Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2010-02

= Announcements =

New copyright tags for posthumous works
As some countries and areas copyright posthumous works based on how many years after posthumous publication but not author's death, I have finally initiated Template:PD-posthumous with automated function to update how many years after posthumous publication, like from 50 to 60 to 70 years. I suggest using it to better categorize posthumous works, but it should not be used alone while I am not ready to combine it with other tags.--Jusjih (talk) 04:38, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

ru:Викитека:Вавилонский форум (the Babel Scriptorium)
ru.WS has started an English language discussion page to help foster collaboration on translations and other interwiki issues. If you have any questions or ideas for ru.WS put them there and local community members who speak English will be watching. --Birgitte SB  23:53, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

= Proposals =

Move PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres?
After reading the Copyright Act of Canada more closely, I found that possibly copyrighted public speeches may have Canadian legal permission to post per Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto that I moved from Wikilivres:Template:PD-manifesto and rewrote, after discussing with Yann at Wikilivres:Wikilivres:Community_Portal/en. I would like to ask users here, especially my dear fellow administrators, if we should move PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres. I propose this as Possible copyright violations talks about 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech. Meanwhile, I also ask Chinese Wikisource users about a similar page move, as I consider allowing PD-manifesto on Wikisource possibly encouraging more abuses and endless arguments, therefore contrary to wmf:Resolution:Licensing policy about Free Content License.--Jusjih (talk) 04:05, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nice find, that would free up just about all speeches, wouldn't it? I can get cracking on recent Canadian works...Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:David Livingstone. 04:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Great news! I'm very glad if these are indeed acceptable at Wikilivres under Canadian law; it frees up the concerns that we have here of PD-Manifesto simply being applied willy-nilly to texts that are (usually clearly) not intended to be freely licensed, simply because we would like the text. Indeed, if we do recommend these texts go to Wikilivres, I think we should go through the non-speeches and assign them a license per-text, and remove PD-Manifesto completely. Jude (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps any Wikilivres administrator including myself can start importing PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres, then delete them here, possibly without further discussion, though courtesy messages to their contributors will be better, as IP edits on Wikilivres are severely restricted after excessive vandalism.--Jusjih (talk) 20:46, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Nah, only dead fish ”go with the flow” ... Cygnis insignis (talk) with apologies to Sarah Palin, please don't sue me!
 * Does that mean you are against moving speeches hosted here, notably of dubious legality, to Wikilivres, where they would (apparently) be hosted without copyright issues? Jude (talk) 02:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Who put that notice at the top of the page?  I think we should argue each case individually on its merits, rather than prejudging them all.  For example we would have to give up the Dalai Lama's manifesto for one thing.  ResScholar (talk) 04:42, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I believe it would specifically cover speeches such as 2009 Alaskan Governor Resignation Speech that have been tagged as PD-Manifesto without any noticeable evidence of their being intended to be released in such a manner. The other non-speech works would (and shouldn't) be removed en masse: they need to individually be judged. Jude (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I posted on the top due to very serious copyright concern of the topic. I never intend to prejudge them all. Some speeches are not made so "publicly", so they do not even fit PD-manifesto right here. I agree Jude to individually judge relevant works. Only those clearly compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL should stay here, otherwise, Canadian Wikilivres if fitting Wikilivres:Template:Manifesto, or delete without exporting. These three choices are being applied on Chinese Wikisource as well. As the only administrator of both Chinese and English Wikisources, I now see PD-manifesto misleading too many contributors on both subdomains who could post clearly acceptable works.--Jusjih (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with the copyright concerns, and had only recently decided to start going through the category and highlight texts which don't seem to be free. There are a lot of speeches on Wikisource that are of dubious freedom, and they all need to be investigated sooner, rather than later. Jude (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Comment. FWIW... The Palin Resignation Speech was published on the official Alaska state .GOV site at some point prior to or soon after the event taking place, so I can't understand why it would not be covered as any other publication is covered that can typically be found for public inspection on any of the 50 state's official sites. George Orwell III (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is currently a discussion regarding its copyright state at WS:COPYVIO, which would be a better place for your comments. Regardless, as pointed out by Prosfilaes, states can and frequently do claim copyright on works. Just because something is freely available on their website does not make it free and useable on Wikisource. Jude (talk) 00:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sure each state will look at things differently, and I believe that it was not that long ago that Oregon gave up enforcing protection of this sort.Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't read Section 32.2 of the Canadian Copyright Act the way most seem to be doing. It protects "reports" ("comptes rendus" in the French version of the law). How does a report equate to a complete text? I still think that both projects should take a liberal view toward manifesti, but 32.2 alone is not a reliable authority for such action. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Comment. Not be a lawyer I say lets Keep It Simple if a Copyright is automatically granted upon creation unless disclaimer by the Author or the law make it public domain then PD-manifesto is no good because copyright is assumed. If a work is under copyright it under copyright no matter how many people say it is in Public Domain. There are maters internal to wikisource like Notability then there are maters external to wikisource like copyright. I say let play safe and do not have PD-manifesto or better yet let a Lawyer  do what Lawyers good for keep Wikisource out HOT WATER with to external world, By giving us good info and sometimes making the call.--Lookatthis (talk) 05:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think there's any danger of you being mistaken for a lawyer. ResScholar (talk) 07:51, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * While copyright is indeed a "Matter external", WMF sites have typically taken a more restrictive interpretation of copyright law than would be demanded by the law alone. If determining whether something is under copyright or in the public domain were so straightforward we would not be having this discussion. There is a very wide gap between what is clearly in one camp or the other. No lawyer can give a definitive answer that will safely apply in all circumstances.  The effective ones are able to argue either side of a case, and win.  "Playing safe" is too often a loser's strategy.Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 19:48, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * WMF can "have more restrictive interpretation of copyright law than would be demanded by the law alone" determining the copyright status is not straightforward That is why I now think we should let someone like an administrator who read lot more copyright law me make the call.