Wikisource:Scriptorium

Wikisource News

---

April 2024

Administrator confirmations
WikiProject Chinese
Miscellaneous

ARCHIVES • DISCUSSION • PROJECT

Ankündigungen

Annotations

I have just put together some new templates that may be useful to you fine people: {{annotation}}, {{annotations}}, and {{annotation header}}. Here's how they work.

Let's say you have a text like Strivings of the Negro People, and you have lots of useful annotations made my the Wikisource community. You want to keep an annotated and an unannotated version, but you don't want to keep up with both (making changes in both places.) Here's what you do.

1. All of your annotations go in an annotation tag {{annotation|like this}}. If they are footnotes, put the ref tags in the annotation template {{annotation|<ref>like this</ref>}}. These will not be displayed in the page.
2. If you have annotated footnotes, place {{annotations}} (plural) at the bottom of the page, where you would like the footnotes to display. (But they will not display in the non-annotated page.)
3. At the top of the page, preferably in the "notes" section of header2, include {{annotation header}}. This will put a message that there is an annotated version of this page available.
4. Create a subpage at Strivings of the Negro People/annotated. The text of the page should simply be {{:Strivings of the Negro People}}.

That's it! Now your non-annotated version will not show the comments, but will link to the annotated version, which does. (The annotated version will link back to the non-annotated version as well.) Compare Strivings of the Negro People and Strivings of the Negro People/annotated to see a real-live example.

Limitations:

1. If the original document uses <ref> tags, and your annotations also contain <ref> tags, it will not work correctly. Either use <ref> tags in the original or the annotations, not both.
2. The annotated version must be a subpage named "annotated", as in the example. No other name will work.
3. Only works in the main namespace will work correctly. (These templates weren't designed for userspace or authorspace.)

Comments? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 18:36, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

ROOTPAGENAME

I noticed in the Wikipedia Signpost a new feature which might very useful in some of our templates (maybe even {{header}}). There are two new magic words {{ROOTPAGENAME}} which will give top-level parent page of the current page. There is also {{ROOTPAGENAMEE}} which I am a little unlclear on. The more technically inclined people may know better than me how useful this can really be.--BirgitteSB 19:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

{{ROOTPAGENAMEE}} converts spaces to underbars and things like that, so that you can put the page name into a URL, like [http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title={{ROOTPAGENAMEE}}&action=edit this]. That magic word doesn't seem to enabled here yet though.

"Scriptorium"

See? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

It's been reverted, so I don't know whether it will be implemented. It's already possible using ParserFunctions, although the syntax is a little confusing: {{#titleparts:United States Code/Title 1/Chapter 1|1|1}} = "United States Code". —{admin} Pathoschild 01:37:24, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

Tweak header template to look nicer, be more readable

I would like to change Template:Header2 to look nicer and be more readable. Currently we have:

←Dedication

The Prince (Chapter I: Of the Various Kinds of Princedom, and of the Ways in Which They Are Acquired) by Niccolò Machiavelli (translated by Ninian Hill Thomson)

Chapter II→

I would like it to appear as:

←Dedication

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, translated by Ninian Hill Thomson Chapter I: Of the Various Kinds of Princedom, and of the Ways in Which They Are Acquired

Chapter II→

If the section variable is empty, then the author's name will appear on a separate line as before. For example:

A Modest Proposal by Jonathan Swift

This revised format is more flexible, handles long chapter/section names better, and uses more easily readable prose instead of parenthesis. This change would not break anything. I'm keeping the new template code at User:Remember the dot/Sandbox 2 for the time being, so you can post examples of how it handles other pages as well. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 02:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

• I really like that. Support. —Quadell (talk/swapmeet) 20:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
• I like the last way, as well. However, would it be possible to add some kind of break so that the text is not crammed right up under the "section" portion of the header2. It would be nice to have one line of white space.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 17:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
  • It's pretty easy to fix the spacing with CSS tags (e.g. style="margin-bottom: 10px") —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• For chapters like The suppressed Gospels and Epistles of the original New Testament of Jesus the Christ/Chapter 9 and Obituary of the members of the Society of Friends in Great Britain and Ireland, for the year 1850/Patrick, I've been manually adding a <br /> after the title so as to force a new line. For ones like Life of Jesus/Chapter 6 I simply left the long chapter title out altogether. It'll be nice to be able to avoid both workarounds with the new system. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:13, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support John Cross 12:47, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

