India_in_Council,_1897.pdf/10 and Page:A_Collection_of_the_Acts_passed_by_the_Governor_General_of_India_in_Council,_1897.pdf/11. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * In addition to the primary act (noted above), there should be a set of regulations specific to the 2020 outbreak.? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work, the related text has been done. Perhaps I'll spend some time to find if there are any regulations, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, and find this guideline from the Indian Ministry of Home Affairs. However it looks like PD-INGov is not really suitable, so perhaps it will be uploaded and dealt locally under PD-EdictGov, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Also if you can find them it might be worth uploading scans of "The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1937", "The Adaptation of Laws Order, 1950", "The Adaptation of Laws (No. 2) Order, 1956" as these amend the primary act. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)

Index:A Collection of the Acts passed by the Governor General of India in Council, 1897.pdf
A while back someone very kindly uploaded a number of volumes like this. As you seem to be actively working on Indian legislation, you might be interested? You might need to use an OCR tool though. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC)
 * You know its hard to maintain activity on several wikis, and I'm no Krd either...廣九直通車 (talk) 06:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Edit summary when adding new texts
Hi. It would be great that when you are adding works to template:new texts that you would be able to add a useful and informative edit summary, as requested on the instructions for that page. As that page goes straight to the main page, we do wish to have those changes well documented. Thanks for your assistance. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:15, 1 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, just forgot it after previewing the result...廣九直通車 (talk) 12:16, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

Using headers effectively
Please note these two edits:

The "next" parameter is really intended to be used for the next part of the same work: the next section, next chapter, next volume. It is not meant to be used to link to other works, even if they are related. Information about repeals and related items can be placed in the Notes.

It is possible to add the categories into the header, which can be useful. To add more than one category, separate them with a forward slash /. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)

Indian Acts
Hi! I have noticed that you have been uploading Indian enactments individually, e.g., the citizenship amendments of 2003, 2015, 2019. Such individual uploads are no longer required. All central enactments of India, from 1834 to 2020, are already on Wikisource as yearly compilations. See and. Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 04:42, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! In fact, I have been using some of these compilations to deal with certain other Indian legislation, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Uploading local files to Commons
I'm sorry that I did add Do not move to Commons to File:Fairy Tales for Worker's Children.djvu. But a quick glance at the history would have told you that I uploaded it with a Do not copy to Commons tag, and a license tag that says "this work is also in the public domain in countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 60 years or less", as well as the words written across the book's cover "translated by", which is a huge hint that one may have to consider more than one locale in figuring out the appropriate copyright rules for Commons. If I come across as a little offended, it's because I am; it literally would have been easier to upload it to Commons, and hence the fact that it wasn't should have been a clue that it shouldn't have bene.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, and I'm glad that you've reverted my mistake such quickly. Perhaps I'm recently too concentrated on English Wikisource where I only need to consider U.S. copyright. I'll be more cautious when dealing with file transfer later (after all, there must be some reason why the file is uploaded locally)... Thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 07:28, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Let me apologize for snapping at you; it's a bit of a long day for me.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:59, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Template:Center
Hi. As a favour, would you please be able to use center in preference to the deprecated tag &lt;center>. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:14, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, but I think center conflicts with headers like ==Example== . How should I deal with it?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:19, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * As an example, attempting ===Example=== results in :

Example

 * But using === Example === doesn't.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:24, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * We don't usually use headings in our reproductions of works, they tend to be problematic. We format styles. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:33, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, must say the English Wikisource itself is already significantly distinct from other Wikisource projects (After all, tags are still widely used on Chinese Wikisource).廣九直通車 (talk) 13:47, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
 * At enWS We have been moving away from deprecated html tags for quite a while, and to utilise css. Important for the production of e-books where the html tags are problematic. — billinghurst  sDrewth  21:20, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

