Wikisource:Scriptorium

SpBot archives all sections tagged with {{section resolved|1=~~~~}} after 3 days and sections whose oldest comment is older than 30 days.

Proposals

Overriding Vector 2022 paragraph spacing

Since the forced deployment in November 2024, and multiple discussions including [1], 2, 3, and 4, the idea of overriding the excessive paragraph spacing from V22 was floated multiple times. V22 raised the 0.9em spacing between paragraphs to 1.5em, which broke content that expected text to have similar size across skins (notably but not only {{overfloat image}}).

This proposal is therefore to add to MediaWiki:Gadget-Site.css:

.mw-body p {
    margin:0.4em 0 0.5em 0;
}

Technical notes:

• this should have neither false positives nor false negatives given that .mw-body p is the exact same selector used by V22.
• if site.css is loaded before the skin css, then we can just add a html at the start of the selector: will not change the selection (given everything's in an html), and will give it more specificity (0,1,2 vs 0,1,1).
• 0.4em 0 0.5em 0 is exactly how it was in V10.
• this may stop working one day whenever WMF decides to IDHT another change through; but so can the entire website, and at least we'll have a fix. If it stops working, we can easily remove it and go back to our current state of having broken content.

— Alien  3
3 3 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support as proposer. — Alien  3
3 3 15:39, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support, strongly. Thanks for starting the vote! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:51, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support SnowyCinema (talk) 15:58, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

 Support Tcr25 (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

@BD2412: as the only beaureaucrat - could you please make the above change? —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 17:49, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Is this not something any admin can do? I am not so technically adept that I wouldn't worry about breaking something trying to do this. BD2412 T 18:32, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Actually, I don't appear to have access to edit this page either. BD2412 T 18:33, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Only interface administrators have the right to edit MWspace .js/.css. The only vaguely active interface administrator of ENWS is as of now Xover; but he's had little time in the last few months. He still answers talk page posts, though, so I left one.

@Matrix: I don't know where you got the "only bureaucrat" part, though; Beeswaxcandle is also a crat.) — Alien  3
3 3 19:44, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I'm competent at CSS and I would be willing to edit in the namespace. I am an interface administrator on other wikis as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:15, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

I think I misread the rights log, sorry Beeswaxcandle :( —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:54, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

Can't crats give themselves IA at Special:UserRights? Or is this only on some wikis. —Matrix(!) _{ping one}^{when replying} {user - talk? - _uselesscontributions} 20:58, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

IDK if it's possible; but (although we have no official policy on it) until now the practice has been to give the flag after a request and !vote for it at WS:ADMINS; I think it'd be better to keep it that way. — Alien  3
3 3 21:13, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

If someone wants to put themselves up for the interface admin role, I am certain that we could process a nomination in fairly short order. BD2412 T 22:50, 15 June 2025 (UTC)

The ad hoc process so far for Interface Admin has been that the editor requesting the additional right has been recognised by the 'crats as a person of good standing in the enWS community; and has the demonstrable skills to make appropriate changes to the interface. Thus far all people who have had the IA right have also been Admins. We have granted the IA right for the period of time through to their annual recall and then attached the two together. If someone who is not an Admin was to be granted the IA right, it would either be (a) for a limited period of time (enough to make the necessary changes for a particular purpose); or (b) through a formal nomination process. We haven't formalised this process up until now, as it hasn't been needed. (Note that it is a requirement from the MW lawyers that Interface Administrators use MFA to log in.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:01, 16 June 2025 (UTC)

Done See diff.

Note for the record: I still think this is a very bad idea long term and that we should have tried really hard to solve this at the template layer instead, but since I don't have the available wiki-time to explore that approach this way at least resolves the annoying issue introduced by Vector-22. We are now in a situation where we're fighting the skin in an area that the skin (WMF) think they own, rather than adapting to the skin, and that's always a bad idea long term. Granted that the WMF caused this issue by meddling way down in the part of the content that they should have left to us, but since they did do that and won't change their minds on it, we're almost certainly making more trouble for ourselves long-term by trying to override it. --Xover (talk) 07:56, 1 July 2025 (UTC)

Now it is better. However, the vertical spaces still seem larger than they used to be to me. Maybe they are affected by linespacing, which has been increased for some reason too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:11, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: can you link to somewhere you're seeing a problem? I just measured, and the line height difference actually makes paragraphs about 1.8% smaller. — Alien  3
3 3 21:18, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333: I have just made an experiment at my sandbox: If I am right, the line-height used to be 140%, so I set it that way in the right column. The result is quite denser, although not as much I thought. My memory may be wrong. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:41, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

In fact I am working on Page:Adam the Creator by Karel and Josef Čapek.pdf/17 where (unlike in my sandbox) I also needed to increase the spaces between the individual texts of each character, and the overall result is just too spacy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

To compare, you can just add ?useskin=vector at the end of the url. V10 takes slightly more space than what we have now. V22 line height is roughly 1.57 (except if you have the V22 larger size turned on); V10 line height was 1.6. — Alien  3
3 3 22:08, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

The documentation of {{Line-height}} says 140%, I thought this information was from the times before the change, but it is probably even older. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:23, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

WS:PP and protection for validated works

I quote:

The vast majority of documents hosted by Wikisource are not meant to evolve or be edited, since Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies). Once a page has been fully proofread, no further changes are necessary and the page should be protected.

These pages should contain the template {{locked}}.

The issue is that actually, we don't protect validated works, and for a good reason: we can never be sure that a work is "fully proofread"; someone can always have missed something, and so on. As evidence of our not doing that: Special:WhatLinksHere/Template:locked is essentially empty. Furthermore, pages protected under this provision were unprotected 12 years ago in line with present practice. These two paragraphs look like a vestige of the early years of copypasting PG and calling it a day. (I am not talking about featured works, which are the paragraphs below those I cited; but of validated works in general.)

I think these two paragraphs should be removed. So: a) does anyone disagree? and b) does anyone think this warrants a formal proposal? If no one answers yes to either of these questions, I'll try and remove it next week.Given this discussion itself turned into the proposal, that's about moot. — Alien  3
3 3 11:18, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

Even if the page has been validated against the scan, there is the potential to potentially add links to other works and authors within the text or. perhaps, more controversially change the styling, e.g. convert tables using CSS. There is the also the potential to address accessibility issues such as adding alt text to images or fixing layout decisions that break screen readers. Lastly, there might be issues with the conversion to ebooks for download which might require fixes as well. Given the document is an official policy document, not merely guidance or proposed, I would think it should go through a formal proposal to update. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support

Yes, the paragraphs should be removed, but I can understand the sentiment - the issue is that 'validated' is too low a bar for locking something - at a minimum it just means that each page has been looked at twice (at PGDP their final texts will have been proofread 3 times, formatted twice, and then assembled by a post-processor, and even then errors creep through). Qq1122qq (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support Indeed, those paragraphs should be removed (and the section on featured works amended slightly). I am sure we have all seen works which have been properly validated where things have sneaked through, and frankly, there are some works maked as validated which haven't even been properly proofread. And also, doesn't that go against the whole wiki idea ? -- Beardo (talk) 13:05, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support removing those paragraphs as above. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 18:32, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support as per all above reasons. Arcorann (talk) 02:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:58, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Given the "should this be a proposal" discussion turned into a proposal, I've moved it into this section. — Alien  3
3 3 14:48, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

