Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2015-08

= Announcements =

= Proposals =

Template and its documentation deletion proposal
I propose that this template with its documentation be deleted. Its history shows no links to articles or pages, was created in 2012, and superseded by the FIS template.— Ineuw talk 23:24, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Please make your proposal at WS:Proposed deletions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:28, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Though if it is predominantly yours, and not used after these years, just go ahead and delete it. Though as rightly says that deletion requests belong at this other page — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:01, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Deletion is done and in the future will do as instructed.— Ineuw talk 04:26, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Don't forget to clean up the (now orphan) ex-template documentation. AuFCL (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you, my guide and mentor, and I don`t say this facetiously.— Ineuw talk 21:29, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

= BOT approval requests =

=Help=

=Repairs (and moves)=

= Other discussions =

Famous passages as separate works
Does anyone want to weigh in on when a famous or popular passage should be listed as its own work on Wikisource? For example: The Lord's Prayer is an excerpt from The Gospel of Matthew, but I doubt anyone would exclude it as not being a work unto itself. However, this could give precedence for other popular passages: what about the Magnificat, Nunc dimittis, the Beatitudes, etc? I can't think of any non-Biblical examples at the moment. I think that a good treatment of this is the Ten Commandments, which simply links to Bible (King James)/Exodus. However, this runs into the issue that there are multiple versions/translations and it selects only one. I am inclined to do likewise with The Lord's Prayer, with just a list of parallel passages, and remove other translations. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:28, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh, here's another example: the hymn "Jerusalem the Golden" is an excerpt from the poem The Celestial Country, which in turn is a translation of an excerpt from De contemptu mundi. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:45, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
 * A secular example is The Walrus and the Carpenter taken out of Through the Looking Glass. Some of them should probably be redirects to sections/anchors in the text, while others could stand on their own with a cross-reference. is likely to have an opinion on where the balance point lies as I know she's been converting some poems to redirects. I'm not sure myself where that point of significance is and how it should be measured. Could we think of it in terms of scan-backing? If the work the excerpt comes from has no scan, then the excerpt can stand. If the work has a scan (that we're hosting), then the excerpt should be a redirect (or a versions page in the case of multiple hosting of the excerpt). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:59, 19 June 2015 (UTC)


 * "The Walrus and the Carpenter" (and "Jabberwocky" etc.) is a perfect example of what I was thinking of. Interestingly, those poems do have scan-backing, but only from the scan of Through the Looking Glass. You could, therefore, replace the text of The Walrus and the Carpenter with the transcluded text from the novel, and this would be an improvement to our copy of the poem. However, what then would warrant it having its own page? The only thing I can think of would be if we had a scan of it published as a work by itself.


 * To give a concrete example from something I am working on, I transcluded the Morning Prayer service from the Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) the other day, and it contains a number of readings. Some of the readings are obviously separate works quoted in full (like "We Praise Thee" and "O Glorious Light"), and I have put them on their own page. Some of them are also merely readings from scripture, like Psalm 100 or 1 Chronicles 3:1-15, and I have ignored these as excerpts. However, some that I have mentioned, like the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat, toe the line between, since they are parts of a larger work but are frequently used (quoted, referenced, published) separately.


 * I would be interested to hear 's opinion on this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)

I would think that the famous component will have been separately published and outside of the bible. I would suspect that we would utilise a disambiguation page is appropriate and utilise the note field to have your note of the various sources. It would not be a hard and fast rule as sometimes we are only going to have one version and it will be a redirect until we subsequent work. For a passage alone, I would think that we would call that a quotation and from the disambiguation page have a WQ link. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, . I think that this is the best way to determine if it deserves its own page, if it has been separately published outside the source work. A concern with this approach, like I mentioned to, is that there are works which contain extensive quotations from other works. The one I am working on right now is Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA), but I imagine any reader or anthology would be subject to this issue. Some quotations are full works and should be transcluded onto their own page. Some quotations are clearly meant as excerpts and should not. Some, however, like the Lord's Prayer or the Magnificat, appear to be understood as a full work (which they are sometimes published as), even though they are known to be excerpts.


 * Perhaps, a good rule of thumb is this: if there exists a copy of the excerpt published as its own work (and not as a quotation), then we can put it on Wikisource, and then we can put a disambiguation page which will link to the scan as well as to the places in the larger work where it exists. Otherwise, we can disallow it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Using your example of We Praise Thee, I would have made that page redirect (Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA)/The Daily Office/Daily Morning Prayer: Rite One) to the text within the Book of Common Prayer (ECUSA) where the passage itself begins instead of giving it its own page (even though transcluded). If more than one version exists on WS, then I would create a "We Praise Thee" versions page, pointing readers to the scan-backed versions available. I agree with Beeswaxcandle's assessment above. That would solve the question of whether a passage/poem "deserves its own page" outside of the indexed source text within which it is transcluded. Generally speaking, I believe it does not. There may be exceptions I am not yet aware of. Sorry I chimed in late... just getting back online, and hoping I understood the question. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:13, 8 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That's very interesting, as We Praise Thee (a.k.a. Te Deum) is a full work unto itself, and not an excerpt from a larger work. This is a slightly different question, and one which we have discussed before (although I don't think there was a definitive conclusion that time)—see Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2014. The two questions are of course intertwined, when you have a work such as the Book of Common Prayer which contains full works such as We Praise Thee as well as excerpts such as The Lord's Prayer.