--Lookatthis (talk) 23:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The connection between being an administrator and experience in reading copyright law is a non sequitur. Anyone who has been here for several years is familiar with these laws, and a multiplicity of opinions persist. The call should certainly not be in the hands of a single administrator who has his own strong POV about copyright law.  That would be an abandonment of community responsibility. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The question is whether playing it safe is a good strategy depends on how important pushing the limits is. Furthermore, we're making this available as Free Content, for people who may be forced to fold when a serious copyright complaint comes up, which is a good reason to play it safe.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:08, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * There is nothing wrong with folding when a serious copyright complaint comes up, and the situation is re-valued on its own merits, but neither is there anything wrong with defending against that complaint if that same re-valuation shows that defence is warranted. To make playing safe depend on the importance of pushing limits makes no sense at all. Nobody is proposing pushing any limits on this site. Playing safe is a kind of negative limit. Between the safe negative limit and the foolhardy positive limit there is a very wide range of options. Rather than retreating behind a doctrinnaire interpretation of Free Content, we would be further ahead by not being so risk averse. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Anyone can "pushing the limits" on their own webpage I am not recommending that, Wikisource needs clear limits.--Lookatthis (talk) 00:53, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikilivres would be free to claim under Sections 29-29.2 which suggest that the purposes of "research or private study" allow full reproduction under Fair Dealing. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din. 20:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Although there are some notable differences Canadian fair dealing and US fair use are remarkably convergent. If the lecture provision is not applicable, and we must depend on fair dealing, we are no further ahead than if we relied on fair use. I am concerned that this proposal may be nothing more than passing the buck to the Canadian legal system. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is a misconception: fair dealing does not allow full reproduction, and is in fact explicitly prohibited on Wikisource. (Even if this were not a problem, fair dealing would not confer any of the other rights required by Wikisource.) --Piet Delport (talk) 09:35, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Actual manifestos, perhaps. Tagging a speech as a manifesto "just because I want it on Wikisource" is the sort of thing that will cause legal issues for the foundation. We cannot take a liberal view towards manifestos, and we shouldn't take a liberal view to manifestos because the PD-Manifesto template, as far as I understand, has absolutely no legal backing whatsoever. Jude (talk) 22:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that is right--Lookatthis (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The view that "manifesti" will cause legal issues for the foundation is speculation and urban legend as credible as the belief that the sewers of New York City are full of alligators. I can't say that I like the term "manifesto", and I do have concerns about its imprecision and lack of clear legal backing. Maybe the place to start is with a clear definition of what we mean with that word. This is not a simple question of "wanting it on Wikisource."  Copyright law does not exist in a vacuum, and needs to be balanced by other considerations, such as the public interest. Copyright in common law countries is historically an economic right; this is also reflected in the fair use factor about the effect on a work's market.  Works that could receive the "manifesto" label are largely political in nature — a politician of the day speaking on a current issue. Is it in the public interest to have a politician's words so tied in copyright knots that the transparency required for accountability is thereby so severely hampered. There is an element of irony in the notion that Sarah Palin would need to depend on a freer Canadian law to have her words properly reported. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't appreciate my concerns being compared to urban legends. If we're going to go down the route of name calling and rude comments, then I think this discussion is a moot. Jude (talk) 10:04, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't see how you can confuse a statement that something is an urban legend with a comparison. There was in fact neither name calling nor rude comments. Lighten up! Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The loopholes for "public interest" in copyright law are called fair use. If Palin challenged the use of her speech as part of a manifesto from an extreme right-wing group on copyright grounds, she'd probably win; thus the speech isn't public domain.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:14, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with "loopholes", nor is the discussion advanced by attempting to conflate public interest with fair use. Neither does the applicability of fair use or public interest imply public domain. Who's arguing that? A document whose publication is in the public interest may or may not pass the fair use tests.  Public interest in the present context is about the right of the public to be correctly informed about the pronouncements of major political figures, free of political spin.  This allows the public to make informed decisions.  It is conceivable that this could apply to some other speakers, but I'm not yet ready to make a case for them. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:28, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
 * In the US copyright law, public interest reuse falls under fair use. There's no right to quote in full the text of major political figures; if we want information about The Audacity of Hope, we have to provide a non-derivative summary and explanation, not the text of the book.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:50, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Where in the Copyright Act does it mention Public interest? But if people are going to fall for your conflation there's not much that can be done about it. And why bring up The Audacity of Hope as a straw man? We were talking about speeches; books were never a part of the discussion before this. If there is no right to accurately report political speeches how can anyone be sure that "a non-derivative summary and explanation" is accurate? Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 08:23, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't mention public interest in the copyright act, where are you getting your legal justification to do this? Why is reproducing polished bits of propaganda exactly more important than reproducing books and reports? There's a lot of things you have no right to exactly copy; we know that non-derivative summaries and explanations are accurate because of our trust in the source, and if we have concerns, we compare several sources. And again; Free content, not we can post it. There's lots of folding, spindling and mutilating that Free content demands that aren't in the public interest.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:40, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Definitely no go
 * Eclecticology is right: what 32.2 allows is to "make or publish, for the purposes of news reporting or news summary, a report of a lecture given in public, or an address of a political nature given at a public meeting", which
 * does not equate the complete text, and
 * does not permit the other rights also required by Wikisource's free content definition, beyond just publication (that is, modification and exploitation by anyone, in any form, and for any purpose)
 * It certainly does not make the work public domain, as the use of a PD-* template would suggest. --Piet Delport (talk) 09:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)