 Support--Jusjih (talk) 04:27, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

 Comment Where else in our policies do we say: "Wikisource collects material that has been published in the past. Wikisource hosts these published documents without corrections (including any typographical errors or historical inaccuracies)" so that we can point newcomers to that fact as policy? --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:51, 3 August 2025 (UTC)

Bot approval requests

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

Repairs (and moves)

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

See also Wikisource:Scan lab

Ancient India As Described in Classical Literature move request

Can someone move Ancient India As Described in Classical Literature to Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature (correctly case of 'as')? Thank you! Prosody (talk)

@Prosody: Done. I also moved the subpage to use arabic numerals instead of roman while I was at it. --Xover (talk) 09:05, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Index:Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 (repealed) (ASP 1991-1 qp).pdf

Please move to Index:Mental Health (Public Safety and Appeals) (Scotland) Act 1999 (repealed) (ASP 1999-1 qp).pdf ToxicPea (talk) 00:23, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Done --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:32, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Other discussions

Module:Proofreadpage index template and picking up from the talk

There is code in place to make {{index talk remarks}} read from the index talk, and display that (see eg here). However, it currently does so if and only if the section's name is exactly "Quick notes". That's very restrictive and a bit counter-intuitive. I suppose that is intentional; to prevent transclusion of the whole talk page, but perhaps we could make something more sophisticated, such as:

• if one of the sections contains "formatting", "convention", or "note" (case-insensitive)
• then transclude the first comment of that section (up to the first timestamp).
• And maybe even crop it at 1kb.

Thoughts? — Alien  3
3 3 07:30, 2 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 Seeing as no one else has commented, I guess I'll say it seems reasonable. It can be easy to miss the "formatting guidelines..." statement, and I know I have in the past. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Use of {{template: errata}} in footnotes

On page Page:Odes on Several Subjects - Scott (1761).djvu/56, two errata are identified, the second of which relates to a footnote. Incorporating this erratum on Page:Odes on Several Subjects - Scott (1761).djvu/35 using the above-referenced template generates an error (Cite error: <ref> tag in <references> has conflicting group attribute "errata".) Is there a way to fix this? Chrisguise (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

ref tags inside ref tags don't work. The fix to that is replacing the outer <ref>...</ref> by {{#tag:ref|...}}. I have done that for this page. There are more precisions on stuff like this at w:WP:NFN. — Alien  3
3 3 10:26, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, I never think to look for guidance outside WS help. Chrisguise (talk) 16:35, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

{{refn}} is preferred over {{#tag:ref|...}}, I believe. See also Help:Footnotes and endnotes#Nested_footnotes. Arcorann (talk) 02:41, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't see why it should be. Looking at the code, when giving no other parameters than 1, it's exactly the same. — Alien  3
3 3 10:51, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333@Arcorann I just came across another instance of a footnote within a footnote, but in this case the main footnote was spread over several pages. See Page:The poetical works of James Beattie (IA poeticalworksofj00beat).pdf/68, Page:The poetical works of James Beattie (IA poeticalworksofj00beat).pdf/69, Page:The poetical works of James Beattie (IA poeticalworksofj00beat).pdf/70 & Page:The poetical works of James Beattie (IA poeticalworksofj00beat).pdf/71 I tried using the {{refn|''Text''<ref group=B>''Sub-footnote''</ref> |group=A}} method but it didn't work. I tried various combinations of things with no luck, but when I added | name=X on the first page and | follow=X on subsequent ones, it did. This feature doesn't seem to be documented (at least not on the {{refn}} template page). Chrisguise (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I believe it's technically possible to deduce it from a combination of reading the two sections of Help:Footnotes and endnotes on footnotes that continue over page breaks (which describes name/follow) and nested footnotes (which mentions using name/follow with refn in a different context) but it does indeed need to be documented properly.

I see also that {{refn}}'s documentation page is practically empty. Might be a good idea to check out Wikipedia's version and copy the relevant info (and add stuff on follow, since WP doesn't use it) Arcorann (talk) 11:06, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Pages from Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary

There are these orphaned pages:

• Page:Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary (Fauvel-Gouraud).djvu/28
• Page:Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary (Fauvel-Gouraud).djvu/29
• Page:Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary (Fauvel-Gouraud).djvu/3
• Page:Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary (Fauvel-Gouraud).djvu/30
• Page:Phreno-mnemotechnic Dictionary (Fauvel-Gouraud).djvu/4
  

The parent index does not exist and these are the only pages linked to the file at commons. (Page 4 has content).

Can they just be speedy deleted ? Or does something need to be done with them ? -- Beardo (talk) 04:33, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo I have created the index. Not sure if the IP editor will get back to it, but you never know. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 05:18, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't understand how they managed to create pages without an index. -- Beardo (talk) 12:54, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Well, it's a page like any other: if you go to that title, you can just create it. Just like you can create a subpage without a parent page. — Alien  3
3 3 13:45, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes, but they are linking to the Commons file. It just seems strange that they could have done that. But no matter. -- Beardo (talk) 14:38, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo @Alien333 If either of you are curious, my guess would be that the pages were created in essentially the conventional way, and not by going to the individual titles. E.g. You initially create the index page (via the file on Wikisource), but rather than clicking "publish changes" on the index page, you instead click "show preview". The preview then shows up the page list, and from there you can right click on the individual Page:pages, open them in new tabs, and then publish those pages, still while the index is in show preview mode (say, to help with creating the pagelist). Then, for whatever reason, the index page itself wasn't published, and so the pages ended up orphaned, until now. Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:22, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks - that seems likley. -- Beardo (talk) 02:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

{{ls}}

A while back, I asked what the rules are regarding ſ and {{ls}}, and how authoritative is the the style guide statement:

For phonetically equivalent archaic English letter forms (e.g. ſ, ꝛ), a template (e.g. {{Long s}}) is generally desirable to track and maintain flexibility for the display of such characters.

This discussion is here. It involved debating things back and forth quite a bit, but ended on the final word:

Our practice is to take the style guide seriously. [...] Some readers (myself included) prefer displaying the original orthography of long s, and there is no reason not to enable it for them, if some contributor is willing to enable it for them. Although I do not know about anybody who would be actively searching throughout the Wikisource for occasions to apply the ls template, generally such contributions cannot be prevented. @User:Jan.Kamenicek

Today I tried to switch ſ to {{ls}} in Slavery, a poem, and @User:EncycloPetey undid it, scolded me, and told me I "misunderstood the policy". Eievie (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

From the discussion you linked to: "...its usage is recommended, but not required. So if somebody does not use it, nobody forces them to do so, and they can work without the template." --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

From the cited Style Guide section: "...the character should simply be entered," which indicates there are situations where the long-s can be entered without using the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Both of those quotes are taken out of context.

So if somebody does not use it, nobody forces them to do so, and they can work without the template. (At the same time when somebody applies it, it must be accepted.)