 * It sounds like you are agreeing with User:Beeswaxcandle with regards to this question, namely that an excerpt should only be listed as its own work if we have a copy of the excerpt that was separately published as its own work. However, it sounds like you also have an opinion on the different question of separately transcluding fully cited works, which is that it should NEVER be done. This is different from what User:Billinghurst said in the previous discussion ("I have separately transcluded a work from an existing work where it is included in full, not an excerpt, and it is incidental to the work itself.").


 * This is an important discussion in my opinion, as I have done several prayerbooks and hymnals with the intention of having the cited prayers and hymns available on Wikisource, and I intend to continue doing so. I hope to get a good understanding of current consensus if it exists, and to create consensus if no consensus exists currently. Please let me know if I have mistaken your position. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:48, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't believe you have mistaken my position—which is only my general opinion. I feel it is redundant to have two accounts on WS from the same transcluded source. I would be interested in viewing a/the piece that has transcluded separate from an existing work as mentioned above and in the archived Scriptorium thread. I did admit that there could be exceptions, and I believe I have made such an exception with a few poems here, come to think of it,—for presentation purposes. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Blue Goodness of the Weald as presented in another work. — billinghurst  sDrewth  08:15, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Taking a look, that poem is excerpted from "Sussex" by Kipling in The Five Nations. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

No file Index:Economic and Social Council Resolution 2007-25.pdf
Commons deletion? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:13, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * See at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Economic and Social Council Resolution 2007-25.pdf Hrishikes (talk) 15:32, 3 July 2015 (UTC)


 * yep, after 1987 c:Template:PD-US-no notice-UN, maybe we need to have a word with the UN for some CC licenses. see also Administrative Instruction ST/AI/189/Add.9/Rev.1  Slowking4 ♡Farmbrough's revenge 21:19, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That user mistakenly marked many files created after 1987 for deletion when a good number still remained in the public domain. See w:Template talk:PD-UN for 's explanation. There's a chance that it is still in the public domain but you'd have to look into it. The Haz talk 20:59, 8 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I should add that document likely was deleted by mistake. It probably should have had c:Template:PD-UN-doc. The Haz talk 21:04, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Would like to add the Garnett translation of Dead Souls
I see that on archive.org there are two volumes of Constance Garnett's translation of Dead Souls by Gogol, published by Chatto & Windus (London, 1922). Since Garnett died in 1946, I gather this work has just entered the public domain in the US, but won't in the UK for a couple of years. So in this case I should upload the djvu files to Wikisource rather than to Wikimedia Commons? There's already the Hogarth translation on Wikisource (copied from Gutenberg), but the Garnett translation seems to be more accurate and complete. Mudbringer (talk) 07:59, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure of the copyright status in the United States. The Copyright Renewals include


 * DEAD SOULS, by Nikolay Gogol; translated by Mrs. Edward Garnett [i. e., Constance Black Garnett] (The collected works of Nikolay Gogol, v. 1 and 2) © 23Apr23, (pub. abroad 7Nov22), A704400. R71938, 1Dec50, David Garnett (C)