So when can this go live? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 23:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As soon as an administrator copies-and-pastes the code from User:Remember the dot/Sandbox 2 to Template:Header2. But your question was probably when will an administrator get around to doing that (I don't know). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I was bold. (I also added documentation.) If this breaks stuff, please revert me. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 14:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Show all subpages in print view

I've written preliminary JavaScript that displays all pages of a work in the "printable version" view. The script determines the list of subpages by parsing links to subpages on the index page, so a full index (example) is required. Partial indexes (example) won't work correctly, but it's probably a bad idea to load the entire United States Code on one page anyway.

This is a preliminary script, so more validation and features need to be implemented before it's ready for actual use. Please leave any comments or suggestions below.

• Live demonstration: click on "Show all subpages" just under the top header. You can ignore the black box warning, which only appears when the script is loaded dynamically.
• Source code.
• Request.

—{admin} Pathoschild 02:42:57, 01 February 2008 (UTC)

This is great! I have a few suggestions for the script, though.

1. Making this work in IE.
2. Suppressing all headers from the subpages would be a nice feature (since the chapters are already labeled, transcluding the headers is a bit redundant).
3. And if the categories at the bottom of the page could be done away with.

I think the first one is integral, since so many use IE. And I think the second two would make this more asthetically appealing for print versions.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 03:05, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

IE compatibility should be looked into. But unfortunately, IE contains many, many bugs and deficiencies that may make it difficult or impossible to get certain scripts to work with it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The script will definitely support Internet Explorer by the time it's ready for use. The other options can probably be done more easily with CSS. —{admin} Pathoschild 12:41:24, 01 February 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "partial indexes won't work correctly"? If I ran it on Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V, am I correct that it would print all the pages listed (but not, for instance, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume V/On the Merits and Forgiveness of Sins, and on the Baptism of Infants/Book I/Chapter 1)? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

And am I correct that Cornhuskers (and other similar collections of independent works) would not print correctly? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes. The script needs a complete list of pages to display (which is a problem on Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers), and these need to be clearly distinguished from unrelated links like author and help pages (which is a problem on Cornhuskers). Neither of these works can be correctly parsed automatically, but this is not a problem if we explicitly provide a list of pages to the script in some way (which would override the automatic parsing). —{admin} Pathoschild 03:54:12, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Would it work for Cornhuskers if I had a bunch of redirect pages like Cornhuskers/Prairie redirecting to Prairie? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:25:07, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Very cool. I'm a fan. Let us know when it's 1.0. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 23:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Add gadget for template preloader script

I would like to have my template preloader script added as a gadget. I think I have all the major bugs worked out and it does a decent, in-the-ballpark job of predicting how to fill out Template:header2. Having this as a gadget would make it easier for others to use the script, and with more users it would be easier to identify any remaining bugs.

To do this, please create MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition with:

Template_preloader|Template_preloader.js

MediaWiki:Gadget-Template_preloader with:

Preload useful templates such as [[Template:header2|header2]] and [[Template:textinfo|textinfo]] ([[:wikipedia:Firefox|Firefox]] only)

and MediaWiki:Gadget-Template_preloader.js with the current contents of User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 07:11, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Support, I use it and it works well for me. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:32, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, if this goes live, please use

Preload useful templates such as [[Template:header2|header2]] and [[Template:textinfo|textinfo]] ([[:wikipedia:Firefox|Firefox]] only, report bugs to [[User talk:Remember the dot|Remember the dot]])

on MediaWiki:Gadget-Template_preloader. That way, people will know where to report bugs. Unfortunately, since the MediaWiki namespace is protected, I won't be able to fix the bugs without admin help, so we might want to just import the script from my userspace (or make me an admin ;-)). —Remember the dot ^(talk) 18:46, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions

OCR software

I know that there is a great dirth of decent free OCR software for people to use. However, I just came across a program called FreeOCR which is a Windows-compatible freeware OCR program using the Tesseract engine. For those people who have texts to be OCR'd and have a Windows machine, I suggest trying it out and seeing if it works well. The only real requirement is that your computer have the .NET Framework, version 2.0 or higher.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't work for me. I downloaded and installed the latest .NET framework from Microsoft, then downloaded the latest FreeOCR, and whenever I try to scan a document (including the samples included with the install), I get an unhandled exception: file not found. (I'm using a Dell Inspiron E1405 laptop.) If anyone has better luck, let me know. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Odd. I just downloaded and installed it and it worked great for me. I've got a Dell Inspiron 1150 laptop and have Microsoft .NET framework version 1, 2, and 3 on my system. But this is just for the OCR portion. I didn't try out the scan option, since I don't do any scanning myself. Does it not work for you when you just try to OCR?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:20, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't have a scanner. I was just trying the OCR function. Glad it works for you. . . I'll fiddle around with it some more when I get a chance. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:07, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

On the other hand, this website will OCR images for you using the Tesseract engine, and it's pretty nifty. (It won't do PDFs, though; just high-quality GIFs and JPGs.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 15:27, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Also to note, the website won't do TIFFs. :( —Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot patrolling

JVbot (talk • contribs) can now patrol new pages, and will soon be able to patrol recent changes. The code is currently not available, as this could be very detrimental to w:Wikipedia:New Page Patrol in the wrong hands. An example semi-automated run is here. Currently the algorithm accepts contributors creating pages which match a particular pattern. e.g. new pages by Bochica (talk • contribs) under Journal of Discourses are A.OK. I'm curious if anyone has any reservations about this, as I would prefer to run this automated on the bot account rather than manually on my account. In order to be useful, it needs to be run regularly. If it helps, this list of automatically patrolled user/page tuples could be stored on a wiki page to allow it to be updated by any admin. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 07:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm confused. What would this bot do? Revert? Make a list of suspect edits? What? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:50, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the pattern have to be approved by a real live person once or twice before the bot accepts as valid? Or does the bot present a pattern to a real live person who approves it in general before the bot patrols the fifty pages matching the pattern?--BirgitteSB 15:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I, likewise, am a bit confused as to what the bot would do. Are certain non-admin users whitelisted by the bot? (That's sort of what the example with Bochica seems to me.)—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I was a little terse last night.

The bot marks revisions as patrolled (i.e. removes the red exclamation mark next to it) according to a whitelist which a list of "(user, pattern)" pairs.

The whitelist is currently stored on disk, but it could be managed onwiki (as a protected page?). I have dumped the current list at User:JVbot/patrol whitelist and wikified it a bit. The patterns that are in use permit subpages and talk changes on the mentioned page. Any one can edit the onwiki list at the moment as it is not being used by the bot.

Also, it can mark user space modifications made by the user as patrolled; i.e. User:Psychless is allowed to make changes under their own user/user talk space. This could be a problem as it allows copyvios to be developed unmonitored in userspace.

Currently it prints out the user/title/length/comment for each revision that it has whitelisted, and asks the operator to hit yes or no. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 20:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, let me see if I understand this. What the bot will do is automatically mark as patrolled certain edits by certain users who we know for a fact are competent in adding those types of pages and can pretty much guarantee will be standard according to our style guide?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Correct. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 21:42, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:59, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Support this task and I encourage you to have someone trusted to this community review the code--70.253.164.223 00:21, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Note that the code can be checked in if Wikipedia adopts my proposal to have newpages patrolled by two users rather than one. w:Wikipedia_talk:New_pages_patrol/patrolled_pages#Autoconfirmed (by two users). I am happy to share the code with admins on other sub-domains. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Support, sounds good. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

archive.org DJVU files with Microsoft watermark and restriction

Over on commons, I have started a discussion about archive.org DJVU files which come with Microsoft watermark and a non-commercial restriction.

commons:Commons_talk:Licensing#Microsoft_restrictions_on_archive.org_DJVU_files

This is relevant to Wikisource, especially as the non-commercial aspect means that the DJVU files cant be hosted here either. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Questions