That's talking about not messaging a user and saying "Using ſ is wrong and you should be using the template instead."

For phonetically equivalent archaic English letter forms (e.g. ſ, ꝛ), a template (e.g. {{Long s}}) is generally desirable to track and maintain flexibility for the display of such characters. However, in those cases where the archaic form is necessary (e.g. a work that is comparing letter forms or satirizing archaic styles), the character should simply be entered.

In this poem, ſ is phonetically equivalent to s.

Eievie (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

This is an issue that has long divided the community, which is why the policy page says "generally" and not "always". And the first quote in your reply was most certainly not out of context. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:36, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

There is a great difference between "it is permitted to use the character without the template" (which is true), and "it is not permitted to improve a transcription by replacing the character with the template" (which is false). I note also that the discussion on the Index talk page supports implementing {{ls}} in this work. In this circumstance, reverting Eievie's edits would seem to be highly inappropriate. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:19, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The Index Talk page first asks "long-s or regular-s", then a reply (paraphrasing) "I am not against it, using the template, but not going to do it", then a third editor favors long-s without mentioning use of a template, then you replied favoring use of a template. Only two of four editors favored use of the template, and only two of the four even said anything about the template. With a 50/50 split, it is not clear that the discussion supports implementation with a template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:31, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

50/50 split between support and non-oppose is more than plenty and you know it. You are clearly out of line on this one and your pedantry isn't fooling anyone. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The long-s character was inserted by one of the four editors involved in the discussion. The template was added months later (today) by someone not involved in any way with the discussion or the proofreading and validation of the work. I have restored the pages to the state they were in. If you believe that the original discussion favored using the template, we can ask the four editors who were involved to weigh in explicitly, for/against. But clearly the editor from the discussion, who changed the regular-s into long-s, did not opt for the template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

That is completely irrelevant. This is a communal project. Eievie's edits were consistent with the discussion. Your actions were inappropriate and uncalled-for. It is behaviour like yours that drives good editors away from Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:27, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The actions of editors who participated in the discussion are irrelevant? The opinions of people who participated in the discussion are irrelevant? Really? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:07, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

The fact that the person who added the template was not actively involved in the discussion is irrelevant. I notice you also did not participate in the discussion, and yet you took it upon yourself to enforce a decision you weren't even part of (and which, for the record, is contrary to the discussion in question). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:43, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Admins support communal decisions whether they participated in making the decision or not. It's part of what admins do. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

What decision ? There wasn't a communal decision to that effect. -- Beardo (talk) 15:49, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Eievie A general note on the authority of Wikisource:Style guide/Orthography (not on the use of the template in this specific index): the entirety of it is mostly one user's opinion 14 years ago. As Jan already told you in the discussion you linked to yourself: It has been added to Wikisource:Style guide/Orthography ages ago (in 2011) and I did not find any relevant community discussion that would actually approve it. I do not remember on coming across any such discussion myself. So in general avoid taking that for the gospel. (To EP & BT: maybe cool down a bit? Aggressiveness doesn't help with anything.) — Alien  3
3 3 23:23, 4 July 2025 (UTC)

Rather than being one person's opinion, it was put together as a statement of what our practice was at the time. We were particularly having issues with the ff, fl and ct ligatures, which some editors were insistent on adding, despite breaking searches. At the time, we had no formal approval processes. However, if the community had had problems with this page of the Style Guide, then we would have amended it or canned it when it was published. The fact that it has required minimal editing since its initial inception indicates that it should now be regarded as definitive guidance and major changes will require an RFC. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:23, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

It is almost never preferable to have the character directly inserted instead of the template. The only reasons I can think of are if you are transcluding too many templates on one page, causing some technical issue or if you absolutely should display the direct character, e.g. for comparison with the standard version. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:29, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

'@Koavf@EncycloPetey@Eievie@Beleg Tâl@Beeswaxcandle@Alien333 For what it's worth . . . I can see little point in transcribing the long 's' as a long 's', and frankly I don't do so, and I rarely contribute to transcriptions where it is being used. I have been known to remove transcribed long 's's on validation, especially when whoever's done the proofread isn't consistent with how they've applied it (mixed use of various templates and direct insertion) or the validation is more challenging in other ways (NLS chapbooks!). However, if I do this, I do it to the whole work. If anyone changes 's' to long 's' on random pages of a work that I've done, I will and do revert such changes.

1. In the original work, the long 's' obviously makes transcription and proofreading more difficult (although the OCR is getting better) especially in poorer quality scans where it can be difficult to differentiate the long 's' from an 'f' (or the OCR thinks it's a 't', or misses it altogether ('she', 'the', 'he' is a particular favourite)). However, the long 's' is in the printed original and I can't do anything about that.
2. The language, sentence structure and paragraph length in most pre-20th century works is usually richer and more complex (I'm being generous here) than the 'Janet and John' (or whatever the American equivalent is) level of writing more often encountered today, especially on websites. On the assumption that WS does what it does in order to make texts available to read, reproducing the long 's' really gets in the way of reading what may already be challenging enough.
3. If you are going to transcribe them, at least set the system default so that it doesn't display them. If you're so invested in the long 's' then you can find the 'on' switch, rather than inflicting them on everyone.
4. I haven't ever come across an example where I've thought 'oh look, there's a long 's' that isn't phonetically equivalent to an 's'.'
5. On screen the rendering of the long 's' is awful, particularly without serifs, and especially when italicised.

Chrisguise (talk) 08:42, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

That's the reason we have the template {{ls}}—so that the long s is there if you want it, and gone if you don't. And in mainspace, it defaults to gone. (It does make proofreading harder, I grant you that.) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm in a similar boat to @Chrisguise. For example, although currently in hiatus, I am working on transcribing the first volume of The Gentleman's Magazine from 1731. The page scans and OCR of this are pretty awful, and so quite a lot of manual typing is involved. I am transcribing all types of s as s in all the pages I'm doing (which, across the 3 1/2 issues done so far is... all of them).

I can understand keeping the long s when there is some strong stylistic reason for doing so (for example, in [Byrne's Euclid from 1847], where the use of long s is conscious and deliberate) , but for the vast majority of pre-1800 works, the only reason the long s was used is that's what typesetting looked like at the time, and it is as pointless to replicate in a modern edition as the other typographical tropes of the time. The only purpose that the ls template serves in these cases is to make proofreading/validity reading basically impossible, and to reduce the potential pool of people who might want to work on what will probably already be quite a niche project.

I have my suspicions that the call to preserve the long s came from people who weren't used to reading pre-1800 texts and thought that it was somehow a 'special character' that needed to be kept like Þ in middle English.