File:H.R. 5 (117th Congress).pdf
Hello. Generally, it is a good idea to move files fulfilling requirements of Wikimedia Commons there, but it is usually better to keep the original name of the file. For example the File:H.R. 5 (117th Congress).pdf already has a corresponding Index:H.R. 5 (117th Congress).pdf which includes more than 30 pages, and all these will get broken if the original file gets deleted here and the Commons file has a different name at the same time. So I suggest either to rename the moved file in Commons or to ask a bot to move all the pages of the index. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:41, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! However, I think the original file name needs renaming as per c:Template:File renaming reasons, item 2: possible users will be more likely searching for the short title than the bill citation. Nevertheless, where can I request for bot operation to move all the pages of the indices? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ And let me echo Jan's admonishment that due to the dependencies between works in mainspace, the Index: page, the Page: pages, and the File: page, renaming files is not something that should be approached casually. We can certainly do it when necessary, but it's a lot more involved than just hitting the "Move" entry in the menu. --Xover (talk) 06:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

descriptive summary for new texts
Hi. When you are adding works to Template:New texts it would be great if you would be able to add a descriptive summary, as is requested on the instructions for that page. Thanks for your help there. — — billinghurst  sDrewth  15:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

AND

With something like it is actually good to do If the portal doesn't exist, then feel free to create it, even if it is a redirect to an existing page with a heading, you can do something like Give us a ping if you have any questions. — billinghurst  sDrewth  16:20, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Do you mean I need to add more descriptive edit summary when I update the new text template? I'm also not sure how to create new author and portal pages: I don't know how to fill in all of the "authority control stuff" under the author page, and how to fill in the "class" for portal pages — the last time I succeeded to create Portal:Law of Singapore is because I found the corresponding class. Please advice.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:37, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Look at the history page for Template:New texts and see how most of us complete edit summaries. It is a high profile page which we leave very open to editors, so good summaries give us good vision on what is happening. Outside of works  information on author pages, most of the data that we have on author pages is delivered from Wikidata (see Help:Author and Wikidata), so all you need to do is create the basics, if you cannot work out the Wikidata component, no worry, we will fix it. To see what we do, follow the WD link next time, and look at the edit history of the item there.  Portal Class? Meh! I don't do it either, I have no understanding of LoC classes, etc.  And don't fuss it overly if you don't know, either ask at WS:S or leave it and we will capture it in our checking processes. Thanks. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Oh I see, thanks for your advice!廣九直通車 (talk) 14:30, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

English Statutes...
Thanks to the efforts of other contributors on Wikisource, there is a growing number of scans on Commons, to cover UK legislation from Magna Carta onwards :)

You may also find certain more recent UK General Acts, amongst the bulk updload Fae performed a few months back. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I know Fæ did a great job in uploading those works, but if there isn't a copy of them on Commons, I actually uploaded some of them to there. I'll occasionally cover some of the shorter Acts along my main focus of HK/SG laws.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Generally, what I would suggest uploading (if not already present) is the "Queens Printer" versions, which are typically the "as enacted" original versions of specfic Acts. Fae also uploaded some "revised" (as of 2019/2020) editions as well, so check the files carefully.
 * Commons/Wikisource also has a set of scans for Indian legislation (Central) Acts (covering both post-independence India, and the period of British rule which preceded it). You might  wish to transcribe certain Indian (Central) Acts that deal with certain areas of law, so as to do comparative analysis with other jurisdictions for example. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:41, 2 December 2021 (UTC)


 * Template:UK Statutes is a collated list of volumes of collated UK primary "public" legislation.


 * When uploading indvidual Acts or Ordinances, consider adding the original file identifier or the Jurisdcition in brackets, to make them more unique. 'Copyright Act' is a short title that might be used in many jurisdictions, each act being specific to a given jurisdiction. I do however see you have adopted the convention to use the Short Titles, this is appreciated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks a lot! I think for most UK/Singapore/Indian enactments, they're already with the year, so the chance of mixing up is quite low? By practice, HK primary enactments don't come with year, so I'll keep in mind with that.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:46, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
 * One more thing to question: recently the Singaporean judiciary gazetted their new Rules of Court 2021 and Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 in an effort to modernize judicial business. Do you think these enactments are good to be included in Wikisource (I mean, while obviously they'll be allowed here, as these enactments generally focus on detailed procedures in courts and forms, do you think they should be included here: the Rules of Court has 643 pages, and the SICC Rules has 369 pages, both of them are obviously huge)?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:55, 3 December 2021 (UTC)


 * If it's under an appropritate license, then I don't see why Civil Procedure rules shouldn't be something transcribable, PROVIDED it's clearly indicated they aren't an official copy, transcription, translation and that they represent a particular point in time for that document. With some technical material I transcribed I indicated when the document was dated. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:59, 8 December 2021 (UTC)