A request to those with high-speed connections

If you have a very, very fast broadband connection, please consider uploading LibriVox spoken text recordings to the Commons for use on Wikisource. I've already started in on The Secret Garden and Peter and Wendy, but there's no way I can do every text on Wikisource. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 01:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I've been transferring a lot of these to Commons, and they're great! Perhaps we could coordinate with the fine LibriVox people to have them upload their new material to Commons? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:52, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be great. I suggest starting a topic on their forums about that. Maybe we can also get them to add links to our (wikified) texts as well as Gutenberg's.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(It would also be nice if they could keep their oggs below 20K, since Commons won't allow uploads >20K. I've been having to split up many of the files manually.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 21:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You mean 20 MB isn't? Yann

Oops, yeah, 20 meg. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 23:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

If worse comes to worst, you can re-encode the files to be smaller. Audacity does this very easily. I've done that many times when I've needed to cut some of their works down to fit Commons' limit.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the tip about Audacity! Really though, if we could just get the devs to up the limit to 30 or 40 MB it would resolve the problem quite nicely. So, go make a fuss at bugzilla:12595! If we all band together, the developers will probably at least look into it. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 05:15, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Will do. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I use Audacity, but I'm a beginner with it. How do you re-encode the files to be smaller? When I pull in the ogg, I don't see an obvious way to do this. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 05:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Import whatever sound file you want to re-encode (this can be WAV, MP3, or OGG). Now, go to "Edit > Preferences" and click on the "File Formats" tab. Under the section labeled "OGG Export Setup" you can adjust the quality of the OGG file you want to export. I usually use "0" or "1" as it doesn't really decrease the overall quality too much, although you might want to expirement yourself to see how much is a justifiable loss in quality and how much isn't. Hit "OK" and go to "File > Export As Ogg Vorbis," choose where to save the new file, and Audacity will do the rest. Depending on the size of the file, this could be anywhere from a few to about twenty minutes (the larger the file, the longer the time it will take).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 06:26, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Zhal! I'll try it. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Just FYI, there is the free speex codec made especially for encoding speech. File sizes are significantly smaller than OGG/Vorbis files at quality level 0, even when encoding ultra-wide band files. Speex files can be put into an OGG container and should therefore be uploadable to the commons (I haven't tried, though). Resample your input file to an 8000Hz (narrow band), 16000Hz (wide band) or 32000Hz (ultra-wide band) WAV file and then do

speexenc input.wav output.ogg

to create an OGG/Speex file. There are also options to speexenc that control the quality/bitrate of the resulting file. I'm aware this is a more advanced procedure than encoding to OGG but maybe you're interested nevertheless.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:38, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

(unindent) I didn't know you could put speex in an ogg container. I'll have to play around with that. Also, from the LibriVox FAQ:

Why aren't you recording in speex?

We are looking at speex and may try to add speex to our catalogs. If you want to help, please let us know. offer your services.

Just FYI. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I found that Image:The Hunting of the Snark.ogg on Commons has a Speex file (wrapped in ogg) in the history. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 15:09, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't get Speex to work (it just crashed), but the Audacity file quality method worked well for Image:LibriVox - Jane Eyre 17 - Kirsten Ferreri.ogg. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 20:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe speex just isn't mature enough yet. I'm using Linux only, so I don't know how well it works for Windows users. Was it playing the file that didn't work, or just encoding? We shouldn't upload files which are unusable for a significant part of the user base. Furthermore, when I first tried speex one or two years back, it did not produce OGG files. The resulting files could be played back with speexdec only. Now (I'm using version 1.1.12) speexenc creates OGG files regardless of the specified file extension. This behaviour is unacknowledged in the manual page. So, old versions of speex produce mostly unplayable files, and the word that you might fare much better with newer versions probably hasn't spread.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:10, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It created a zero-byte output file and then crashed. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 22:02, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Copyright clarifications from Mike Godwin

Two clarifications on copyright concerns have come down from the WMF counsel

1. Copyright regarding public speeches
2. Status of the "rule of the shorter term" in the US

Please spread this information to any subdomains which are confused on these issues.--BirgitteSB 19:09, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Anthere has made a clarification on it, see here 555 19:36, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The first "public speeches" clarification is fantastic news! It means that the text of an off-the-cuff speech (including non-prepared interview questions and non-prepared answers to those questions) are in the public domain. There are tons of notable, important speeches and interviews that can be imported, so long as it can be shown that the words were not "fixed" (written down before-hand). Take, for instance, this CNN interview with Patty Hearst, or this InfoWorld interview will Bill Gates. Frequently, pages that host transcripts of interviews put a copyright notice and restrictions on the content, but that notice is meaningless if the copyright didn't exist in the first place.