 * Which states that its copyright date in the US is 1923, despite, as the Copyright Office made note of, it was published in 1922. Wikilivres would take it, but let me look for other advice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:32, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Uggh. That is the registration date, which is when copyright would start unless it had been previously published, in which case it should have started then (of course, not according to the 9th Circuit).  Possibly the publication abroad was not "general".  Technically I think, the renewal had to be made before the 28th anniversary of the publication starting -- if that was 7 Nov 1922, then the renewal came a month late.  If it was 23 April 1923, then the renewal was right in the window.  (It was later that registrations were allowed to the end of the last calendar year, but maybe that was close enough and they allowed it.)  Or… maybe this was the old ad interim copyright for the foreign publication, which served a short while until copies could be manufactured in the U.S., at which point a proper registration could be made.  Maybe the 1922 date was for the ad interim copyright.  The Compendium I stated: An application covering an American edition or a work first registered for ad interim copyright should state the date of publication of the American edition, but should also indicate the year date of publication or the foreign edition.  Later it says: Ad interim copyright may be extended to the full term if an American edition is manufactured and published during the five-year ad interim period, and if a claim in the American edition is registered. (See item 8.4.6.ll.b.) In such case the full copyright term is computed from the date of first publication abroad.  (Compendium I, page 8-7, warning large PDF).   So it sounds like ad interim copyright was for a short time (though it did exempt notice requirements on the foreign works), and it could be extended to the full term by complying with the manufacturing requirements followed by registration, which as a guess sounds like happened in 1923.  But the above is pretty explicit that copyright started with the publication abroad.  If so, that would be 1922, regardless of the later registration.  In that case, 1923 is the full U.S. registration date and not the start of copyright.  I'm wavering but… I think I'll lean towards 1922 as the publication year for that, so U.S. expiry on Jan 1, 1998.   [As an aside, the Compendium I noted the Heim case, the one the 9th Circuit relied on in Twin Books, and noted that the Office did register works without notice under the rule of doubt up until the UCC came into force, which the Office thinks then changed the Heim doctrine.  But at the time, and per Heim, that only changed the validity of the registration, not the start date of the copyright… that was a 9th Circuit invention.]  The UK publication does have an "All rights reserved" but no copyright notice.  It's probably in Twin Books territory but I think most would consider it being PD in the US., so I'd lean OK for Wikisource.  It should become unambiguously PD in 2019.  Carl Lindberg (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thank you for your research and advice. I guess I'll go ahead and get started on it and see how it goes. Mudbringer (talk) 05:12, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Just a note -- Constance Garnett was British and died in 1946, and the UK is the country of origin, so the work cannot be uploaded to Commons until 2017 since that is when the UK copyright would expire. Carl Lindberg (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, that's what I thought. I've uploaded the djvu files to Wikisource here and here. I'll try making the index files tomorrow. Mudbringer (talk) 17:00, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Compendium of US Copyright Office Practices, II (1984).pdf
Any takers to push the last few index pages into proofread status so I can mark this for validation ( barring 2 pages that need symbol images)?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks, any takers for validation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:49, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-28
 Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * On the mobile site, you now see more information when you search for a page. It now shows the description from Wikidata.

Problems
 * The code of long pages is not colored any more. You may see this problem on the pages of long gadgets.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 7. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 8. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 9 (calendar).
 * The "Page information" tool shows how many users watch the page. You can now see how many are active.
 * You can now translate articles into English with the new translation tool.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the Editing team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 7 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.  15:13, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

The World Factbook (1982)
Anyone want to follow the pattern set and assemble this? I'd really appreciate someone else resolving some issues with transcription inconsistencies mostly caused by the way Proofread page handles page breaks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

2015 Wikimania meetup
anyone interested in a wikimania meetup?  Slowking4 ♡Farmbrough's revenge 19:33, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

Limitations on author pages
It may be time to draft a set of standards limiting content on Author pages for authors whose works are not in PD, and whose works will not be PD for a long time. I've come across Author:Alexios Schandermani, which appears to be little more than a personal advertisement for an author's works.

In particular, how much information is right for the author's description, and what is too much? How much information should we provide for works that are not hosted on Wikisource, Wikilivres, or any public internet location? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I looked at it and I do not believe it belongs here on Wikisource. It certainly isn't before 1923, is under copyright and it is self-promotion of his work. Want to buy his books now? It is almost as bad a Brook D. Simpson, instructor from NY working in AZ.edu and posting his books on general Grant on Wikipedia. Want to buy his books? We are allowing self-promotion of books to be purchased but yet what we do on WS is for free. —Maury (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * While I agree with your sentiments, I am looking for objective criteria that we could draft, so that when these pages appear, we can point disgruntled contributors to a page explaining the situation, rather than waste time writing an original explanation every time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Is there any reason to limit them, instead of just forbidding them? If the author doesn't have any free works and nothing will go PD for at least 20 years, there's no real reason to have pages for them. I can see cases where we could have problematic pages for people with a little free work, but I'd rather not add rules for something that's not current--unless it is a current problem.--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:12, 9 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The author page cited really looks like a promotional piece and detracts from the dignity of the site, but Prosfilaes is right, total prohibition works better than imposing limitations and easier to control. Here are some proposals:

1. As said above, pages for authors having no PD work and no likely PD work in the next 20 years should not be allowed here.
 * Agree, though I wouldn't even give 20 years. Caveat: there are exceptions to this rule (covered later) — billinghurst  sDrewth 
 * In 2019, new stuff will start entering the PD in the US. Anyone interested enough to start accumulating information to facilitate to the entry of works a couple years ahead of time should be permitted to do so. 20 years is arbitrary, but there's hardly any abuse potential in letting works up to 1940 be listed.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

2. If author pages are at all allowed, full bibliography should also be allowed, irrespective of whether it is hosted here, for the sake of completeness, general information and as a stimulus to prospective contributors to add the work here.
 * Agree and we have always allowed a linking to freely hosted full works elsewhere. — billinghurst  sDrewth 
 * I think that ignores some of the issues that brought this up. Assuming that the poems under Author:Alexios Schandermani stay, does that mean that we will provide full bibliography (even though prospective contributors can't add the works) and links to legally hosted non-Free works elsewhere? (The history of that page should be looked through for the many variations on what we could see.)--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