 * With Short titles, the unofficial rule is here is to drop the Comma as I understood it. What do actual acts use? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Example: Most Indian legislation, and I'm pretty sure that for British Acts enacted before a certain year, their short title also come with a comma between title and year, like the Life Peerages Act, 1958 I've transcribed, or some even older ones like the Official Secrets Act 1911, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * Hmm... As I said though the approach here was to use   without the comma for page titles, No objection to you setting redirects appropriately..  The reasoning was that templates that derive or call Short-title  can be done with minimal overhead figuring out if the comma is or is not required in the page name. The underlying module ideally needs to be overhauled though, as it make no distinctions between Jurisdictions at the moment. :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

UKPGA Templates

 * Page:The Public General Acts and Church Assembly Measure 1960.pdf/57 was something I'd transcribed as an example page a while back. Please consider examining the underlying template. You will note I've converted the sidenotes to headings. This is what "legislation.gov.uk" does, you may want to reconsider your use of side-titles, or make suggestions on how to adapt ukpga to accomadate them . Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:28, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I have some questions concerning the UKPGA templates actually:
 * WS:MOS stated that we should . Why not keeping with the original formatting style of using sidenotes?
 * Regarding italic in paragraphs under subsections, is there an option to make them not italic? I'm pretty sure that more recent UK Acts like the Computer Misuse Act 1990 drops this practice.
 * Is your UKPGA templates compatible with Anchor?
 * Other than that, I'm quite satisfied with your solution. Perhaps this can even be used on Hong Kong enactments, which have similar formatting.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:21, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * In this instance within reasonable limits would be the "legislation.gov.uk" style, for consistency, and it was simpler to follow/implement that way for modern legislation, where the worded sidetitles are essentialy (sub-headings), and the references to other acts (Marginal Citations) can be placed using conventional tags without needing to use various layout techniques.
 * Not sure on this, but I was sure there were italic on the examples I'd seen when writing the stylesheet, if you have counter examples, however the stylesheet might need updating on per index basis.
 * the ukpga family of, should be generating the anchor internally (for technical reasons it use x.0 style numbering for singular 'level1' blocks, The templates are by no means comprehensive yet, and you are welcome to make attempts at improvements to it or the style-sheets if needed. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:30, 12 December 2021 (UTC)


 * The styles are defined per work - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:The_Public_General_Acts_and_Church_Assembly_Measure_1960.pdf/styles.css being an example.  I don't set them directly in the relevant templates, precisely so that they can be set appropriately for different eras. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:37, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
 * I still consider directly using the modern formatting used by "legislation.gov.uk" is too aggressive, and as now I'll stick to the traditional to format those using sidenotes (like what I just completed in the Criminal Attempts Act 1981). That said, I also agree with and thank your effort, and will adopt your templates in dealing with post 2001 UK Acts (in which they use the same format), regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:25, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Acts of Parliament
Hi - I've noticed you've been doing an excellent job with the UK Acts of Parliament, such as the Theft Act 1968 and the Hunting Act 2004. I did a (very short) imitation of your work with the Consolidated Fund Act 2010 to get to grips with Wikisource (and I wanted to thank you for going over it, too). I was wanting to get in touch as I think it would be good to try to coordinate those of us who are interested in UK legislation across the various Wikimedia projects, as I've noticed that there has been some duplication of work across Wikipedia, Wikidata and Wikisource. Would that be something you'd be interested in?