One caveat: If an interviewer's questions were written down beforehand, those questions could be copyrighted (but not the answers). So you may have to replace the question with a simple "Q:", or a paraphrase like "Q: [concerning your feelings about the movie]". This interview with Osama Bin Ladin, for instance, had the questions written down in advance. (It's also not clear who the translator was, so we can't use it for that reason.) Anyway, great stuff. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 15:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello,

I am not so sure that we can take for granted that interviews are not copyrighted. It is not so uncommon to send questions to a personality before the interview takes place. So it is also possible that the personality has prepared his/her answers. Also there is the issue of recorders (radio or TV broadcasters) which has to be taken into account. Yann 19:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Certainly the audio recordings themselves are copyrighted, but not the words themselves. These would only be copyrighted if they were "fixed" (written down) beforehand. If I interview, and I tell you the questions beforehand, and you think it over, your answers still aren't eligible for copyright since they were never "fixed". But if you write down your answers and then read them aloud, those would be copyrighted. It's usually pretty easy to determine which sort of interview it is, but. . . when in doubt, don't upload. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:08, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This seems to ascertain the legitimacy of the (poorly deleted) 9/11 Dispatcher transcript, September 11th FDNY Radio Transcripts, Flight 93 Transcript with CARTC and Flight 93 Cockpit Transcript. There was no expectation of privacy on these works, and the spoken words themselves hold no inherent copyright as they were not afixed by the speakers. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ovid} 21:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikisource:Proposed deletions#Undeletion request on various transcripts--BirgitteSB 21:47, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

• So audiotapes don't count as fixation - but what if they were audiotapes recorded by the speaker? What if they're videotapes? Does the same standard apply, that as long as nothing was (presumed) pre-written, that it's PD? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians} 23:23, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• • The audio itself is copyrighted (it the case of a recording of an off-the-cuff speech), because presumably the audio recorder is able to pre-define "creative content" such as microphone placement (analogous to copyright on a photograph). But the words are not copyrighted. If I record myself (audio or video) making an off-the-cuff speech, the specific recording is copyrighted but the words themselves are not. Think of it like photographing a person talking: the photograph is copyrighted but the talk is not. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Template:Listen

It's used in a few music articles, Messiah being a fine example. However the play in browser doesn't seem to work anymore. There's been a "play sound" button for a few months now on Wikipedia. Should I just copy the equivalent template over from En.wp, or do adaptations need to be made for Wikisource? Graham87 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I use {{audio file}}, myself. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 20:01, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm ... that template doesn't allow listening online either. Since the extension to do that is installed here, should it be added? I find listening to music and texts online convenient ... but the link will only work with a relatively fast Internet connection. Graham87 03:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I updated the template to use the media player on the same line; I think Wikipedia's template (comparison below) is unnecessarily big, and doesn't work well with our pages that might have multiple media files associated. I also switched to Commons' help page, which I think is nicer. Compare:

Updated:

Click to listen to Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Chapter 1 (7.5MB, help | view file info or download)

Previous:

Audio Wikisource

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Chapter 1 (7.5MB, help | download or online player | file info)

Wikipedia:

Alice's Adventures in Wonderland/Chapter 1

7.5MB

Problems listening to the file? See media help.

—{admin} Pathoschild 04:35:10, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool - works for me. On Wikipedia we have Template:Multi-listen start, Template:Multi-listen item and Template:Multi-listen end for multiple media files like W:Gallery of works by Johann Sebastian Bach. Graham87 10:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

That could be particularly useful for pages like This Side of Paradise/Book One, Chapter 1. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 19:56, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

We don't really need two templates that do the same thing. Can we remove all instances of {{audio file}} with {{listen}} and redirect the former to the latter?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree. User:Polbot can certainly do that, if there's consensus. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 22:52, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I say go for it.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:31, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

No objections from me. Graham87 04:33, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay it's done, except for Jesus Christ Is Risen Today, which uses a MIDI file. (The {{listen}} doesn't seem to like MIDI.) Also, note the {{Audio}} template redirect. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 06:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