 * In which case, we need to consider each and every work that is currently tagged PD-Manifesto. I have already said before that I believe each work with this tag should have a detailed rationale. Those for which a detailed rationale cannot be provided should be deleted. Jude (talk) 10:10, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Wikisource requires cc-by-sa-3.0 and GFDL, so reproducing the entire copyright-restricted work to claim "fair" use is impractical and thus forbidden, but Wikilivres just requires any permission to post in Canada, even if non-commercial and non-derivative. Most speeches and manifestos are unlikely getting Wikipedia articles, so perhaps making or publishing for the purposes of news reporting or news summary is possible with a short introduction in the Wikilivres header, maybe combined with Canadian fair dealing while the activities of Wikilivres are strictly non-commercial while not promising that downstream users may commercially copy everything. US fair use and Canadian fair dealing have no clear boundaries with copyright infringement http://en.wikisource.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_sig.pngregarding how much may be legally quoted. To clear this matter, we should review the Copyright Act of Canada carefully. Even if moving PD-manifesto works to Canadian Wikilivres is not feasible, many can be found on the web.--Jusjih (talk) 03:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, each and every work should be considered individually. "PD-Manifesto" is a problematic term. I would prefer a "Public interest" category, though I am aware of the vulnerability of that term to abuse. This would primarily refer to certain political speeches. Most people who make such speeches do so in the moment without any consideration of copyright, and they only receive it because of the broad automatic operation of the law.  A detailed rationale would have the same effect, but if, for example, we considered replies to a State of the Union message it should not be necessary to go into detail for each of these. A single rationale for a class of speeches should suffice. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 04:13, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should copy the speeches there, not move it. The latter would (presumably) mean deleting the speeches from Wikisource, which I don't think is necessary. --Ixfd64 (talk) 19:44, 11 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikisource doesn't discuss what Wikilivres does; if they or anyone else wants to copy the speeches, they are free to do so. But Wikilivres says "You are welcome to publish texts here if they cannot be accepted in Wikisource. Texts that can be accepted in Wikisource should be published there." So the discussion here is getting rid of a mess of content that's questionably Free content at best.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
 * To respond to Ixfd64, Wikilivres never wants to duplicate anything acceptable here. As PD-manifesto is merely the presumed but not necessarily confirmed public domain, it is not really acceptable. M. L King, Jr's "I Have a Dream" is rejected here due to confirmed case law with no evidence of licensing compatible with GFDL and CC. Tagging PD-manifesto deprecated, I may want to start clearing the 100+ pages through WS:COPYVIO to discuss whether to keep them here (with compatible license), move to Wikilivres, or delete without move.--Jusjih (talk) 02:52, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
 * I just started a subsection at Possible_copyright_violations, but I prefer to list involved 100+ works in a special subpage if no one objects.--Jusjih (talk) 03:53, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Possible_copyright_violations/Special_discussion_for_pages_tagged_as_PD-manifesto to be more specific.

I don't know what's been going on here, but public speech and manifestos intended for the public are inherently without copyright, at least in the U.S. So can we fix the template now? -- Kendrick7 (talk) 11:46, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you have cite for that? For one counterexample, courts have ruled that Martin Luther King's I have a dream speech was not inherently without copyright.--Prosfilaes (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Pardon. Would you mind pointing to THAT ruling if at all possible when you get the chance. TIA.
 * ... and fwiw, I think the poster may be refering to points discussed in the 'Inclusion Question' sub-section somewhere below George Orwell III (talk) 23:57, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Golan v. Gonzalez
Moved here from Possible_copyright_violations:--Jusjih (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with this case and its related cases. I researched this case when Yann mentioned that URAA Restorations would not be sustained. To me Golan v. Holder seems to say that if a work produced in a country foreign to the United States was in the public domain in the United States prior to 1994 (for example because copyright registration or renewal was not complied with) which is when the United States URAA Restoration acts were passed, it stays in the U.S. public domain. Does anyone else read this differently? ResScholar (talk) 05:49, 7 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The last page of the Judge's decision in Golan v. Holder says "Accordingly—to the extent Section 514 suppresses the right of reliance parties to use works they exploited while the works were in the public domain—Section 514 is substantially broader than necessary to achieve the Government’s interest."


 * seems like a helpful and hopefully accurate summary. In particular, this paragraph seems to say the question on whether we are free to upload these works, even in the Tenth Circuit, is still up in the air, as we're not a reliance party.


 * The second significant issue will be whether the statute should be invalidated on its face as overbroad, or whether it should be invalidated only as applied. If the statute is invalidated on its face, that would allow these plaintiffs to use ANY work of foreign origin that is in the public domain, whether or not they had relied on its public domain status. Indeed, unless and until Congress acted to fix the statute, even non-reliance parties could use works of foreign origin in the public domain. If the statute is invalidated only as applied, that would allow these plaintiffs to use only those works that they were in fact using prior to the restoration, which would be a much narrower decision. In either case, because collateral estoppel does not apply to the government, a decision by the Tenth Circuit would be binding only on the parties and others within the Tenth Circuit; it would not be binding outside the Tenth Circuit. Parties in other circuits could still sued (or prosecuted) for infringing works of foreign origin that were in the public domain prior to restoration.


 * As for whether we could be considered reliance parties:


 * Congress would almost surely try to enact some version of copyright restoration again. Remember, the plaintiffs conceded that Article 18 of the Berne Convention requires some type of restoration. [...] There also would be the question of whether a new statute would apply only to parties that relied on the public domain status of a work before its INITIAL restoration (on January 1, 1996), or whether a new statute would also have to protect parties that relied on the public domain status of a work after that date, but before the effective date of the new legislation. If Congress is required to start anew, a party who is considering utilizing a work of foreign origin that is in the public domain for failure to comply with formalities might be well advised to begin using such a work right away, in order to ensure its continued right to use such a work after the next restoration.


 * (And, yes, that's all fair use material, not GFDL or CC.) So we don't know whether Section 514 of The URAA has been overturned or not--I think the question of whether the court is going to void it in whole or consider it invalid in certain cases, not including us, is still up in the air--, we do know that the case is going to be appealed and that it's not yet been ruled on in a court binding on us, and we pretty much know that Congress is going to pass a new law with the same effect on us if this case survives on appeal and that it or may not require us to remove all the texts we uploaded.