3. For foreign authors, bibliography should be limited mostly to English translations; there is no use having a foreign language bibliography, that is for the Wikisource in that language.
 * Disagree, there are referenced/cited works in non-English for authors, and the authors should be linked, especially when they can be interlanguage linked after that. — billinghurst  sDrewth 
 * I'll note that "foreign authors" is problematic in a multi-national environment, as well as the implication that nations and languages go together. I think if we have a bibliography, we should have a list of works that can be translated as well as those that just have to be scanned. There are certainly authors where even when translations exist, original names are necessary for clarifying what is a translation of what.--Prosfilaes (talk) 03:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

4. Description for authors having Wikipedia pages should be restricted to a few words or phrases, like "British journalist" or "Indian novelist" and the like. The reader can see the rest from the Wikipedia link. A few lines excerpted from Wikipedia may be allowed, without any weasel words or superlatives or eulogistic description.
 * Agree though I would say minimal text to put the author or their works in context, though I tend less to excerpt enWP, eg. contributor mentions for local multi-author works

5. Original description of a few sentences should be allowed for authors not having Wikipedia articles, but this should be very concise, without having a biased look.
 * Agree though my saying covering minimal text I think cover this — billinghurst  sDrewth 

6. Works listed should not have detailed description. Noting its genre should suffice, detailed content, author's purpose and method of writing it etc. should not feature here. If the work has any outstanding uniqueness (e.g., won a Nobel prize, was the first detective novel in source language etc.), then that information may be provided concisely.
 * hmmm detail would normally belong on a work, though if there is some detail and no work, I am not adverse to sourced commentary. Minimal and contextual if it clearly adds value would be comment, where disputed the lesser position should be favoured — billinghurst  sDrewth 

7. Overall, the whole page should have an objective look, there should not be any imprint of passion or emotion of contributors on the page.
 * Agree neutral, note personal opinion and choice, where disputes occur, the lesser is generally preferred — billinghurst  sDrewth 

8. No linking of books to commercial sites.
 * Agree focus is on linking to free works — billinghurst  sDrewth 


 * submitted for further discussion.
 * N.B. I have created/modified 4 author pages (1, 2, 3, 4) in some detail. I am not sure whether these pages would meet the community consensus. If not, other contributors are welcome to amend the pages. Hrishikes (talk) 01:39, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Two pros and a con:Pro: what about communal research? Most of the above arguments only really work if one contributor makes the basic Author: structure, and nobody else significantly touches that page.Con: Isn't it a little bit irresponsible to keep pushing research responsibility out to sister projects (i.e. WP, WD etc.) If this actually worked then eliminate local Author: pages altogether!Pro: Sometimes details available "erode" over time. There is nothing sadder than finding out a biography was available years earlier but is no more because the hosting site has gone down, never to be restored. Sometimes another authority might keep backups but not always, or worse keeps archives of dead links. For example: Brite Sparks (biographies of Australian science figures) is long gone although the NLA has some entries still available. AuFCL (talk) 08:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've cut out the promotional material. Is it still objectionable? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * As of now. All those links obscure the two (unlicensed) works on Wikisource. And it's fine to link to Google Books and publishers as reference, but inline like that randomly prioritizes certain sites and obscures the difference between works available and bibliographic information; and linking to works found online dilutes our Free mandate. I guess, I'm looking at a different page; you meant . I don't see the point in removing years and ISBNs. The poetry pushes it into a case I said we might not need to handle now, the case where there's some trivial amount of free work behind more non-free work.--Prosfilaes (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * i agree with the not promotional, however, good bibliographies can be hard to find. alternatively, you could also have a style guide = standard list only with isbn, not link to pay or blog sites. (similar to w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Bibliographies).  Slowking4 ♡Farmbrough's revenge 02:36, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Always better to have an ISBN and link to Special:BookSources where the reader can pick which external link to follow.  Green Giant  ( talk )  18:00, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Added commentary inline above. The purpose of our author pages is to provide detail about authors of works and writings in the public domain, and links to those works that are freely available. We do have some exceptions to that basic premise is we do have author pages to some significantly notable authors who are not in the public domain as their works have been added and deleted, and we do this to stop the addition of these works. The premise again is that if there are no works in the public domain, that they are of the exception, and where there presence is disputed then we are more likely to delete those author pages. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
 * ie. Author:Stephen King The Haz talk 18:29, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