I imagine this discussion will now subside until the next time someone complains about long s in 6 months time, when the arguments will repeat, as is traditional. Qq1122qq (talk) 22:56, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

@Qq1122qq, among others. I (also) dislike these ever-repeating discussions that Wikisource seems to end up in. Although I am not exactly sure what the result of this discussion is, could a short summary be added to the Template:Long s documentation, like the note that was added to Template:Old style, to at least attempt to stop the cycle repeating (as viciously)? Or is no such summary likely to be agreed upon? Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 01:28, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@TeysaKarlov - please give your opinion - was it wrong for a user to change ſ to {{ls}} ? (@Duckmather, @CitationsFreak - what are you opinions on that ?) -- Beardo (talk) 02:16, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

@Beardo I think wrong is a bit of a strong word here. If we are talking specifically about Index:Slavery, a poem.pdf, I mildly preferred conventional "s" throughout. However, I don't think either @Duckmather or @Eievie did any real harm in modifying the conventional "s" characters (in Duckmather's case, given that they asked, and in Eievie's, given that the non-template long-s characters were then already there, and that the pages were validated). If you mean wrong more generally, then I think it depends a great deal on the circumstances. However, Wikisource practice/guidance aside, I think many editors are quite invested in both the indices they work on, and in Wikisource more generally, and so I think some sort of common courtesy should prevail (perhaps more so than a "be bold" mentality). Regards, TeysaKarlov (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I've always thought that the text should generally match the text on the page (so that long S's and the single-character digraphs are used if they appear on the page). However, nine times out of ten, the long-S template should be used in these sorts of cases.

(I've also avoiding proofing a work because it's one of those cases where a normal S is used in the copy, and a long S is used in the source. Maybe I should get over that and proof it.) CitationsFreak (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

I think it would be very sensible to indicate in the documentation (either for the template, in the help page for formatting, or both) something relatively neutral: that there are good reasons both for replicating and for not replicating the exact style of 's' used, that it has been the source of some argument, and that both are being used successfully on the site. In general current practice would indicate that 'the person who makes the index gets to decide' is a good summary of current practice (there are issues with this and index abandonment, though - I've in the past worked on a project where someone declared that people should use 'long s', and then did no work on the project for years). FYI this is me giving ground, as my personal opinion is that there is no reason for the ls template to exist or be used :).

It's part of a wider discussion on what the point of WS is, and exactly how far we wish to be on the 'perfect transcription of both content and form' dial, along with topics like replication of page headers and footers, asterism styles, exact font sizes, exact typefaces, transcribing adverts/back matter, how to format TOCs and indices, etc. Qq1122qq (talk) 08:56, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I think the problem with long s, is that it's not clear whether it should be treated as a variant glyph (like old style numerals, or serif vs non-serif fonts), or whether it should be treated as a separate character (like ß vs ss, or σ vs ς, or honestly s vs S). If it's a variant glyph, it should not be transcribed. If it's a separate character, it should be transcribed. Hence the controversy.

—That being said, I don't see why replacing either s or ſ with {{ls}} would be controversial, even in a completed Index. It provides the benefit of both positions without the downsides of either, and allows any user to access the text according to their preference. It seems to me that it can only be an improvement for someone to update a text to use {{ls}}. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

In the 'controversy' stakes it's hardly up there with the top 100 things that annoy me most in the world, but yes, the 'glyph or separate character' question is the cause of the issue.

My basic issue with {{ls}} is that its presence makes working with the source of a page painful, particularly if you are manually typing a text or trying to correct errors in a page that uses {{ls}}.

I don't get how people create texts that use it - do they manually paste in the {{ls}} every time an 's' appears, or do they do a search-replace operation after proofreading the page with 'normal' 's'?

Why not just use normal 's' anyway and use a couple of lines of Javascript to do the replacing if someone wants that style while reading the final text? Qq1122qq (talk) 16:03, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

When I use it, it's a manual paste in, yes. And I only have the patience for it if the work is relatively short. But if the work is already proofread, and someone wants to go through and add it, I don't see any problem with that. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:06, 10 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree with @TeysaKarlov, that the convention on Wikisource has tended to be to try to be considerate to the people who have already put time into proofreading, and this seems like a good approach. This doesn't seem to be documented at the moment, which could be why formatting disputes like this are brought up here. I think it would be a good idea to state this in the documentation, otherwise, how are new users expected to know this, especially as it's a very different approach from Wikipedia? Personally, I would also strongly support encouraging users to improve typography (including changing works to use {{ls}}) if they have checked on the index talk page, and there is either a consensus that's neutral on the issue or generally in favour, or if there is no response; if the proofreader(s) of a project don't want the formatting changed, then it should remain as it is. All that said, my main impression in this case is that @EncycloPetey's behaviour towards @Eievie and @Beleg Tâl is completely unacceptable and needs to be called out. This seems to be part of a pattern of behaviour that I don't remember from previous years: EncycloPetey – are you aware of the impression you're giving, and is everything ok? --Yodin^T 07:23, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to mention this without sidetracking the whole conversation, which I don't want to do, but this is part of a pattern of behavior. EncycloPetey seems to have a generalized issue with me making any edit to a book I'm not the main creator of. Eievie (talk) 17:19, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I do have a problem with your over-bold, under-considerate approach to editing. I encourage other users to look at the pattern, timing, and proximity of your July 4 edits, which give the impression of being calculated to upset people, especially given previous patterns of editing on your part. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

No, I am not aware of the impression I am giving, --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:33, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

If you look at my comment on your last admin confirmation discussion, I have outlined it for you —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I outlined the issues with this user's editing at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Eievie unilateral style changes, on which you did not comment at the time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

why bother commenting when "the admin is always right"? the imposing of admin positions, unsupported by a clear consensus, is a problem with other wikis which unfortunately is increasing here.--Slowking4 ‽ digitaleffie's ghost 02:07, 30 July 2025 (UTC)

Can we provide translations ourselves here?

I want to translate Mécanique analytique by Joseph-Louis Lagrange. Angrythewikipedian (talk) 02:19, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes: Wikisource:Translations#Wikisource_original_translations

"Wikisource also allows users to create original translations and add them to the library. This allows for the translation of texts that have never before been translated into English and for new, complementary translations that may improve on existing versions in some way."

Have at it if you can. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:24, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

In particular:

"Translations which are the work of Wikisource contributors must be noted as such, and clearly distinguished from previously published translations. This is accomplished by applying both of the following:

• Wikisource original translations will be hosted in the Translation namespace.
• Wikisource original translations should always use {{Translation_header}}, which automatically includes the work in Category:Wikisource translations

A scan supported original language work must be present on the appropriate language wiki, where the original language version is complete at least as far as the English translation. An inter-wiki link to the original language work must be present on the English translation."

Is there a scan-backed version in French wikisource ? -- Beardo (talk) 02:25, 5 July 2025 (UTC)

There is not a scan-backed version in French Wikisource. There is a scan of the Complete Works, but as far as I can tell it is far from being done. According to the preface of the modern translation (freely available at [2]), there is no free English translation. This would be very useful, but also a nightmare to get done.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

So the scan-backed version in French will need to be done before it can be translated. -- Beardo (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-28

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

Weekly highlight

• Temporary accounts have been rolled out on 18 large and medium-sized Wikipedias, including German, Japanese, French, and Chinese. Now, about 1/3 of all logged-out activity across wikis is coming from temporary accounts. Users involved in patrolling may be interested in two new documentation pages: Access to IP, explaining everything related to access to temporary account IP addresses, and Repository with a list of new gadgets and user scripts.