 * Given all that, I don't see us as justified in uploading works not covered by the URAA, even if there is a narrow chance that we might get to keep them after all is said and done.


 * I'd also like to point out that the ramifications of ignoring the URAA are much different here from the Commons. The vast majority of non-American works published prior to 1989 would be fair game. Everything written in India in the 1980s would be acceptable. I've seen people storm out of Distributed Proofreaders because we were doing pre-1923 Finnish works by an author who died a mere 50 years ago; how many people are we going to alienate by accepting works by living authors made in the 1980s?--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:53, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your last paragraph: why is it different here than in Commons? Indian law is 60 years pma, so I also don't understand your reference to works from the 1980s. Thanks, Yann (talk) 16:15, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Because Commons requires that it be in the public domain in its home country, whereas en.Wikisource has only required that it be in the public domain in the US. Hence the vast majority of works worldwide published prior to 1989 would be in the public domain save the URAA, regardless of its copyright at its home nation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not so sure. At least for European works, I don't think there is a significative difference of quantity: only works of authors who died between 1926 and 1938 are concerned by URAA. While there are some European works which are public domain in USA but not in Europe because there were published before 1923, but the authors died after 1938. Yann (talk) 18:45, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * No; if a work published prior to 1989 wasn't registered for copyright in the US, it was in the public domain in the US. For legal reasons, the Copyright Office has lists of works that were in the public domain that the copyright holder now wants to express legal ownership of; this list includes "Keiji monogatari 3 shiosai no uta", i.e. a 1983 movie, and this list includes the more literary Bambi, written by Austrian Felix Salten, died 1945.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Prosfilaes, for sifting through the case and its commentary and sharing your learned understanding of this new wrinkle in copyright law. ResScholar (talk) 08:21, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The URAA copyright restoration since 1996 did not accept the rule of the shorter term. I wonder if any appeal has been filed. I expect the US Congress to try a constitutional amendment to support any new copyright restoration on foreign works once published without complying with US formalities. This court case would not affect foreign works published while complying with all US formalities, in which case they would never lapse US copyright while the rule of the shorter term does not apply. In case of any doubts in the USA, Canadian Wikilivres can host most works that may be under URAA copyright restoration.--Jusjih (talk) 20:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Will the following statement in a new copyright tag be fine?
 * "This work once lapsed its copyright in the USA for failure to comply with the US formalities. Section 514 of the Uruguay Round Agreements Act restored the lapsed copyright but was declared violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution pursuant to Golan v. Holder where Judge Babcock of the US District Court for the District of Colorado ruled on April 3, 2009 in the conclusion: "Congress has a legitimate interest in complying with the terms of the Berne Convention. The Berne Convention, however, affords each member nation discretion to restore the copyrights of foreign authors in a manner consistent with that member nation’s own body of copyright law. In the United States, that body of law includes the bedrock principle that works in the public domain remain in the public domain. ......"
 * I would like to request comments before starting a new copyright tag coded "PD-2009". I would also like to ask whether those still copyrighted at home should be excluded or included here. Based on the ruling, the American non-acceptance of the rule of the shorter term may cease to apply to foreign works published without complying with US copyright formalities, i.e. published through 1963 with no renewal, through 1977 with no notice, or before March 1, 1989 with no notice and no registration within 5 years. Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. as a decision by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York is not legally binding, and so would Golan v. Holder. The matter depends on whether there are any appeals filed.--Jusjih (talk) 22:29, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think that all appeals have been exhausted in Golan v. Holder, and I'm just not comfortable playing around with it. One big difference between Corel and Golan is that the ink has dried on Corel, and it's been cited in other cases outside its circuit.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:17, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Perhaps the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure govern any appeals. Likewise, Wikimedia Commons community considers files tagged commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA too early to be considered fully acceptable in the USA, without mass deletion there yet. We should also discuss what to do with similar works without US licenses here, while many of them are acceptable on Canadian . Moving texts is much easier than moving files like images.--Jusjih (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
 * As we are not fully comfortable that Golan v. Holder has been sufficiently "finalized", I just made Template:Not-PD-US-URAA based on and simplified from commons:Template:Not-PD-US-URAA. Please edit it as needed. Most works under this tag may be sent to Canadian Wikilivres when erring on the side of caution. I look forward to hearing Judge Babcock's ruling becoming more "finalized" like Bridgeman Art Library v. Corel Corp. before renaming the tag to something like "PD-2009", parallel to PD-1996, while I am proud of renaming Template:CWMG-copyright to Template:PD-India-CWMG to celebrate the 2009 New Year.--Jusjih (talk) 04:20, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

PD-USGov and collapsible pages
When reading Copyright status of work by the U.S. government, I see that the USA can still hold the copyright of works covered by PD-USGov in other countries (if allowed there). As we did not yet have Template:HideH or Template:HideF for collapsible pages as in English Wikipedia or Chinese Wikisource until now, I tried in good faith to edit PD-USGov when involved works may also be in PD outside the USA, or the USA can still hold the copyright abroad, while thinking globally like in PD-old-50-1923 and PD-old-70-1996. However, Clindberg made massive reversion while being USA-centric, contrary to Mission about "around the world". As I seek third-party opinion about my involved dispute, I am also bringing Template:HideH and Template:HideF for collapsible pages for certain purposes: After all, my thought is to be bold but not reckless.--Jusjih (talk) 03:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 1) If my edited version makes the tag too large, putting the copyright status outside the USA within HideH and HideF will allow readers to see or hide them.
 * 2) Some works hosted here are PD in the USA but still copyright-restricted at home without license compatible with cc-by-sa-3.0. Using collapsible pages to enclosed texts still copyrighted at home with warning statements outside will better protect some users from unintentionally violating others' copyright at home. Chinese Wikisource article zh:論動體的電動力學 translated from "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies" (original German in 1905 by Albert Einstein who died in 1955) uses collapsible page. Even though already in PD in China, Hong Kong, Macao, and Taiwan (all 50 pma), it is still being copyright-restricted at home in Germany (70 pma), so any users in Singapore (also 70 pma copyright where Chinese is one of the four official languages) are also restricted, thus warranting collapsible page to protect Singaporean users. Some PD-old-50-1923 pages may warrant collapsible pages because our Pd/1923 tags do not tell whether the works are PD at home.
 * While testing Template:HideH or Template:HideF at On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies (1920 edition) without saving the change, I cannot hide anything. Maybe something is missing so they do not work as in English Wikipedia. Hopefully someone can debug.--Jusjih (talk) 03:39, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