SCEhardt (talk • contribs) changed it to 300px wide. I've rolled back to the discussed version; I'll asked the user to comment here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 02:12, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi folks - Sorry; didn't intend to bypass an active discussion. I suggest that the width of the player be expanded significantly to allow for the scroll bar to be used and to make the time display legible. See a comparison here -SCEhardT 02:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree the width makes a huge difference when playing these files. If you are not certain of what the issue is press "play"--BirgitteSB 04:10, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea of using less vertical space, but also agree that the button benefits from more horizontal so that the in play stuff appears more usefully. So some compromise might be possible?? ++Lar: t/c 04:32, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

How about if we bug the developers into letting us put text next to the play icon? Here's a mock-up of how that might work:

[[Image:Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, chapter 1.ogg|noicon|150px|Listen to this text]]

—Remember the dot ^(talk) 04:48, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the 300px version is more useful, and usefulness is most important to me. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 04:47, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Layout of The Mahabharata

Hello,

I have some questions regarding the layout of The_Mahabharata/Book_1:_Adi_Parva:

1. Should the section use roman or arabic numbers? The original seems to have roman numbers, but section numbering goes to 236, so it gets complicated with roman numbers.
2. Is this structure ok? The Mahabharata / Book 1: Adi Parva / Paushya Parva / Section 3 : the third level (Paushya Parva) is not actually used, as the section numbering goes on from one subsection to the next.

Thanks, Yann 00:03, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would be inclined to avoid roman numerals altogether in our page names, no matter what the original uses. The naming in these circumstances has less to do with the original, than with our own system for organising knowledge. Conformity to the original style can be noted on the page itself.

In the interests of being compact I would even go so far as to say that we could even have simply "Mahabharata/Book 1/Section 3". The part and section names can still be shown on the pages with the links as well as the individual pages. This will make it easier if at some later time we want to co-ordinate with another version.

One more thing we should consider is the name itself. Is there any reason why the final "a" should or should not be a part of the name? Similarly for "The" at the beginning. With this being such a large work it would be good to sort this out while we only have a small amount of material. Eclecticology 10:25, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I like "Mahabharata/Book 1/Section 3" as the naming convention. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

I would personally favour using the original roman numerals in the page titles, as with The Time Machine. This is also what the style guide recommends, based on previous discussions: "The section name should reflect those in the original work (Chapter II, Chapter 2, Act 2, et cetera)". I don't think roman numerals have any impact on the way we organize knowledge (using indexes on the top page). —{admin} Pathoschild 15:52:40, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Looking at the talk page for the Style Guide does not show much of a discussion, and there is nothing there about Roman vs. Arabic numerals. It comes down to how we best coördinate what could possible be multiple versions, and where we transition between Wikisource's systematics and the literary licence of the various sources. Eclecticology 21:12, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Not every discussion about what style we adopted happened on that page. Much of it happened on the Scriptorium.

I'd opt for the use of Roman numerals, as that is the style used in the version in question. However, I realize the original Mahabharata did not have Roman/Arabic numerals to differentiate sections, so I won't fight either way for it, especially when Roman numerals can become quite cumbersome after a while.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 23:36, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Worst, volumes 1 to 7 use roman numerals, volumes 8 to 18 uses arabic numerals here [1] , but roman numerals here [2]. Another issue is: should it be called "Mahabharat" or "Mahabharata"? The last vowel is mute. Yann 11:07, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

In order to move forward with this, the numbering scheme in the DJVU file at archive.org should be used. The sacred-texts.com numbering scheme is probably no different to ours: it reflects the choices of whoever does the work. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:19, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, fine. So I will use roman numbers, "The Mahabharata", as in the DJVU file. Yann 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

BOOK OF MACCABEES

ARE THE BATTLES IN THIS BOOK HISTORICALLY APPROXIMATE IN TRUTH?IT SPEAKS OF THEIR RETURN TO THE TOWER OF JERUSALEM..THIS COULD DATE IT TO BEFORE JERUSALEM WAS REBUILT..THANK YOU [email protected] 26,08