Updates for editors

• Anyone can play an experimental new game, WikiRun, that lets you race through Wikipedia by clicking from one article to another, aiming to reach a target page in as few steps and in as little time as possible. The project's goal is to explore new ways of engaging readers. Try playing the game and let the team know what you think on the talk page.
• Users of the Wikipedia Android app in some languages can now play the new trivia game. Which came first? is a simple history game where you guess which of two events happened earlier on today's date. It was previously available as an A/B test. It is now available to all users in English, German, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Russian, Arabic, Turkish, and Chinese. The goal of the feature is to help engage with new generations of readers. [3]
• Users of the iOS Wikipedia App in some languages may see a new tabbed browsing feature that enables you to open multiple tabs while reading. This feature makes it easier to explore related topics and switch between articles. The A/B test is currently running in Arabic, English, and Japanese in selected regions. More details are available on the Tabbed Browsing project page.
• Bureaucrats on Wikimedia wikis can now use Special:VerifyOATHForUser to check if users have enabled two-factor authentication. [4]
• A new feature related to Template Recall and Discovery will be deployed later this week to all Wikimedia projects: a template category browser will be introduced to assist users in finding templates to put in their “favourite” list. The browser will allow users to browse a list of templates which have been organised into a given category tree. The feature has been requested by the community through the Community Wishlist.
• It is now possible to access watchlist preferences from the watchlist page. Also the redundant button to edit the watchlist has been removed. [5]
• View all 27 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• As part of MediaWiki 1.44 there is now a unified built-in Notifications system that makes it easier for developers to send, manage, and customize notifications. Check out the updated documentation at Manual:Notifications, information about migration in T388663 and details on deprecated hooks in T389624.
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• WikidataCon 2025, the conference dedicated to Wikidata is now open for session proposals and for registration. This year's event will be held online from October 31 – November 02 and will explore on the theme of "Connecting People through Linked Open Data".

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

MediaWiki message delivery 00:05, 8 July 2025 (UTC)

Statistics or ideas for reporting Wikisource effort

Background: For the New Zealand Chapter of Wikimedia, we are preparing our annual report.

It would be interesting to report "somehow" about what we've achieved on Wikisource for the year, but:

• I don't know what statistic tools are available for Wikisource, apart from the global statistics and individual editor statistics (if you know the editor account names)
• What would be useful to report

For example, I could identify some works that are finished or in progress that I know about, or specific projects that NZ Wikipedian-at-Large for 2025 is working on. Or I could look at New Zealand-related works that were worked on.

The difficulty is that New Zealand-based editors work on a range of works, and (as it is a world-wide community) editors from other countries help with proofing and validating as well.

In addition, we are lucky to have an NZ-based administrator who is very active as well.

Just throwing it out there for ideas or thoughts, and what others have done if it is something that has crossed your radar! David Nind (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure about formal stats, but I can point you at what NZ stuff I've kicked into the monthly challenge, and what has been completed that way. IdiotSavant (talk) 06:39, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, that would be great! David Nind (talk) 07:32, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Added to your talk page. IdiotSavant (talk) 16:17, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Templates for symbols

Can someone create a {{Pounds}} and similar, to insert £ and Yen and other symbols not easily found on the interface on some devices? Could even be subst. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 13:48, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

You already created {{pound}} lol. I've just created {{yen}}. If there are others you need, you'll need to specify them. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

{{euro}} (€) available. • M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

Why do we need these? In the Page interface, there's a drop down table of special characters, that should be about as easy; a little harder for speed-typing, less error-prone for remembering the right name. Adding a template just makes things differ more at the text level from the display level. If they need to exist, they should be used as subst templates only, as {{subst:pound}}, so they don't clutter up the page text.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:43, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I don't think there's any harm in such templates existing; and they can be substed as you say —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 18:44, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

I vaguely recall once passing by a bot that subst'd templates marked as "always subst", but IDK if it's still running. — Alien  3
3 3 19:27, 11 July 2025 (UTC)

See also the CharInsert gadget (can be enabled in Preferences), and w:Help:CharInsert for how to add custom symbols to said CharInsert gadget. Arcorann (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Request for a "merge subpages" template different from the current one.

I would like to propose/request a maintenance template that I could put on a page to request that a page and its subpages be merged into a single page. ToxicPea (talk) 05:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

What do you expect from such a template? E. g. in Wikipedia they are usually used to attract attention of other contributors to the talk page where the merge is discussed, but I am afraid that this does not work in Wikisource where the traffic is much lower, and such proposals would usually stay unnoticed. It is better to discuss the individual cases (or a list of cases if there are more) here at Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:08, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I was thinking that a {{consolidate}} would behave similarly to {{split}} which is basically what I'm looking for but in reserve. ToxicPea (talk) 14:54, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Do you have many cases where this would be applicable ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:10, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

There's Broadcasting Act 1981, for which I feel that the main page and the front matter should be merged and the schedules should be merged.

There's also the Mental Nurses Committee (Election Scheme) Rules, Approval Instrument 1964 and the General Nursing Council (Election Scheme) Rules, Approval Instrument 1964 which could be merged with their respective schedules. ToxicPea (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

I feel like it would be more appropriate to raise a discussion for each work specifically, either on the Index page or here, rather than flagging it with a maintenance tag. If there were a more specific general-purpose action and a backlog of applicable works (e.g. "merge front matter and schedules on these 50 works"), with consensus that this action is appropriate, then I could see a new maintenance tag being helpful. But I don't see that this is the case here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:59, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

These are set up, in a specfic way, If merged you will end with dupliacted numbering in the anchors, which will need to be amended. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:17, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

The two SI's mentioned have distinct numbering, and are thus TWO unique documents in the relevant series. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:20, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I know. Those were intended to be two different examples. ToxicPea (talk) 13:13, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Dictionnaire kurde-français

I would like to transcribe this book by Auguste Jaba on Wikisource but I'm confused about the copyright and where to do this. There is a Google books scan on archive.org which has a lot of scanning mistakes. There is another one on Paris Kurdish Institute's website [6] which is much better but it has a watermark at the first and last page. Can I use the Google books one and add the missing pages from the Institute's copy?

My second question is where should I do this? Here, fr.wikisource or wikisource Kurdish? Wikihez (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I would say just take the scan from the Kurdish Institute; these aren't really "watermark"s but library stamps; you can just ignore those.