= Other discussions =

= Questions =

Google Books
Google's project to scan 40 million books and what it may eventually mean to users like us is the subject of an interesting PBS Newshour piece. See Google's Goal: Digitize Every Book Ever Printed. Moondyne (talk) 10:27, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Music
Is there a WikiProject for music here? I'm trying to figure out the best way to add musical illustrations to old texts about music. I don't mean audio files. I mean images in musical notation. Thanks. Rigaudon (talk) 22:07, 31 December 2009 (UTC)


 * Interestingly, there isn't WikiProject, though we do have the inactive Song of the Day. We do have a number of works with music, and our last Proofread was Handel and it had excerpts for which we did screen captures and uploaded the works to attach to File:Romain Rolland Handel.djvu.  We were looking to explore music notation extension however no one had the combination of time/experience/willingness to progress the matter.


 * So, I suppose that for the moment the answer is to screen capture (I use FireShot Mozilla extension), upload to Commons (presuming original file is there) using the Derivatives tool, and link them in as File:s. When doing this, I usually build a page with the links at Commons, current example is Highways and Byways in Sussex billinghurst (talk) 05:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * What about Wikisource:Sheet music? Or oldwikisource:Category:Musical scores? -Aleator (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * There has been at some talk about a music wiki extension to display sheet music and play the sounds, but unfortunately it has languished. (https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=189). --Eliyak T · C 01:14, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Reference to bibliography
Newbie question: is there an example of how to link to a bibliography? Like the small numbers at the end of sections in Page:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu/123. Thank you. Wknight94 (talk) 23:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
 * First you need to decide on the structure you're going to tranclude these pages into. Assuming the root title will be A Compendium of Irish Biography and the bibliography will be located at subpage A Compendium of Irish Biography/Bibliography, then you should probably link them something like