One way to handle biographical details, if details beyond the minimum need to be held for some reason, is to post those to the accompanying Talk page, with any links or references used. Better still, add the information to Wikipedia, but I know they don't always keep stub biographies on people who are not "notable" enough. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:British Reptiles, Amphibians, and Fresh-water Fishes.djvu
No file. - Per a Commons deletion as the images were not yet out of UK copyright. The text was OK and the file could have been localised as I suggested at WS:PD a while ago. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:26, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * File is now local :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:The Pilgrim's Progress.djvu
Concern was previously raised that the new material on the front of this didn't have a clear status. Unless someones able to provide a better date ( checked archive.org which didn't have one, I'm considering putting a Deletion request at Commons, Pilgrims Progress itself is of course Public domain (the Deletion would be solely in relation to the "new material" sushc as the title bindings and [] ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:37, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Further to this the R.H Brock identified died in 1943., - http://illustrationartgallery.blogspot.co.uk/2010/10/richard-henry-brock.html ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This would appear to be solely about the notes on Page 6, the index and the fact that theres not date for the edition ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:46, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The earlier-thread is here- Scriptorium/Archives/2014-10 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:05, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The Digital Library of India has 17 copies of this work, pertaining to different years/editions. Which one do you want? Hrishikes (talk) 11:11, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * One that is clearly and unambiguously in the public domain internationally. As I said the problem's arisen as the specfic edition doesn't have a definitive date. In the previous thread it was certainly suggested that a "clearly dated" edition be found. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:24, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Please Check out and choose

Hrishikes (talk) 12:12, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) 1909 (Harvard Classics vol 15 containing The Pilgrim's Progress by John Bunyan and The Lives of John Donne and George Herbert by Izaak Walton)
 * 2) 1904 (1956 reprint, Oxford Standard Authors Series)
 * 3) 1892 (Ward, Lock, Bowden & Co., London)
 * 4) 1908 (Cassell & Co., London-Paris-NY)
 * 5) 1904 (Oxford, 1929 reprint]
 * 6) 1904 (The Pilgrim's Progress, The Holy War and Grace Abounding by John Bunyan, Thomas Nelson & Sons, Lond-Edin-NY)
 * My recomendation is that IF you can show the 1904, Nelson version to be free from copyright restrictions outside the US, that's probably the best bet. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hmm some of the data you've provided suggest the Nelson version we've got might be a post 1922 reprint version, (sigh) Wasn't able to view scans on the DLI link as it companied about a missing URL's, This needs some more research..

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:45, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, The version we have is from the 1960's, check the address of the US arm on the Colophon page against details here(Thomas Nelson (publisher)ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Why are you getting bothered about reprints? As far as I understand, editions have new copyright, not reprints. Of the various works I am now doing, Panchatantra is 1955 reprint, 1925 copyright; The Home & the World is 1957 reprint, 1919 copyright. A reprint has no new material, so no new copyright, except when separately registered for the same. Aside from the copyright aspect, scan quality is also important. DLI scans have variable quality, which is important in case of images. So the file in DLI should be chosen from the angle of scan quality. As you are already engaged in this work, so you are more suited to do the choosing. You can compare all the 17 versions by going to the DLI homepage and author-searching Bunyan. The scans are in TIF format, so a reader is needed, which can be installed from the link given on the DLI page. Moreover, an endless list of this book's versions are available in other sites: Google Books -- 1, 2, 3; Internet Archive -- 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and more. So there should not be any problem about replacing the WS version with a suitable substitute. Best wishes, Hrishikes (talk) 14:22, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry but the plugin required on windows is not "free" software... You tried :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * In your list DLI 2 & 6 are seemingly broken links, and don't show up by searching on Bunyan as an author..ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The concern is about the "index" which is not part of the original Bunyan work... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:59, 10 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks - Index:The pilgrims progress as originally published by John Bunyan ; being a facsimile of the first edition (1878).djvu

& Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu ready for proofreading if anyone cares.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:48, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
 * The second also has a version of the The Little Pilgrim which is not currently sourced. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:49, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, 2 and 6 go to broken links because DLI people put wrong linking on the allmetainfo page. Correct links: 2 and 6. The plug-in is very much free, see on this page. If you want to do it without the plug-in, then you can download the pages directly by going to 2 (change page number upto 438) and 6 (change page number upto 755). If you wish to download the books directly as PDF, then you will need DLI downloader, for which, see 1, 2, 3, 4. I have not used these tools as yet, so I don't know whether these work or not. Anyway, this discussion is now practically redundant as you have already added the work from IA, this is only for answering the points you had raised. Hrishikes (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-29
<section begin="technews-2015-W29"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now see a list of pages with errors in code coloring.

Problems
 * There was a problem with editing on Thursday. Some tools like bots and VisualEditor were broken on all wikis for 10 minutes.
 * There was a problem with images on Thursday. They were broken on all wikis for 15 minutes.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 14. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 15. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 16 (calendar).