On your second question: it wouldn't make much sense to add it here, given this is English Wikisource and there's no English in that text. Perhaps you meant to ask the question at multilingual Wikisource (also known as oldwikisource:). From what I can see, all of the running text is in French; therefore I'd say it should go to French Wikisource. — Alien  3
3 3 12:33, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the quick reply. I went to multilingual Wikisource first but I followed a link from there to here thinking this is the central page for discussions in English. I will upload the file and see what comes up at French Wikisource. Thanks again! :) Wikihez (talk) 13:01, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

mul: exists for multilingual texts. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:21, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

I thought some about recommending to put it on mul, but there's no running text in kurdish; is a text in one language (here french) that only uses terms from another language (kurdish) really multilingual? — Alien  3
3 3 16:28, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

That's a toughie, but you can err on the side of mul:. If there's text in one language for 80% of the book but then one passage is in another or one character only speaks another language or one chapter is in another, sure. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:06, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Wikidata Item and Property labels soon displayed in Wiki Watchlist/Recent Changes

(Apologies for posting in English, you can help by translating into your language)

Hello everyone, the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects team is excited to announce an upcoming change in how Wikidata edit changelogs are displayed in your Watchlists and Recent Changes lists. If an edit is made on Wikidata that affects a page in another Wikimedia Project, the changelog will contain some information about the nature of the edit. This can include a QID (or Q-number), a PID (or P-number) and a value (which can be text, numbers, dates, or also QID or PID’s). Confused by these terms? See the Wikidata:Glossary for further explanations.

The upcoming change is scheduled for 17.07.2025, between 1300 - 1500 UTC. The change will display the label (item name) alongside any QID or PIDs, as seen in the image below:

These changes will only be visible if you have Wikidata edits enabled in your User Preferences for Watchlists and Recent Changes, or have the active filter ‘Wikidata edits’ checkbox toggled on, directly on the Watchlist and Recent Changes pages.

Your bot and gadget may be affected! There are thousands of bots, gadgets and user-scripts and whilst we have researched potential effects to many of them, we cannot guarantee there won’t be some that are broken or affected by this change.

Further information and context about this change, including how your bot may be affected can be found on this project task page. We welcome your questions and feedback, please write to us on this dedicated Talk page.

Thank you, - Danny Benjafield (WMDE) on behalf of the Wikidata For Wikimedia Projects Team. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:46, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-29

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

Updates for editors

• Featured templates, a new feature related to Template Recall and Discovery will be deployed this week to all Wikimedia projects: With this feature, editors will be able to quickly access a list of templates that are likely to be useful. These templates will be displayed in a list, under the "featured" tab of the template discovery interface. Administrators can define the list via the Community Configuration interface. The feature fulfills a request by the community through the Community Wishlist. [7][8]
• View all 31 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, the request to add Malayalam fonts in the Wikisource Book Export Tool was resolved and now, the rendering of Malayalam letters in exported Wikisource books are accurate. [9]

Updates for technical contributors

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

• Developers, designers, and all Wikimedians are invited to submit a project idea for the Wikimania Hackathon 2025. Read this Diff blog post for more details.

Meetings and events

• WikiIndaba 2025 scholarship application and program submission is open until 23:59 GMT on July 20. WikiIndaba is a regional conference for African Wikimedians both on the continent and in the diaspora to unite and grow together. Submit your scholarship application and program proposal now!
• WikiCon Brasil 2025 will take place on July 19-20 in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil. The Brazilian community members are encouraged to register and attend!

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

MediaWiki message delivery 20:09, 14 July 2025 (UTC)

The Commentaries of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus

We have both Index:The Commentaries of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus.pdf and Index:The Commentaries of the Emperor Marcus Antoninus.djvu which seem to be the same thing. Work has started on the .pdf, but not much. Which should be deleted ? -- Beardo (talk) 23:07, 15 July 2025 (UTC)

I usually prefer the DjVu over PDF. In this instance, the PDF has an extra page added to the front of the file, as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:56, 16 July 2025 (UTC)

Two more PDFs not parsing properly

I am getting a 0 x 0 size error for the following two files, and the Index pages associated with them are giving an "Invalid Interval" error. Purging / Refreshing in various forms has not solved the issues for me.

• File:Charles Dickens (a Critical Study) by George Gissing, 1898.djvu
• File:The Pigtail of Ah Lee Ben Loo.pdf

Can someone who knows how to fix the issue please help? --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:37, 19 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the first explicitly a DjVu and not a PDF? Note the second one looks to load properly for me now. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The first has had a problem for a few days now, as a lot of pages suddenly appeared in the orphaned pages list. -- Beardo (talk) 02:28, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

This looks like another 0x0 bug, which previously was PDF-specific. From experience, it disappears after a few days to a few weeks. — Alien  3
3 3 08:35, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

The first file seems correct now (pages 107 and 108 replaced again). • M-le-mot-dit (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2025 (UTC)

There is no issue rendering either file or the indices in my browser and I did not Purge or hard refresh the pages. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:11, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

... because, as I said, it's been a few days and now it's fixed itself. — Alien  3
3 3 16:02, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm just confirming it on my end. This is a classic problem of caching: what displays on one person's computer doesn't show up the same on the other's and it takes time for things to propagate. I thought I was just being nice and helpful. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Ah, my bad then. I misunderstood. — Alien  3
3 3 19:21, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-30

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

Updates for editors

• The Translation Suggestions feature in the Content Translation tool now has another level of article filters added to the "... More" category. Translators who use the Suggestions feature can now select and receive article suggestions that are customized to geographical locations of their interest using the new "Regions" filter. [10]
• Administrators can now limit "Add a Link" to newcomers. The "Add a Link" Structured Task helps new account holders start editing, but some communities have requested the ability to restrict it to its intended audience: newcomers. Administrators can configure this setting within the Community Configuration feature.
• View all 29 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• For AbuseFilter editors on some wikis, it is now possible to filter edits based on the RevertRisk score of the edit being attempted. It is only populated if the action being evaluated is an edit. For more information, please see the ORES/AbuseFilter variables documentation.
• The Beta Cluster wikis have been moved from beta.wmflabs.org to beta.wmcloud.org. Users may need to update URLs in any tools, or in their password managers. Any related issues can be reported in the task.
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• WikiCite 2025 will take place from 29–31 August, both online and in-person in Bern, Switzerland. The event's goals are to reconnect communities, institutions, and individuals working with open citations, bibliographic data, and the Wikidata/Wikibase ecosystem. Registration is open and the call for proposals will be announced soon. [11]

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

MediaWiki message delivery 23:42, 21 July 2025 (UTC)

Hotcat on Index Pages

The Hotcat gadget doesn't show up for me in some namespaces, mainly the Index namespace. It was working fine for me a few days ago and it works in mainspace so I feel like something is wrong here. ToxicPea (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

Nothing local, at any rate, given we just copy commons'. My bet is that HotCat only activates on pages with the wikitext contentmodel; whereas index pages are not exactly wikitext, but a wrapper for that. Anyhow, though, from what I've seen (though I have by no means been focusing on categorisation) it appears that we tend to not categorise indexes much, and rather do that on the corresponding mainspace pages. — Alien  3
3 3 21:41, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

But it worked fine a few days ago. see the edit history of Index:Sea Fisheries (Shellfish) Amendment (Scotland) Act 2000 (ASP 2000-12 qp).pdf for example. What would be causing the gadget to stop activating now? ToxicPea (talk) 21:50, 23 July 2025 (UTC)

There were a few edits recently, notably one that added contentmodel safeguards. Probably they didn't take into account ProofreadPage. Are there error or warning messages when you open your browser console? — Alien  3
3 3 00:17, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Left an upstream report on commons at [12]. — Alien  3
3 3 00:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

I do get the following error

Uncaught TypeError: Cannot read properties of undefined (reading '2')

at createEditors (index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:3240:69)

at setup (index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:3246:18)

at HC.start (index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-HotCat.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:3340:5)

at api.php?format=json&callback=HotCat.start&action=query&rawcontinue=&titles=Index%3AAmended_Standing_Order_2025-01_for_the_District_of_Maryland.pdf&prop=info%7Crevisions&rvprop=content%7Ctimestamp%7Cids&meta=siteinfo&rvslots=main&rvlimit=1&rvstartid=15218249:1:12 ToxicPea (talk) 01:54, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Why would you need it to work in the Index namespace? We typically do not want Work, Subject, or Date categories added to Index pages, so it's probably better if it does not function there. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Sometimes Wikiproject categories are added to indexes. — Alien  3
3 3 09:04, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Also, I don't think that (we typically do not use this feature for X purpose) is a sufficient reason for (this feature should be left nonfunctional).