For what it's worth, I've been primarily working on annual and sessional lists of UK Acts on Wikipedia (e.g. 1962), as well as ensuring that Wikidata has a complete dataset. So far I've worked backwards to 1960, and I've got a pretty extensive PDF collection of UK Acts that are otherwise quite difficult to find. I've also made a few trips to the Parliamentary Archives to take copies of the 6 volumes of the handwritten Long Calendar of Original Acts, which it would be good to eventually transcribe onto Wikisource (though it will be a lengthy job). Theknightwho (talk) 13:09, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, and welcome to the legal department :-). I also appreciate your skill in dealing with the format of Acts.
 * Though I'd like to point out PD-UKGov/Bill you've created, in which sections 166-166D of the CDPA doesn't grant immediate free permission towards British bills, but I think a large number of them should be licensed under free licenses like OGL or OPL. Please add information on that template, thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you!
 * Re PD-UKGov/Bill I'm not quite following what you mean - the template states that it refers to bills that passed/are otherwise no longer passing through the legislative process (which I felt was a straightforward way to cover the somewhat awkward phrasing of the legislation itself). However, I've modified the wording very slightly to say "it is a Bill or proposed Measure ... and was granted", to make it clear that both conditions are necessary. Does that address your point? Theknightwho (talk) 17:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I see, I see, my fault for not noticing that the copyright for bills terminates after they receive royal assent or get spent (I mistaken that they continue for some 50 years or so). I think the template itself should be fine then, thanks!廣九直通車 (talk) 09:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, I was surprised to see that it was so different as well. If only they'd done somethig similar for legal judgments... Theknightwho (talk) 13:50, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Foreign Limitation Periods Act 2012
This work is not transcluding correctly into the Main namespace. The contents table is broken and needs to be fixed before listing it as a New Work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't notice that the previous template for Personal Data Protection Act 2012 was used in that page without fixing the index. Thanks for your reminder!廣九直通車 (talk) 02:52, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Project MARISA scan request
I don’t really know how general your claim was regarding scanning, but I’d like to make a request. Although it’s a little late to be PD-HK, could you scan “Declaration of Constituencies (Districts) Order 1994” (referenced in “Electoral Affairs Commission Ordinance”), please? The only copies I can find on-line are missing sections, and the original Gazette printing would be appreciated in any case. I would also like to say that I really appreciate your scanning of and digitisation efforts regarding the Hong Kong and Singapore legislation—I often see your work displayed on Template:New texts. (I may mention also, that I appreciate your naming sense.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:08, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! The DOJ has a scan at here, and in general, you can find everything on and after 1990 on Hong Kong e-Legislation. So the manual scanning process focuses on those before 1990.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Short Titles on Wikisource..
I see a problem.

Yes the approach you use is good, however, would you be willing to consider adding the Jurisdiction to the titles used? You've uploaded items from Singapore and Hong Kong as well as the UK, and it would be reasonable to have a means of avoiding potential naming conflicts.

It would also mean that the module responsible for short-title (and related templates) can be updated to include suitable parameters so so it can be used for various jursidictions as opposed to assuming England/UK as currently. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:47, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your suggestion. I think there are several cases that can be considered:
 * For most of the jurisdictions I've gone through, most short titles come with a year (eg. Interpretation Act 1978 in the UK, or Citizenship (Amendment) Act, 2019 in India). I believe the year in the title is sufficient to distinguish each enactments from another. This is also true for pre-1992 Hong Kong enactments (eg. Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance 1991), where their short titles before revision also come with the year.
 * Generic short titles like Human Rights Act and Interpretation Act, they should be created as redirect pages which lists all enactments with similar short titles with brief summary.
 * For same short titles with year that was adopted in multiple jurisdictions, I've already noted the jurisdiction within the title. Examples include Penal Code (Amendment) Act 2012 (Singapore) and Casino Control Act 2006 (Singapore).
 * For post-1992 Hong Kong enactments, their titles don't come with the year enacted. Previously I assumed that old enactments that are not digitized by the DOJ are impossible to be imported here, so stock short titles does not contain any year or jurisdiction information (eg. Arbitration Ordinance, currently referring to Cap. 609 enacted in 2010). After I tried to scan them in public libraries, importing these enactments become possible. I'll therefore modify the titles to include enacting year (and possibly jurisdiction), such as moving the current Arbitration Ordinance to Arbitration Ordinance (2010), or the current Trade Marks Ordinance to Trade Marks Ordinance (2000).
 * Lastly, I'm quite sure that some enactments have unique short titles that are sufficient for them to be identified without year, which applies to a number of Hong Kong enactments Examples include the Prevention and Control of Disease Ordinance and Legislation Publication Ordinance, which I confirmed that they are unique within Hong Kong.
 * These are my current opinion. Please comment if needed.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:45, 20 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The UK also has 'collective' titles, where a group of legislation is cited as a group, examples being "Factory Acts", "Licensing Acts", "Post Office Acts" amongst others. I'm not sure if this practice was extended to other jurisdictions deriving from British or Commonwealth practice. 88.97.96.89 09:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Indeed I've also encountered these examples (such as the Obscene Publications Act, 1959 and Obscene Publications Act 1964). I think these cases should be dealt in disambiguation pages as well.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:03, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Law of the People's Republic of China on Work Safety (2021)
This was throwing up some LintErrors. Can you take a look at it with a view to backing it from an official translation? Thanks. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, that version is the official translation by the NPC (see the talk page). Also I don't know what is "LintError" (After all, I have basically zero understanding in CSS formatting). Your explanation is needed.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:28, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Generally in this context, a Lint Error means that there is a mismatched HTML tag being generated from wiki-markup. The most common causes of this are that bold or italic formatting isn't closed within a template like center. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I found Articles 100 to 111 have displaced bold markings. Is that the problem? Probably other Lint-related issues are the "onlyinclude" tags, but I think that should be grammatically OK (we used that stuff to transclude latest version of legislation on Chinese Wikisource).廣九直通車 (talk) 12:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes. That's probably it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

UKSI
Hardly the most interesting of items:- but I've set it up this way for linking purposes.