Meetings
 * You can join a technical meeting at Wikimania in Mexico City this week.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2015-W29"/> 15:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu
And another work done. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:19, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Marx in English from USSR
There are some books by Karl Marx, published without year of publication and without names of translators and editors, by the Foreign Languages Publishing House, Moscow, in the Soviet era. I am interested in Notes on Indian History (664-1858) found at https://archive.org/details/notesonindianhis00marxuoft and https://books.google.co.in/books/?id=LQcUAAAAIAAJ. Google Books show the year as 1947, but it is not so. The Publisher's Note mentions that the work was prepared after the Russian version of 1947. So the year can be deemed to be in the 1950s or thereabouts, and the IA version is the second impression. The then Soviet law forbade copyright, and even if current US law deem the work as non-PD, copyright status is difficult to understand, as the translators/editors are not named in the work. So request guidance about whether this is addable here. Hrishikes (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2015 (UTC)


 * In 1996, Russia had a law that was life+50 (plus extensions for some authors), restoring copyright to older works. Thus any such works would have been had their copyright restored in the United States and thus have copyright for 95 years from publication.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:44, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with Prosfilaes, those works will probably become public domain in the US in 2043 at the earliest.  Green Giant  ( talk )  18:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Broadcast free information from space!
Hi all,

There's a cool event based in Uganda, but designed for remote participation, this weekend.

"Outernet" is a project to repurpose satellites to "broadcast" free information, that can be picked up by inexpensive receivers, for free, and then reshared for free over local networks/WiFi. A way to get information to remote and underserved parts of the world. It's one-way communication, so certainly not a replacement for the Internet or a total solution to the Digital Divide -- but a very cool project nonetheless. They are also developing democratic processes for deciding what content to share.

They are having an edit-a-thon this weekend. It runs for 36 continuous hours: 10am Saturday to 10pm Sunday, local time in Uganda.

Event link/signup HERE

And see their blog post

Pete (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

Transcribing Bilingual Parallel Texts on English Wikisource
Going by Multilingual texts, there has been discussion about allowing transcriptions of books that reproduce non-English texts with English translations on facing pages. Most of the bilingual pages I've found here so far have been Wikisource translations, such as this poem by Ovid. There is a page listing one of the most famous series of such books, the Loeb Classical Library, but work on importation and transcription has barely begun.

One book I'm very interested in working on is Swahili Tales which has been started on multilingual Wikisource, but doesn't seem to be currently active. I've tried working on that, but a lot of the templates normally used here on English Wikisource don't seem to work there, and when you try to edit the English-language pages you're warned that they're prohibited. Would it be a grievous breach of etiquette to set up an index file for that book and do the editing here? Does anyone have any thoughts about how to format the final version? It would be very nice to show the Swahili and English texts in parallel, possibly transcluding one page at a time in the rows of a table, or perhaps even better to define each paragraph as a section and to arrange those in parallel in a table. I've set up a sample of what a parallel text might look like here.

I do feel that at least the Swahili text should be on multilingual Wikisource, where it can be categorised with the other Swahili texts, but then the English translation in the book is a significant text in its own right (it has, for example, been translated into Japanese), and it would make an important addition to the collection of folklore texts here. Mudbringer (talk) 05:48, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * The English version, after proofreading in original location, may be transcluded in English Wikisource, by using Iwpages. A note may be provided within ... on the index page that the English pages would be transcluded in the English site. That will circumvent the prohibition. Alternately, the whole work may be proofread here after setting up the index file, and then the Swahili pages transcluded in oldwikisource. The template would work there because it was imported here from that site. Hrishikes (talk) 06:03, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the pointer! Looking at the French documentation for Iwpages I found a bilingual text of works by Cicero on facing pages that has made good progress, in Latin and French. It looks like the procedure is to set up separate index pages for each language, so perhaps I should try to get an English index page set up for Swahili Tales. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like they're planning a facing-page presentation for the Cicero text. I tried putting a few pages into a table here, and the formats don't fit well together. Still, I think I can see the way forward. Thanks! Mudbringer (talk) 08:12, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Two indices are not necessary. One will do fine. See The History of the Bengali Language/Appendix 1 and click Appendix II in the header portion and you will get one option. Hrishikes (talk) 08:22, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I can't find any provision for including alternate pages (e.g. only pages 3,5,7 ...) with Iwpages, which is what I'd need to do here.


 * Have you tried this method ---


 * I have not had occasion to use it, but I guess it should work. I don't know wheher exclude/include parameters and the step function for using alt. pages given at Help:Transclusion will work or can be added to the template. Hrishikes (talk) 12:23, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * iwtrans brings in too much, at least when I tried it here. Mudbringer (talk) 12:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I see the problem now. The only thing certain to work in the current state of templates is creating a second index here, importing the pages with Iwpage and then going for normal transclusion, with the step function for alternate pages. If this function were present in Iwpages, that would simplify the matter immensely. You may seek expert opinion from George Orwell III for any other viable option. Hrishikes (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, it looks like that'll provide the most flexibility later on. Thanks a lot for your help! Mudbringer (talk) 05:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Another possibility I've suggested on multilingual ws : tiret and tiret2 ( this one ). Would it be useful for many languages? --Zyephyrus (talk) 07:34, 19 July 2015 (UTC)