68
 * For an example, see Page:Makers of British botany.djvu/390, part of Makers of British botany/Index.
 * Hesperian 03:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * A couple of things.
 * I did a tidy and sort of the work, and it is missing pages, see Index:A Compendium of Irish Biography.djvu. We may be better of getting a fresh copy of the file before we progress further. There is an alternate copy available via http://www.archive.org/details/compendiumofiris00webb
 * We have the template TOC link that would manage the linking to pages. However, one wonders with a little work, we would place anchors to each link and do it is a little more specific linking.
 * billinghurst (talk) 04:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Comment: My gut feel is that as the work is incomplete, and we have identified it early that the easiest alternative is to reload at Commons, and to ditch the beast with the exception of the few pages that we have proofread/validated which we can just move. Happy to do the mechanics at WS, however, would prefer someone with more bandwidth downloaded and uploaded the alternative file. billinghurst (talk) 04:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Downloading it ... slowly Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Uploaded, replacing the old file. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Happy New Year
Happy New Year and best wishes to all in the coming year. — Ineuw (talk) 02:00, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Ineuw, and for you too! --Zyephyrus (talk) 22:14, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Translations of Republished Ancient Works?
I am getting a book of works in Latin dating back to the 5th century. The book itself is a printing of manuscripts that were collected by a scholar recently and published in their original language. I intend to translate them into English for my own use. Now I know that the Latin itself is copyrighted and cannot be placed in the public domain. But what about my translation of them? Would these be in the public domain, if I chose? Also, if they are in the public domain, are they wikisource material? I know that wikisource does not permit self-publishing, but this is just a translation, so it seems to be a sort of grey area?Mad2Physicist (talk) 06:35, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * What year were they published? Check the year against http://www.copyright.cornell.edu/resources/publicdomain.cfm and if Latin versions are out of copyright, they belong at la:.  Either way,  if they are your translations then you will own the copyright to your own translations (your intellectual property), and, if you wish to contribute that to enWS, then please choose the appropriate tag at Help:Copyright tags to allow us to house them.  Also see Translations. billinghurst (talk) 07:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, the original manuscripts are obviously not copyrighted, but the publication/typesetting that I am getting of them was done in 1981 or so, I believe. So the originals are not copyrighted, and if I were to go and get the originals I could put them on la:, but I don't have access to the original manuscripts. But you say that if I translate them from the new typesetting, then that translation is my intellectual property? Thanks.
 * Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't any transliteration you create either PD or your own work alone? I'm assuming you drop the material added by the 1981 edition, of course. You can republish PD sources any way you see fit, that's the whole idea. Paradoctor (talk) 14:13, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, that is what I was wondering. I would of course not include any commentary made by the scholar, just a translation of the original stuff. But, as mentioned below, the scholar did use several different manuscripts to put together this typesetting...Mad2Physicist (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Kinda hard to say anything without knowing how much remixing has been done. Assuming the author was sufficiently detailed with sourcing, you can transliterate the different manuscripts separately, that should work in all cases. Failing that, just ask. If the author is anything like me, there should already be a set of such transliterations in electronic form, maybe s/he is inclined to share? Paradoctor (talk) 03:16, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You maybe meant translate? Anyway I think the scholar who did the work is dead, or I would just ask him (the works in question which I intend to translate are Pelagius' Expositions on the Pauline Epistles, a critical edition of which is available by Alexander Souter, and of which the first was translated by De Bruyn but that is copyrighted from 1993 and I think he only did one).Mad2Physicist (talk) 05:36, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "transliterate": That's what I get for checking terminology before I write. ;) No, the last sentence before my previous reply stated that the translation matter was resolved for you. I was referring to your wish to make the original latin texts available. Paradoctor (talk) 12:15, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, I don't think I can do that legally, as I think that would be copyrighted, but to be honest, I am a little unsure of that as well.Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:07, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Both the text and layout of the original manuscript are in the public domain, so you are free to post the text at the Latin Wikisource; and you would be free to post page scans of the manuscripts if you had access, which you don't. To the extent that the text of the 1981 publication is identical to that of the original manuscript, the 1981 text is also in the public domain; but beware of annotations, orthographic changes, etcetera. The typesetting of the 1981 publication is, as you say, copyrighted, so you don't have the right to post page scans. Your translation of the text is your intellectual property. If the text is in the public domain, then the translation is solely your intellectual property; if it is not, then your translation is shared intellectual property. In the former case, you are permitted, and very welcome, to release your translation under a suitable license, and post it here. Hesperian 08:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Right - here is the other concern. These works are available only in something like three manuscripts or families of manuscripts that have been found which all subtly differ from one another. So I am hoping that this edition (which is still in the mail to me at this time, I just thought I would ask about the copyrighting now anyway) clearly marks which manuscript has which sections so that I could do a public-domain translation (either by following one manuscript or by marking variants). I would of course love to get ahold of the originals but that is unlikely to ever happen, sadly, unless I ever meet someone with better connections than mine! I doubt that my own requests to see the originals would be heeded.Mad2Physicist (talk) 09:14, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We have plenty of works for which we wish the provenance was better, or clearer. If the provenance of individual sections is not as clear as you would like, but you're still willing to go to the trouble of translating them, we're still happy to host them. Hesperian 11:25, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, well I am going to translate them anyway for my own use, so, when I get that done, I will post them and if anyone finds a problem then they can always be removed. I don't think it will be an issue, however. It looks to me like it is "very likely" that the translation would be my intellectual property. Thanks for the advice.Mad2Physicist (talk) 02:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me try and weigh in with my understanding of US copyright law. While in theory the US copyright on unregistered, uncopyrighted texts was eternal, I've never seen it applied to pre-modern texts, and the copyright wouldn't be the property of the university, though the "I own it" copyright claim was, is, and will continue to be made. There's no copyright on typesetting, nor I believe on orthographic changes. Critical editions are a bit more confusing; to the extent that creative choices are used in choosing between pieces of different manuscripts, it's probably copyrightable. I've never heard of translators licensing the critical text before, so despite what the uberpedantic part of my head says, it's probably best to just translate it and not worry about it. (I'd like to say that you should talk to the author, and between scholars it shouldn't be a big deal, but publishers can get real huffy.) Oh, and Paradoctor, there's a big difference between transliteration (changing alphabets on a letter by letter basis) and translation.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:48, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * My English is bad, but not that bad! ^_^ We were talking about republishing the Latin text, not about the translation. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 04:08, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually I was talking about publishing my own translation of the Latin text, although I could possibly type up the Latin as well if it were allowed and people were interested.Mad2Physicist (talk) 04:14, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That would be transcription, unless we're using Cyrillic on la.WS now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:14, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * "transcription, which is a rendition of a word in a given script, based on the word's sound rather than as a process of converting of one script into another", Transcription shares this view. Paradoctor (talk) 04:34, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Hm? Transcription says that transcription "can also mean the conversion of a written source into another medium, as by scanning books and making digital versions."--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sure, but how does that contradict the idea that producing an electronic version of a Latin manuscript is a transliteration process? This almost feels like the vis viva controversy. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Transliteration doesn't mean that; look it up.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:23, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I did, why do you think I linked the articles in the first place? OED agrees, do you have any sources that contradict them? Latin manu-script to unicode, what could be clearer? A puzzled Paradoctor (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * That's not the OED, and it says the exact same thing Wikipedia does, only terser and less clear. Neither manuscripts nor Unicode are alphabets. Looking Google Books, Zupitza uses it in the sense you are in the 19th century, but the rest of the usages are clearly writing Russian or Arabic or Egyptian words in Latin characters.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * OED: Ouch! Right between the eyes! Thankfully, the other instances of this fail are buried in my edit history. ^_^
 * As for "other usages", I still don't see how the existence of alternate meanings invalidates the meaning used. By that line of reasoning, you would have to drop all ambiguous terms from the language.
 * Unicode is not an alphabet? I'll give you that if you promise to ponder an innocuous puzzle: What are the itty-bitty patterns of magnetic domains on my hard disk? Paradoctor (talk) 02:50, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


 * When I say that there's no copyright on typesetting, we couldn't use scans with the footnotes, nor could we use scans with critical text on them, but any scans that just had the original text from the manuscript (plus simple headers, page numbers, line numbers) could be uploaded, at least in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * "There's no copyright on typesetting." I did not know that, Prosfilaes; thankyou. In hindsight it makes sense, since copyright protects creativitity, and modern day typesetting has been robbed of creativity by a combination of automation and convention. But as with all things, there must be exceptions. Hesperian 05:27, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah that makes sense, it is really just a question of getting at the 'original' form of the manuscripts and not making use of the scholarly monkeying about (since there's several variants involved).Mad2Physicist (talk) 05:44, 2 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is a copyright on typesetting in the UK, from 25 years from the date published. See commons:Commons:Licensing. So if you're dealing with a UK book, or are based in the UK, then you need to take this into account too. There is also a database right, which lasts for 15 years (or for works from 1982-1997, until 2012). Neither of these would affect a book published in 1981, though - which should be clearly in the public domain if it just reproduces pre-existing works in the public domain. Mike Peel (talk) 11:23, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, in the UK and some other countries. But if you're in the US, the typographic or database copyright on British works isn't legally binding.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:50, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