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Statutory_Instruments/1964/1972

If you want to follow up setting redirects or finding the referenced primary Acts for transcription and cross-referencing them, feel free. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Ugh, honestly your title will inevitably cause people to understood that there's a main work called "Statutory Instruments" (in which it doesn't exist), then a chapter named "1964" (does not exist as well) and finally subchapter "1972". Given by the fact that for most cases people simply uses the SI's title as the main reference (I think citations were even dropped in more recent British legislation), I think the best way to do is still using the SI's official title in Wikisource.
 * As it seems that you contacted me because of the Scriptorium discussion, I believe 's comment is also useful for your reference.廣九直通車 (talk) 03:01, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Hmm, I have been pinged (use noping if you wish to be quieter). At the face level, without knowing a huge amount about the work, "Statutory Instruments (1964)" or a variation seems more appropriate as it does not seem to be a serial work and I think that each work would be separately disambiguated rather than sitting with the single parent, and each section would be subpage to disambiguated parent work. We can use either a number or a name for subpages under that, and often that is guided by the linking and referencing. I often prefer textual names as they give clear, and contextual reading and understanding to a title, rather than a somewhat meaningless number. ToCs in works often are a great guide to how to name, but also think about how the audience will work with what we have, then again also think about how you will link previous/next in a work, the convenience of consecutive numbers Number 1 / Number 2 / Number 3 / ... can make things sweet, and a regex can be set to make that insertion easily. — billinghurst  sDrewth  04:58, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
 * These are collated volumes, that were published annually, up to around 1997 or so.
 * The numbered approach is for internal purposes (and partly to avoid having to disambig simmilar names), I'm planning on setting a redirect to the title(s) it gives for citations.
 * ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:13, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

versions
Hi. I thought that I had been suitably specific, though it appears not. The page Criminal Code Act 1995 (Australia) which has been converted to a redirect, can only be changed into a versions page. It would not be utilised to house a work. Once we have more than one version of a work, the actual title name is used as the versions disambiguator, and all versions would have a different suffix to identify the version that they are. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ by creating Criminal Code Act 1995 (Australia, as enacted).廣九直通車 (talk) 05:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Okay, also noting that Australian legislation (state or federal) typically has an edition number of its own, eg. see this Act at https://www.legislation.gov.au/Series/C2004A04868 . I would have thought that citing the specific edition is as exacting as you can get, though I note that their website does not go back far enough for the original enactment. — billinghurst  sDrewth  07:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's authorized version C2004A04868, for your information.廣九直通車 (talk) 09:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