I've set up an index file for the English text of Swahili Tales on en.wikisource (original index file here), proofread the first very short tale, and made a few tests towards finding a usable format for transcluding and arranging the original text and English translations in parallel. Here is a list of the tests with a few remarks about well some of them worked. If anyone would care to look at them and leave any comments or suggestions on my talk page I'd be grateful. Mudbringer (talk) 14:07, 20 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I've tried this test with the ts template adding ( (vertical align top). Not quite satisfied with the result. Can it be of any use? --Zyephyrus (talk) 17:15, 21 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, that's definitely an improvement to have the sections aligned at the top. Thank you! Mudbringer (talk) 04:17, 22 July 2015 (UTC)

Page:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu/181
How to format the long division/square root calculations? I tried looking at the LATEX wikibook and still couldn't see an easy method.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:56, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I would suggest &lt;math&gt; is not appropriate here and go for a more textual approach. This is not perfect but at least fairly close to what you want?


 * AuFCL (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) Thanks :) Probably wrap that in a div and we are done. ShakespeareFan00 (talk)
 * I had a bit of a further muck around directly on the page but deliberately left the result as unvalidated. Proceed or back it out at your pleasure? AuFCL (talk) 22:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-30
<section begin="technews-2015-W30"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 21. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 22. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 23 (calendar).
 * You now see more warnings in the image viewer. They tell you to be careful when using the image, for example if it shows a person.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 21 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes
 * Soon you won't be able to use MathJax to display math.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2015-W30"/> 03:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Two questions about Swahili Tales
I'm making some progress in proofreading Swahili Tales here and on multilingual Wikisource. There are two things I'd like to ask about at this point: Thanks for any comments or suggestions. Mudbringer (talk) 01:57, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * 1) On the archive.org page from which the djvu file was obtained it says "National Library of Scotland holds full rights in this digital resource and agrees to license the resource under the Creative Commons License: Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 UK: Scotland". Should I edit the Wikimedia Commons file, and the Index files to reflect this?
 * 2) The pages of this book contain many handwritten notes by John Francis Campbell that are of great interest. For example this page has: "Monday, August 1, 1870 / Present from the Duke of Argyle. — / Read same day. Contains portions of many well known stories of which versions are in Gaelic. See notes at the end of each story. / J. F. Campbell". Would it be permissible to add a page to the Wikisource edition of this book giving transcriptions of the notes, or would it be better to produce a separate article containing them? I'm thinking a standalone article transcribing the notes would be preferable, as that would allow for a logical link from Campbell's author page, and taken as a whole they are a significant work in themselves.

Commons category in plain sister
Could someone who knows Lua edit Module:Plain sister so that the Commons category is retrieved from Wikidata (d:Property:P373) if the "commonscat" parameter is not filled in?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 11:19, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Hi Erasmo, Fwiw... A similar issue concerning the interaction between WikiData and template params such as those found in Plain sister was started just a few days ago and might be better to follow through there than in WS:S. Either way, I believe we'll need "outside" help when it comes to Lua scripting; I don't know of any regular contributor here that is truly fluent Lua to be blunt about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I should definitely go through the Lua tutorial and familiarize myself with the basics, but the fact that I am hardly the only one who's ignorant in this field kind of reassures me :) Moving to Template talk:Header.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:06, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

For those who like long s
Here is a seventeenth century item for the long s lovers: Index:The Six Voyages of John Baptista Tavernier.djvu. Other than the long s, proofreading is easy, by copy-pasting from the page-wise online version of the University of Michigan. Hrishikes (talk) 13:38, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

File:William Tell Told Again.djvu
Commons about to delete (sigh) :( 16:24, 23 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Uploaded locally. Authors need to be checked before uploading to Commons, and P. G. Wodehouse won't be out of copyright in the EU for 30 years (1975+71 = 2046).--Prosfilaes (talk) 01:12, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Armistice Day.djvu
If someone would like to resolve the issue of the "problem scans" then this could be a Featured text for November I think. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:55, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:Sheet Metal Drafting.djvu
Anyone want to do a pedant check on this? Concerns were expressed that the proof-reading missed some items. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:59, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

Proposal to create PNG thumbnails of static GIF images


There is a proposal at the Commons Village Pump requesting feedback about the thumbnails of static GIF images: It states that static GIF files should have their thumbnails created in PNG. The advantages of PNG over GIF would be visible especially with GIF images using an alpha channel. (compare the thumbnails on the side)