New Public Domain texts
From 1 January 2010, some more texts have become public domain and therefore are eligible for uploading here. We at Wikimedia UK have done some media work on this and would appreciate hearing any examples you have uploaded of work that became public domain on 1 Jan. Please post a comment on our blog at http://blog.wikimedia.org.uk/ Thanks! AndrewRT (talk) 11:21, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The only works that have become public domain for our purposes, under US law, are works not published until 2002. That's not a very big set of books, unlike elsewhere in the world.--Prosfilaes (talk) 12:42, 1 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Gah! --Birgitte SB  20:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the "Gah"? Mike Peel (talk) 01:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it is misleading. The body of work by authors who died in 1939 are not acceptable here as public domain.  Their pre-1923 works have always been acceptable here and there post-1923 are still not acceptable here; nothing significant has changed.  The article implies that everything that just became PD in the EU is now acceptable to upload here and that is not true.--Birgitte SB  16:59, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * High time that WMF puts up a few servers outside of the US. Paradoctor (talk) 17:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * I agree that the telegraph article got a bit carried away, although that is probably somewhat our fault. See the original press release for what we said in the first place. Anyhow, doesn't the rule of the shorter term apply? Also, users in the UK (and all works with authors from the UK?) will have to obey both UK and US copyright law when uploading - so before the 1st e.g. I could not upload any Yeats, but now I can (and have). Mike Peel (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * No, the rule of shorter term does not apply in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * This would be a good time to point out that for the past four years I have campaigned on the idea we should allow works which are PD in either their home country or the United States. Daily Telegraph agrees with me :) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 18:27, 3 January 2010 (UTC)


 * The law is what the law is. As long as we're going to ignore our requirements under the law, I'd like to use the publication + 40 rules that Jim Baen pushed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:00, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that English Wikisource is not the only Wikisource. When the news articles say that the complete works of Sigmund Freud can now be made available at Wikisource, they're right: Freud wrote in German, and his works are now eligible to be included at German Wikisource, where 70 years p.m.a. is the only criterion. Angr 13:05, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * When the news articles in question are English language news articles which can only be seen as accurate regarding non-English Wikisources, I still find it misleading. Frankly the issue seems to me to be that Wikimedia UK passed out incomplete information and announced it here after the information was already released. We at Wikimedia UK have done some media work note the past tense. Which resulted in their understanding being corrected too late to be very useful.  I don't think the issue was that Wikimedia UK really meant to be telling people about what is acceptable at the German Wikisource.  Especially as they placed the notice here.--Birgitte SB  14:07, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We tried to be as open as we could be during this - the press release was on the wiki for some time, and was not actually started by WMUK's board but by volunteers, see the history of wmuk:Press releases/Public domain day. It was widely discussed on our mailing list, and it was mentioned here a few times (see above). It would have been better to have advertised it more widely, I admit. Anyhow, lessons learnt: let's make sure that future things like this happen more smoothly.
 * BTW, if the German wikisource only requires death+70, not accounting for US law, why does the English one use US law only? I can't see the logic there... I thought that US law was required as the servers are hosted in the US? Mike Peel (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe because the vast majority of German Wikisource's contributors, readers, and anyone who would want to reuse its content, live in the EU (or Switzerland or Liechtenstein, which have the same rules), which isn't true of English Wikisource. Angr 10:00, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I understood that the servers were located in Germany. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:44, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that's just the toolserver, which isn't actually a Wikimedia asset; it is run by the German chapter. My understanding is that all Wikimedia servers are located in the US; therefore whatever Wikimedia serves is subject to US copyright law; therefore no Wikisource should be hosting materials that are protected by copyright in the US. Hesperian 13:24, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Whichever way it was perceived, as a marketing move, it seems to have worked a wonder. There have been many new users at the site since the newspaper articles, and many bringing new contributions. All eager to learn and contribute. So CONGRATULATIONS to Mike and Andrew on that.

However, it is to the point, that it would be excellent if there more people who could spend the time to add welcome (logged in users) or (IP addresses) and to help patrol Special:RecentChanges offering some gentle advice and applying some gentle fixes. billinghurst (talk) 00:12, 5 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If the techies add Friendly to Gadgets, I use it on en.Wikpedia every time I come across a new arrival. Paradoctor (talk) 00:33, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I am a partial technoid, and will see whether it can come in "as is" or whether it is going to need big configuration. There is usually some layer of configuration, and it will depend on whether it is coded completely for WP, or whether we can insert our underlying aspects. But later. billinghurst (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgive the intrusion. I'm going to write a detailed post on it.Wikisource to point out the current copyright/PD conditions. On it.source we have the following problem:
 * As long as we upload Italian texts, we have to comply with Italian law about their copyright,
 * and, as long as servers are located in the USA, we have to comply with USA laws about copyright
 * Obviously when these laws clash we have to obey the hardest :)
 * So, as far as USA Law is concerned, how safely can I cite Help:Public Domain on my post? Thanks for your kind attention. -  &epsilon; &Delta; &omega;  11:22, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Genealogy?
Project scope question... What is the consensus about including old genealogy literature here? There are zillions (approximately) of old books about family history available. Just curious. Thanks. Wknight94 (talk) 18:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely it's the same as anything else: if they've previously been published and are not protected by copyright, they can be included, can't they? Angr 22:29, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Of course. It'd be great to have some genealogy works on here.  So long as they meet the requirements Angr mentioned, they won't run amiss of any policy.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:00, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Biggest problem will be the family trees as they don't wiki well, and we will probably need to have images of them. (To me, our existing templates are ugly) My solution to maximise the usefulness of that would be to put a list of names onto the talk page of the sheet, and we can probably transclude it somewhere useful, even if it is the corresponding talk page in main ns. Alternatively, I could see that we could look to use the Portal: namespace for such a venture. billinghurst (talk) 23:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
 * There is a kit at wikipedia, w:Template:Clade, that could perhaps be adapted for this purpose. Cygnis insignis (talk) 11:42, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * They are alright for showing a straight descendency, or an ancestry, however, no good for family trees which have multiple branching at a generation. This was a specific issue even for genealogy programs, so I see the solution as someone copy the image, or generate a new image in a software program, which, while having modern benefits, would never replicate the image as is. billinghurst (talk) 20:30, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Could you link an example? I'm curious, never a good sign. Paradoctor (talk) 22:19, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The clade template is mostly used for phylogenetic trees of organisms, such as that at Carnivora, and also for languages. Most geanological uses are for royal families, so as Billinghurst pointed out, they are no good for family trees which have multiple branching at a generation. I think there is some appropriate template, rarely used at Wikipedia. —innotata (Talk • Contribs) 23:14, 10 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The template is w:Template:Familytree, which can generate both vertical and horizontal trees. --Eliyak T · C 23:31, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
 * The Template:Familytree is also located here at wikisource.--Xxagile (talk) 00:13, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