The Indictment Rules 1971
The simplest way to put a scan behind these rules would be to upload a scan of the Statutory Instruments 1971, Part II, section 2. I will do this as soon as I have time. James500 (talk) 07:02, 5 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, so this would be done like how the UKPGA compilations (like this 1961 version) are imported here?廣九直通車 (talk) 05:03, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
 * The index is at Index:Statutory Instruments 1971, Part II, section 2.pdf. The rules begin at page 3617. James500 (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Ah, many thanks for your upload! Will look at the Rules ASAP.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:56, 9 April 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI, just used a few minutes to format the whole Rules into a neat and tidy scan-backed version. Many thanks for your upload and assistance!廣九直通車 (talk) 09:53, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Some local files
I was going through some local files and found File:Inland Revenue Ordinance, 1947 (Cap. 112).pdf and File:Interpretation and General Clauses Ordinance 1966 (Cap. 1).pdf of yours. It seems these can be moved to Commons, but I wouldn’t want to be over-hasty, as I’m not sure of the exact interaction of their laws regarding copyrights in law. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:19, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, they can indeed be moved to Commons: see Copyright Ordinance section 183 (copyright for ordinances last for 50 years) and Schedule 2 paragraph 36 (s. 183 applies to existing ordinances). Currently the Copyright Ordinance (Cap. 528) is still being updated, though these provisions are not touched by that amending legislation.
 * The problem is that we lack an equivalent copyright template at there: c:Template:PD-HKGov only mentions government copyright, but not ordinance copyright (which is somewhat more relaxed for not having the commercial publication requirement). I asked Commons to see if a template can be created, but there is no response.
 * Would you be able to create copyright templates in Commons for Hong Kong ordinances in public domain? Many thanks.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:50, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * 廣九直通車: c:Template:PD-HK-legislation should work, so you can move the files over now. I’ve just finished proofreading your Index:Copyright Act 1987 (Malaysia Act 332).pdf: (1) does it look good and (2) would you be able to find the later acts which amended it? The handwritten notes give some numbers (AA775 seems to have been important), and the tracker gives some dates; I was wondering if you had some connections. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:07, 5 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your work! I'll then proceed to migrate the PD-ed ordinances to Commons. Sometimes I do really loathe the Malaysian AGC for producing woeful scans, in addition to frequent missing files, missing pages, using revised/reprint editions as original gazetted versions, or otherwise terrible PDF scans. They're still better than Singapore for making older legislation available.
 * In my opinion, I think it's better to leave all sidenotes related to section headings to one side, like what I did. I also usually anchor the provisions for better access.
 * Yes, you're right, AA775 seems refers to the Copyright (Amendment) Act 1990 [Act A775], which was enacted before the Act was reprinted, and has retrospective provisions.
 * Please tell me if you have other problems.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:13, 7 May 2023 (UTC)
 * That Legitimacy Act scan is truly awful. What would be a good choice for a single template? And would you happen to know of a scan of Act A775? Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:42, 6 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I've done the translations on c:Template:PD-HK-legislation, but for some reasons, I still can't transfer the PD files to Commons. They just say the licenses are incompatible.
 * We don't have a license for Malaysian official works. I used the standard PD-EdictGov when dealing with Security Offences (Special Measures) Act 2012. Perhaps a Template:PD-Malaysia-legislation could be created? The Malaysian AGC only have copies of amendment Acts after 2011, and amendment Acts before 2006 are extremely rare. They probably only exist in the library...廣九直通車 (talk) 00:40, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * You should be able to export them now. (The template needed to be added to the list at mw:Extension:FileImporter/Data/en.wikisource.) Would you have an idea of the name for the collections of acts or the gazette of publication for the acts? If you do, I can probably request a scan of them through my library. The on Commons mentions Government copyright, and together with  will cover both local and U.S. copyright, so I don’t think another template is needed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:22, 9 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, and I have exported all of these files to Commons. I think it's the Federal Government Gazette Acts Supplement. What I mean is that should we also create a dedicated copyright template for Malaysian government edicts.
 * BTW just want to know what kind of library is so powerful to host these kind of resources? I think in Hong Kong they only host nothing more than the local legislation. If it's possible, could you also take a look to see is there any clues on the Internal Security Act 1960 (Malaya Act 18 of 1960, revised Act 82)? By all means ICCPR violating, it's certainly a key point on Malaysian and Singaporean political history.廣九直通車 (talk) 02:42, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I have sent for them—they should come in later this week or early next week, hopefully. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Will wait for your updates. I'll also help with improving and validating the Malaysian Copyright Act.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:22, 11 May 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-HK-legislation
Note that being public domain in Hong Kong is insufficient: all works on Wikisource must be public domain in the US. That it is PD in Hong Kong (or other country of origin) is only relevant insofar as it affects its copyright status in the US. This is unlike Commons where they require a work to be public domain in both the country of origin and in the US, and thus they often need to tag a file with a country-specific license tag (which should always be accompanied with a US-specific tag).In other words, any license template should primarily address the copyright status in the US and under US law, and foreign status only to the degree it affects the US status. PD-HK-legislation, for example, should probably say that because it was authored by a competent legislative body and originally published in English, it is an edict of government under US copyright law. It can also say that it is PD in Hong Kong, but then only secondarily and as a convenience for our reusers.PS. I haven't checked any of the works you've recently applied this template to, so the above is based only on the text of the template itself. If, for example, any of the texts are a third-party translation, or the Copyright Ordinance doesn't exempt official translations from copyright, then their actual copyright status could be a problem. Xover (talk) 14:11, 26 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I modified the template to insert information on the U.S. copyright status. I'll say the template is still needed, as there're some still-copyrighted legislation that could be transferred to Commons after 1 or 2 years. Also as a jurisdiction that uses English in law there should be totally no problem with translation, as we always have an autoritative English text.廣九直通車 (talk) 06:19, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I added an extra sentence to make it clear that the works covered are not translations. Please check that I didn't misunderstand something. Xover (talk) 07:29, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
 * I think a documentation note would serve your purpose better, as otherwise things would be probably too lengthy.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:40, 28 May 2023 (UTC)