This change would affect all wikis, so if you support/oppose or want to give general feedback/concerns, please post them to the proposal page. Thank you. --McZusatz (talk) & MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 05:07, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * perhaps the graphs extension will render static renderings obsolete. <font face="Vijaya"> Slowking4 ♡<span lang="de-Latf" style="font-family:UnifrakturMaguntia, UnifrakturCook, Unifraktur, serif; font-size:113%;">Farmbrough's revenge 02:55, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * And perhaps cynic need not comment as their views are entirely predictable? AuFCL (talk) 03:07, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:1918 Engineer Notebook small.pdf Status check
According to some information at Ancestry.com the author of these notes was still alive in. This means the status of the notes should be checked as it could be that it wasn't formally registered as such. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Umm, what is your point? The work is unpublished, and states as such at Commons. That puts the copyright in a completely different space, and it sounds ore like it requires an OTRS permission. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:00, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * That was the concern, that it was unpublished. However, given some recent unpleasntness at Commons, I didn't want to start the Commons investigations process until it was clear it was a problem. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:50, 26 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Do you have a link to the Ancestry source that says 1964? Because Commons says he died in 1961, and refers to this: http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=90126972 which is a picture of his grave (or, of course, that of someone else with the same name). Not sure if that changes things re copyright? Also, in case it helps, here's some more info about this particular file: http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/16gxgp/bought_an_army_engineering_notebook_from_1918_at/ &mdash; Sam Wilson ( Talk &bull; Contribs ) &hellip; 11:28, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * My mistake, I'd read a 1 as 4 on a small image, Ammended. It doesn't as far as I know change the status if it was previously unpublished.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:33, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Full page, landscape table
Proofreading page 30, Wages_in_US_1908-1910 and I have no idea how to make such a table. Have proofread the whole page as an image. Any suggestions? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 02:19, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * You may take help of 1, 2, 3. Hrishikes (talk) 04:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * I would suggest "twisting" the table within the page so that as much text as possible (in this case all) is upright, and then formatting the resulting table in this configuration. I've made a first attempt: now somebody please pick out and fix the errors I am sure to have introduced. For starters: is that "18" on row 2, data column 8 really a "13" because that makes the percentages work? AuFCL (talk) 06:53, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Block move requestIndex:Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains.djvu
Some missing page were found after this had been transcribed (namely a preface) and some pages of notes.)

The pages that need moving are:

Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:47, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Out of Scope articles?
https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Azylicure_14&offset=&limit=500&target=Azylicure+14

Tagged these as out of Wikisource Scope but wanted a second opinion.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * This was from a sockpuppet account that was copying content and templates from project to project, and attacking and vandalizing userpages of people who called him on it. The same vandal hit Wikiquote a few days ago using multiple accounts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-31
<section begin="technews-2015-W31"/> Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes
 * You can now use redirects to link to JavaScript pages.
 * You cannot use the compact user bar any more.
 * You can change your options to see bigger images.
 * You can watch short videos about how to use VisualEditor.
 * You can now edit pages linked in "what links here" more easily.

Problems
 * There was a problem with some Lua modules on July 22 and 23. Some pages using them did not list them in "what links here". You can fix those pages with a null edit: edit and save the page without making any change.
 * There was a problem with the abuse filter page on big wikis on July 23. It was due to a code error.

Changes this week
 * The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from July 28. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis from July 29. It will be on all Wikipedias from July 30 (calendar).
 * JavaScript authors: You cannot use  to get edit counts anymore.

Meetings
 * You can join the next meeting with the VisualEditor team. During the meeting, you can tell developers which bugs are the most important. The meeting will be on July 28 at 19:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Tech news prepared by tech ambassadors and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe. <section end="technews-2015-W31"/> 15:05, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Index:French Polynesia.pdf
No file, deleted at commons?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
 * It was deleted over there back on 11th June this year by INeverCry (who, worryingly seems to have been blocked a month later and may not even be an administrator any more?); at least according to c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:French Polynesia.pdf and [//commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&page=User:INeverCry selected commons logs.] AuFCL (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2015 (UTC)

What does a Healthy Community look like to you?
Hi, The Community Engagement department at the Wikimedia Foundation has launched a new learning campaign. The WMF wants to record community impressions about what makes a healthy online community. Share your views and/or create a drawing and take a chance to win a Wikimania 2016 scholarship! Join the WMF as we begin a conversation about Community Health. Contribute a drawing or answer the questions on the campaign's page.

Why get involved?
'''The world is changing. The way we relate to knowledge is transforming.''' As the next billion people come online, the Wikimedia movement is working to bring more users on the wiki projects. The way we interact and collaborate online are key to building sustainable projects. How accessible are Wikimedia projects to newcomers today? Are we helping each other learn? Share your views on this matter that affects us all! '''We invite everyone to take part in this learning campaign. Wikimedia Foundation will distribute one Wikimania Scholarship 2016 among those participants who are eligible.'''

More information

 * All participants must have a registered user of at least one month antiquity on any Wikimedia project before the starting date of the campaign.
 * All eligible contributions must be done until August 23, 2015 at 23:59 UTC
 * Wiki link: Community Health learning campaign
 * URL https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:Evaluation/Community_Health_learning_campaign
 * Contact: María Cruz / Twitter: @undefinedWikiEval #CommunityHealth / email: eval@undefinedwikimedia&middot;org

Happy editing! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:42, 31 July 2015 (UTC)