LDS films
On an aligned point, I am wondering whether people know about the Latter Day Saints and their library collection Family History Library Catalog. Well they now have an online film ordering service so you can order in your film to your nearest centre. Go armed with your digital film scanner and I think that we are in business. billinghurst (talk) 23:12, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Proofread page help
I'm working on the Hymn to Dionysus and I'm confused by the documentation. It says " Section transclusion is possible for the first and last page: . ", which is great, but I have no clue what section2 and section1 is, and whether I can drop just one.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:41, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, if you're only doing full pages, then you can drop the section parameters (see The Passenger Pigeon/Chapter X). Sections are for when you want to include partial pages (see Ambrosius Aurelianus (DNB00)).  That's my newbie understanding anyway...  Wknight94 (talk) 18:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, next question, how do I get the spurious paragraph break to go away? Does it have anything to do with the fact I'm using pages not in order?
 * Should be fixed now. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:51, 6 January 2010 (UTC) Now it is :P 19:55, 6 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:27, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

(Q&D guide for those passing) Wrap and name the two sections of text, at the the first and last pages, with these:  The text on the first or last pages. 

then using  for the first and/or    for the last in the transclusion in main-space.

References in a single page display
On this single page display Popular_Science_Monthly/Volume_1/May_1872/Quetelet_on_the_Science_of_Man, transcluded from Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 1.djvu/55, Is it possible to hide the reference showing in the middle of the page, and display it only at the bottom? Now it's displaying in both places. — Ineuw (talk) 16:47, 7 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I fixed the problem. The issue was the djvu Page: was calling  and adapt the code of TOC for your page. Paradoctor (talk) 05:05, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Paradoctor, many thanks. Ignorance is painful and the learning curve is awful. I got it. — Ineuw (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Strange, I never noticed that. Though a lot of people say that about me. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 00:03, 30 January 2010 (UTC)


 * It may have been that the page needed to be purged. Ineuw, if you have the clock gadget, you can purge by clicking it.  Otherwise add ?action=purge to the end of the url. billinghurst  sDrewth  05:11, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple column list, continued
I implemented the TOC template and the uppercases work, but most lowercase doesn't. It's strange, and I suspect the limitation to be that of the template user. When given the inclination, and the curiosity, could someone look at the mystery? This issue lacks urgency. — Ineuw (talk) 15:50, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * If you look at the generated HTML, you'll note that the anchor names for the lowercase sections all have "_2" appended. That's Mediawiki's caps magic at work. I adapted the TOC accordingly. Paradoctor (talk) 16:32, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * Paradoctor, what can I say. If I were to wear a hat, I would tip it. But since I don't, I included an image of what it would be like. :-) I hope you like it. — Ineuw (talk) 19:46, 31 January 2010 (UTC)


 * :) Paradoctor (talk) 20:00, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

"Expansion depth limit exceeded"
Hello. On the TOC inclusion for Herschel I keep getting a lot of "Expansion depth limit exceeded" errors, but I can't for the life of me figure out where they're coming from. Calling contents pages from other books using the same code in Herschel works fine, yet copying those same contents pages into Page:Hector Macpherson - Herschel (1919).djvu/9 doesn't. My suspicion is that there's something odd in the header, but I can't figure out how to see the complete source to check this. Can anyone help fix this, please? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 00:21, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * TOC link requires that the name of the djvu file be the same as the main namespace file. It uses #switch, so when in the main namespace it is trying to pull up other components hence the error. billinghurst  sDrewth  04:47, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (Correction). It may have been the self reference to the page, which didn't seem to fix it when saved and all purged, however, when I tried a different type of linking and saved and purged, all the links worked. Moon perigee? billinghurst  sDrewth  05:08, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Does flood flag work here?
Permitted by our restricted_access_policy here, I was trying the flood flag to make repetitive changes to add for works by Robert W. Service to avoid flooding recent changes here, but I still see my repetitive edits even when logged out, so I wonder if flood flag works here.--Jusjih (talk) 04:43, 30 January 2010 (UTC) (a steward learning to use flood flag)
 * I don't see it here Special:UserRights, so that sounds like a no. You might see different things with your access. billinghurst  sDrewth  04:51, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We cannot add or drop the flag here. I could give me the flag temporarily only as a steward from Meta. Any stewards may add and drop flood flag on any wiki, but perhaps our wiki here has not enabled it. I do not know how to make bots.--Jusjih (talk) 02:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nominations for Featured text candidates and Proofread of the Month
There has been so much good work done on works, and so few nominations for FTC. I simply don't believe that it is the case, so get cracking, find examples of your good works, and please add them to Featured text candidates. Alternatively, if you can think of an anniversary event, for which we can promote a work, then that too is a point of interest. Or if you wish to progress a work, then it may be possible that we have it as Proofread of the Month. Lots of things are possible, and we like the challenge of something different, so please bring it on! billinghurst  sDrewth  07:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Watched pages

 * 1) How can I get to the line number of a watched page displaying the changes received in an email notice?
 * 2) Also, I get two email copies in most, but not all cases. Thought I should mention it. — Ineuw (talk) 18:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)