An Adventure in the Fourth Dimension
I see that someone else has restored this. Please note that, although the problematic tag refers to the source pages, it does not refer to the text here. The problematic parts are ads which are not part of the story and so not transcluded. -- Beardo (talk) 11:47, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Thanks, well noted.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Index:Firearms Act 1968 (UKPGA 1968-27 qp).pdf
As enacted version? I think this was significantly amended after the Hungerford and Dunblane incidents. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:17, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, it's the as enacted version by the Stationary Office. Isn't that by convention English Wikisource don't include the consolidated versions after amendments?廣九直通車 (talk) 12:36, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That is quite correct. You should mention the subsequent amending legislation in the header notes however, when you transclude (as you have been doing on other items of UK legislation.) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:43, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the Firearms (Amendment) Act 1988 (c. 45) and Firearms (Amendment) Act 1997 (c. 5)? Would mention them once everything's done. Also have no idea why there are primary provisions in these amendment Acts, it's clearly confusing :/.廣九直通車 (talk) 12:50, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes. Those are the ammending acts. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:51, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Some old indexes of yours
I’ve been going through and proofreading some of your old indexes, and there I’d like your help with. Index:Digitized version of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.pdf looks to be a modern (on-line) updated copy of the Act. Is this true? If that is so, do you have a copy of the original act which could be used as a replacement? Index:Subversive Activities Control Act, 1950 (McCarran Internal Security Act) (PL 81–831, 64 Stat. 987).pdf and Index:Alien Registration Act, 1950 (Smith Act) (PL 76-670, 54 Stat. 670).pdf are both from old Statutes volumes, which we have at Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 64 Part 1.djvu and Index:United States Statutes at Large Volume 54 Part 1.djvu. Volume 64 doesn’t have a pre-created text base, so the pages can be moved over directly. Volume 54 does, but in that case, the few pages can be moved over directly. If I have any more questions, I’ll leave them here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:48, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, so after reviewing, it seems that Index:Digitized version of Jammu and Kashmir Public Safety Act, 1978.pdf is indeed a consolidated version of the Act by India Code. Unfortunately they didn't host the original gazetted version (unlike the Kerala Police Act, 2011 that was also obtained from India Code), so I think it definitely needs a gazette scan by others. Also thanks for notifying me about the Stat. for the two pieces of American legislation, though I'm not that focused on the US though.
 * Just a follow up question: you mentioned that you've requested a copy of the Malaysian Internal Security Act 1960 at User talk:廣九直通車/Archive 1. Are you successful?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:36, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * For the Malaysian laws, I couldn’t get a good source for the other one (the copyright one) and the film didn’t come in. I’ll ask the librarian about that request, and then I’ll try another source. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, where did you find information on subsidiary legislation for Malaysian laws? I’m looking at proofreading and transcluding some of your old Malaysian law scans, but I want to have that additional information. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:28, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
 * You mean the Civil Aviation Regulations 2016 and Rules of Court 2012? Or do you want the exact commencement date by looking at subsidiary legislation (BTW that's P.U.(B), as opposite to P.U.(A) for rules, regulations and orders)? So far I think I'm only available to extract files from Malaysian Federal Legislation, operated by the Attorney General's Chambers. I have no idea on whether there are other websites hosting them.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:13, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Just the information like that you usually post for Singapore and Hong Kong laws, and like the information at Copyright Act 1987 (Malaysia)—so, the P.U.(B), I guess. Also, an update on Malaysian laws: the catalogues seem to be incorrect. None of the libraries listed as having the microfilm reels for the Gazette, on inspection, actually have the 1960 issue in question, probably owing to the off-hand nature of the original preservation on microfilm. I will try another method, but don’t hold your breath. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:40, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think I may had made a wrong reference: at that time the Gazette could well not be called the Federal Government Gazette (after all, there wasn't Malaysia at that time). From a 1953 scan, it seems that before 1960, the annual collection of statute law was called Federal ordinances and State and Settlement enactments passed during the year of 19XX, although I don't know how they call the annual series of the Federation of Malaya later on. Perhaps the best way to do is to send the Malaysian AGC an email (and also telling them their atrocious scan quality)? Though the typical Malay efficiency is... meh.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:05, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah, the catalogue work is shoddy and inconsistent—the catalogues show Gazette issues for that time period (early 1960s). My next was going to be to send an e-mail to them, and hope to get a response. If I write it formally enough, will they think I’m a lawyer, and get back to me more rapidly? Who knows… TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As for the new title, per this record, the last publication under that title was from 1957—do you have a scan showing the title page from after that year? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Old Colonial Ordinances of Hong Kong.
This may be of interest: - https://statutes.org.uk/site/collections/international/hong-kong/