Also, the Index template explicitly contains a field for categories, so leaving HotCat nonfunctional does not actually deter the addition of categories, but rather it only makes it more inconvenient for people who do have reasons for adding categories. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Isn't the whole point of HotCat that it's more convenient? I don't see how this is a good reason to leave the feature nonfunctional. ToxicPea (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2025 (UTC)

Multivolume works with overlapping editions.

I'm creating Index pages for The Liturgical Year, which consists of fifteen volumes published between 1867 and 1903. I noticed, however, that the scans at Commons were a mix of different editions. I also noticed that some of the earlier volumes have second editions that were published before the first editions of later volumes. Do we have any precedent for dealing with overlapping editions in other multivolume works? (I ended up finding scans of each volume's first edition, so this question is mostly theoretical). —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

No helpful precedents that I can think of. Typically we try to avoid that situation. It's one reason I have not scan backed one work in particular that I'd really like to, because it's a two-volume work with more than a dozen different editions I've located, yet nowhere have I found both volumes from the same edition. But there are also editions where the volumes from the same edition were published in different years, and that can be difficult to verify when it occurs. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:38, 25 July 2025 (UTC)

We have a fair number of these around. We have a fair number of mixed US / UK editions as well "deluxe" vs. "standard" editions. In general if the editions are similar, it's not the biggest problem... MarkLSteadman (talk) 01:25, 26 July 2025 (UTC)

Hmm, I think mixed editions are a problem, more so than overlapping editions. But not so much of a problem to be worth fussing over lol —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 13:48, 28 July 2025 (UTC)

Tech News: 2025-31

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

Weekly highlight

• The Community Tech team will be focusing on wishes related to Watchlists and Recent Changes pages, over the next few months. They are looking for feedback. Please read the latest update, and if you have ideas, please submit a wish on the topic.

Updates for editors

• The Wikimedia Commons community has decided to block cross-wiki uploads to Wikimedia Commons, for all users without autoconfirmed rights on that wiki, starting on August 16. This is because of widespread problems related to files that are uploaded by newcomers. Users who are affected by this will get an error message with a link to the less restrictive UploadWizard on Commons. Please help translating the message or give feedback on the message text. Please also update your local help pages to explain this restriction. [13]
• On wikis with temporary accounts enabled and Meta-Wiki, administrators may now set up a footer for the Special:Contributions pages of temporary accounts, similar to those which can be shown on IP and user-account pages. They may do it by creating the page named MediaWiki:Sp-contributions-footer-temp. [14]
• View all 21 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week.

Updates for technical contributors

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

Meetings and events

• Wikimania 2025 will run from August 6–9. The program is available for you to plan which sessions you want to attend. Most sessions will be live-streamed, with exceptions for those that show the "no camera" icon. If you are joining online to watch live-streams and use the interactive features, please register for a free virtual ticket. For example, you may be interested in technical sessions such as:
  • Temporary Accounts: Enhancing privacy for our unregistered editors
  • Building a Sustainable Future for Wikimedia Contributors
  • A dozen visions for wikitext!
  • Coordinate Across Stakeholders with the Product and Technology Advisory Council
• The MediaWiki Users and Developers Conference, Fall 2025 will be held 28–30 October 2025 in Hanover, Germany. This event is organized by and for the third-party MediaWiki community. You can propose sessions and register to attend.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 00:26, 29 July 2025 (UTC)

Science-Gossip TOC Help

I've recently finished the initial proofreading of Hardwicke's Science Gossip, Volume I (Main|Index). Now I'm starting the transclusion, but the book doesn't have a TOC (only an Index), so I decided to make one.

My current plan is that the navigation built into the {{header}} templates will go from section to section (e.g. Zoology to Entomology) and the TOC will list all distinct entries in the original order. I've written up a sample TOC in my Sandbox for one-quarter of the full book (January–March) and would like some feedback before I start making pages.

Some specific questions:

• I do understand that this makes a long TOC. Should I condense it? Any techniques useful for handling TOCs for periodicals?
• Some articles (usually very short notes) do not have titles. In these cases, I took the liberty of making up a basic, relevant title. An example is "Blue Flowers Becoming White" and "Corrosive Sublimate" being made-up titles for the third and fourth entries on this page. Is this approach okay? Should I indicate in some way that the title is not original?
• There are some short, filler articles scattered throughout the book. I denoted them as "Interludes." Any better ideas for handling the URL organization? And how can I make the displayed text more distinct in the TOC?

If you have advice, techniques, or examples of how I could format it better, please let me know!
—SpikeShroom (talk) 02:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Global ban proposal for Chealer

Hi community, this is to notify that there is a Global ban proposal for User:Chealer on Meta. Please participate at m:Requests for comment/Global ban for Chealer. Thank you. CyrusHickman (talk) 05:45, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Noting that this is a formal process notification at all sisters the User has edits on. The User has made only two edits here, back in 2009. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:35, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

TemplateStyles failing to work within wikilinks

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T200704

I know this has been brought up before, but I'm having trouble finding the Phabricator ticket for it. Could someone link me to the Phabricator ticket? TemplateStyles does not work when the first call is inside a wikilink. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:12, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Update: found - phab:T200704 —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:24, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

By the way, there are workarounds. None of them especially appealing, but may be workable depending on the specific situation. One non-obvious such is to put a dummy (empty) invocation of the relevant template in the header in Page:-namespace, or even manually import the template's stylesheet (the extension tag works anywhere in wikitext, not just in Template:-namespace templates). It's if the first invocation of a given template on a wikipage is inside wikilink markup that this breaks, so any fudging or adjustment that puts that first invocation on the page outside the wikilink will fix it. Really annoying and unpretty, and completely impenetrable for newcomers, but it does seem like nobody is willing to touch this problem until the Great Parser Unification is complete (<voice mode="dripping with sarcasm">any day now, I'm sure</>). Xover (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Yes - in fact the reason I was asking this question, was so that I could put a link to phab:T200704 in a comment next to a workaround dummy template invocation :) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Upcoming Deployment of the CampaignEvents Extension

Hello everyone,

The Campaigns Product Team is proposing to deploy the CampaignEvents extension to all Wikisource, including this Wikisource, during the week of August 25th.