The main-site has Bibliographic lists for a number of other jurisdictions as well. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:27, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Personally I mostly consult Hong Kong University's collections: for pre WW2 legislation I look for Hong Kong Government Reports Online (which produces generally good scans), while the other Revised Edition of the Laws collection is also sometimes useful to me.廣九直通車 (talk) 01:51, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Index:Copyright Act 2021.pdf
I’ve finished proofreading the main text of this (not the table of contents), and I wanted to know how you felt about formatting. I can help you a bit if you give me some pointers. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Wow, thanks (it's really unexpected to me, tbh)! I reviewed the first few pages, and the formatting looks good. Perhaps I could proceed to create the TOC and start dividing the Act into subpages based on the parts and divisions.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:10, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Update: Although in my opinion, adding anchors (eg.  for section 1(1)) will help with navigating this enormous piece of legislation.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * I think dividing it up by Part is a good idea. How does the anchor work for section items lower than subsection? Is it 1.1.a.i.A.BA. all the way down? How do you mark sections? Do you link to the sections from the table of contents? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:29, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes it is (by convention). As a reference, this is is the typical way I deal with sections.

"Section header

50.—(1) This is a subsection which contains—
 * (a) paragraph (a), including—
 * (i) subparagraph (i);
 * (ii) subparagraph (ii);
 * (iii) subparagraph (iii); and
 * (b) paragraph (b).

(2) This is another subsection."


 * Linking sections from the TOC is possible, though I'd like to finish the TOC first before moving onto further linking.廣九直通車 (talk) 04:37, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * And for your information, I've finished with the TOC, will proceed to post it on New Texts. It's really a big project to deal with, thanks for your contribution!廣九直通車 (talk) 12:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 * That’s great! It’s been a nice project to work on. If you want to split the work of adding the anchors, I can start from Part 6 or so. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Requests for UK acts
I came across several UK acts from the early 20th century in the work Hints About Investments. I was wondering if you were interested in making any of them into blue links.

Here's a list:
 * Trustee Act, 1893
 * Colonial Stock Act, 1900
 * Metropolis Water Act, 1902
 * Housing Act, 1919
 * Trustee Act of 1925

There are probably more; just check the transcription if you want some more examples. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:14, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * I think the first four (which are since been repealed) has to be find in the Public General Acts series, but the last Trustee Act 1925 is still current legislation, and Fae uploaded its scan at File:Trustee Act 1925 (UKPGA Geo5-15-16-19 qp).pdf, regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 00:58, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * And here are the remaining enactments in the Public General Acts or on Commons:
 * Trustee Act, 1893, pp. 197-240
 * Also available in File:Trustee Act 1893 (UKPGA Vict-56-57-53).pdf
 * Colonial Stock Act, 1900, p. 194
 * Metropolis Water Act, 1902, pp. 103-137
 * Also available in legislation.gov.uk, not yet uploaded by Fae
 * I suspect the author of your book wrote down an inaccurate short title (nonetheless common in lay authors): from the Public General Acts in 1919 I did found an Act named Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act, 1919: seeIndex:The Public General Statutes of the United Kingdom 1919 (9 & 10 George V).pdf, pp. 95-150
 * Also available in File:Housing, Town Planning, &c. Act 1919 (UKPGA 1919-35 qp).pdf
 * Regards.廣九直通車 (talk) 07:08, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
 * FYI the Trustee Act 1925 have been ✅. Whether I'll do the remaining depends on my workload and interest (I'm generally more interested with current laws than repealed salted fishes).廣九直通車 (talk) 14:03, 30 December 2023 (UTC)