This extension is designed to help organizers plan and manage events, WikiProjects, and other on-wiki collaborations - and to make these efforts more discoverable.

The three main features of this extension are:

• Event Registration: A simple way to sign up for events on the wiki.
• Collaboration List: A global list of events and a local list of WikiProjects, accessible at Special:AllEvents.
• Invitation Lists: A tool to help organizers find editors who might want to join, based on their past contributions.

Note: The extension comes with a new user right called "Event Organizer", which will be managed by administrators on this Wikisource. Organizer tools like Event Registration and Invitation Lists will only work if someone is granted this right. The Collaboration List is available to everyone immediately after deployment.

The extension is already live on several wikis, including all Wikipedia, Meta, Wikidata, and more ( See the full deployment list)

If you have any questions, concerns, or feedback, please feel free to share them on the extension talkpage. We’d love to hear from you before the proposed date.

Thank you! Udehb-WMF (talk) 15:49, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Author tool?

Isn't there a tool/button I can enable so that I can highlight a name, and then automatically append the [[Author:X Y Z|X Y Z]] formatting to it? Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 20:11, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

You can apply [[Author:NAME|]] to get the same result, and there is a button to apply the brackets and pipe. So if there isn't a specific tool, it should be easy to add. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:28, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

True, but it would be nice to have a tool that inserts the whole code at once. I have been thinking about that already too, and now, after this inquiry, I tried adding the following to my common.js:

// Add custom CharInsert entries
window.charinsertCustom = {
 "Insert": '[[Author:+|]]'
};

Unfortunately, after saving it the part [[Author:+|]] changes into [[Author:+|+]] for some reason, and as a result it does not work as intended. Could this be solved somehow? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:39, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

I suspect that whatever is converting the pipe into pipe-plus-text is interacting with the code. The [[|]] can be applied by first highlighting the word, then hitting the button. This new code should be possible to apply using the exact same syntax. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

Got it. The trick is a slash between the first two square brackets, i. e. [/[Author:+|]]. So the code to add to one's common.js is:

// Add custom CharInsert entries
window.charinsertCustom = {
 "Insert": '[/[Author:+|]]'
};

@Fundy Isles Historian - J:: Open your common.js and add the above code there and save the page. That should add the code to your CharInsert box below the editing window. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:25, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

PS: Just to make clearer what EncycloPetey already mentioned: Note that when editing a page, you do not have to repeat the name after the pipe. It is enough when you save a page with [[Author:NAME|]], you do not have to write [[Author:NAME|NAME]]. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:30, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

(To be precise, it looks like [[Author:Name|]] until you save the page; right before writing in the database, the code is replaced by [[Author:Name|Name]] during the post-save transforms. So if/when someone later looks at the source code, they'll see [[Author:Name|Name]].) — Alien  3
3 3 22:55, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

BTW: it might be good to have it in the general CharInsert box so that every new user does not have to be finding out how to add it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:16, 31 July 2025 (UTC)

It's already there in the Wiki markup section. Xover (talk) 06:34, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Ah, I have missed that completely :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:43, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, also appreciate knowing about the "piping" issue to save time. Related note, image in thumbnail here...is there some way to tell OCR to only scan inside a selected square or to quickly/easily cut off those margins from the opposing flap/version/whatever? Trying to proofread some more of Index:Campobello Tourist Booklet 2.pdf but it's difficult without OCR. Fundy Isles Historian - J (talk) 22:47, 1 August 2025 (UTC)

• Fundy Isles Historian - J: The easiest way I’ve found for this case is to use the tool here; after loading in the image, you can tell the OCR machine to generate text only within a specified box. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:38, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

New transclusion tool

I've made (with @Ignacio Rodríguez) a webservice to ease transclusion, running at https://wstranclude.toolforge.org/. Normally, it should be able to figure it out with just the titles of the index and the mainspace page, and the template that marks the titles of subpages (with user confirmation, of course). It's also available in french and spanish (other translations are welcome). Examples: the subpages of Poems (Becker) and The Fate of the Jury (edit summary format has changed since, but the logic is the same). The code and its documentation are at https://gitlab.wikimedia.org/toolforge-repos/wstranclude. Pages are created with the account WSTranscluderBot. — Alien  3
3 3 22:22, 2 August 2025 (UTC)

WikiCite 2025

Hi all, apologies for cross-posting.

I would like to share that the programme for WikiCite 2025 (taking place August 29–31) is nearly finalized. This year marks the reboot of WikiCite, a conference dedicated to sources, references, and their metadata within the wikiecosystems.

We are currently working to incorporate the remaining community proposals. The jury will be meeting again in less tha two weeks to review the final round of suggestions for online talks.

Additionally, our sponsor has asked me to prepare a white paper on the future of WikiCite — so all perspectives are welcome. Don’t forget, there are prizes available for the best talks and proposed activities. Alexmar983 (talk) 08:45, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Browser-specific issues with font size templates

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T401137

I'm observing two separate but maybe related cases, when using {{smaller block/s}}/{{smaller block/e}} and when using {{smallrefs}}, where when Mediawiki produces <p> elements in the contents of these templates, the font size gets reset to the default for those elements when viewed on Safari on iPhone. Desktop Firefox or Chrome-based browsers don't appear to have this problem, even in responsive mode. Both cases can be seen in Ancient India as Described in Classical Literature/Section 2, {{smaller block/s}} at the top and {{smallrefs}} at the bottom of the page. In the former case, a <p> element is generated thorugh normal line breaks for text paragraphs that are neither the first or last in the block, in the second case <p> elements are generated by the use of {{pbr}} to produce line breaks in footnotes. Prosody (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

Actually scratch that, it's reproducible with other browsers when using en.m.wikisource. Prosody (talk) 15:54, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the issue in Firefox on my desktop. But then I'm not sure what you mean by "when using en.m.wikisource" --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:13, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: https://en.m.wikisource.org (as opposed to https://en.wikisource.org) is the url for the mobile website. It's the default shown to mobile users, but is also viewable on desktop. It's managed by mw:Extension:MobileFrontend; see comment below on how it does that. The url to test the problem would be [15]. — Alien  3
3 3 17:23, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

It's the fault of mw:Extension:MobileFrontend. To be precise, it enforces the font-size settings with rems, which is an effing bad idea, knowing that those are independent from the parent elements; as time passes, it looks more and more like the Web team just likes forcing arbitrary styles onto wiki content. To be precise, the compiled CSS contains:

.mf-font-size-clientpref-small .mw-body p,
.mf-font-size-clientpref-small .content p {
  font-size:1rem;
}

It comes from [16]; which also changes the line-height while it's at it. That code really ought to only target the containers. Left phab:T401137; however, this being "maintained" by the Web team (or whatever it's just split into), which are the same people responsible for the V22 and QuickSurveys debacles, we probably won't get any answer for a long while; if we ever get an answer that isn't IDHT corporatespeak, that is. Why, why do they always feel such a need to overwrite styling of page content? Sigh. — Alien  3
3 3 17:21, 4 August 2025 (UTC)

@Alien333 Thank you for taking the time to dive deep into that. Prosody (talk) 19:14, 4 August 2025 (UTC)