Maccabees are considered historically reliable. See 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Books of Maccabees, Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/The Books of Machabees, and wikipedia:Maccabees for details. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 09:21, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Works of Louis Bromfield

Hello,

Does anyone has an idea about the copyright status of these works which are hosted at IA: Author talk:Louis Bromfield. Thanks, Yann 10:15, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Most books first published in the U.S. after 1922 are going to still be under copyright, so long as they were published by a major author through a reputable publisher. Both The Rains Came (1937) and Mr. Smith (1951) are still under copyright, and will be protected until 2051. Oddly enough, The Work of Robert Nathan (1927) is not under copyright (since the copyright was never renewed, possibly because the original publisher had failed to properly copyright the work.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 12:14, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the two works in question are currently protected in the United States, but only until 2032 and 2046 respectively. Eclecticology 18:30, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Oops, you're right. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 05:37, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

New main page design

To get to the point, I feel the current main page scheme of wikisource to be a little too dull in comparison to the rest of the Wikimedia projects; such as Wikipedia, Wikinews etc. I've recently created a new main page scheme which seems to exemplify freshness and adds credibility to the project. It uses a color scheme close to the one present on the logo, and the scheme of it, featured pictures, dyk's etcetera invites contributors. I feel it reflects the quality of the project more than the current main page, which does not seem to reveal the true spirit of the project. — DarkFalls ^talk 08:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I like it (800x600 here), though the "Main Categories" box seems a bit out of place, perhaps we should consider moving it to a horizontal box at the top? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians} 18:43, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to admit, I'm not taken by the new design. I don't see how the new one does what the current one does any better.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 18:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

It uses the colours, as previously mentioned, to give us less of a "1996 in cyberspace" feel - and removes the large ugly blurb with a man on a ladder that seems so amateur compared to the other WMF projects, replacing it with more "interactive" features for the casual viewer to actually take an interest in - to start. Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians} 19:48, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I like how the featured text is shown at the top of the page in your proposed version. However, I prefer the current color scheme. The new one looks rather bland. —Remember the dot ^(talk) 19:56, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Colors can easily be changed. All the new design does is remove one portion of the current main page and rearrange everything else on it. The only thing it adds is a featured image (which I don't think is ever going to work on WS, because we don't have that many important images). Other than that, it doesn't add anything, and the proposed layout looks jumbled. I really don't think it would make WS look any more "professional" than the current one does.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:58, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I can't feel much enthusiasm about the proposal, though it's nice to dump the picture of the guy on the ladder. That description of what Wikisource is should perhaps stay as a landscape rectangle near the top once that picture is gone. I agree that the featured image is not a realistic idea, since it still remains to be seen whether the featured text will receive the regular maintenance that it deserves. That said, a two column approach where one column is based on specials and/or features, and the other aids general navigation would be my preference. Eclecticology 22:14, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I could easily update the "featured pictures" section so to make sure it doesn't get neglected. (I could easily find 10 images a day). Actually I think people will be surprised at how many images of important texts Commons holds :) — DarkFalls ^talk 22:26, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, images shouldn't really be a problem - I wouldn't suggest daily, but certainly weekly shouldn't be a problem. And if the DYK or FI isn't wanted, we could always squeeze {{CotW}} onto there somewhere ;) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians} 22:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

I designed the previous main page, so I may be biased in comparing the new design with it. That said:

• I don't like the colour theme, which has nothing to do with Wikisource. The logo's colour scheme is not really something we should be using elsewhere, since it has no relevance except as a play on a common expression (further, some users have pointed out that water is actually anathema to paper literature). The current main page's scheme was selected after discussion based on the colour of papyrus and old paper, which is very symbolic for a project to archive literature.
• I don't think the "Did you know..." and "Featured images" sections are very relevant. I think we should minimize community processes, and focus on those which focus on adding or editing texts (like Collaboration of the Week). For example, images are only used on Wikisource to supplement texts. This section includes an excerpt from the text version and links to it, so that the text version should meet all our quality standards. This would lead to our having redundant featured text processes, one exclusively for those with images and with lower quality standards.

If we remove these from the proposed design, we essentially have minor tweaks to the current design (some of which have merit). We could discuss and implement those individually, but I don't like this design as a whole. —{admin} Pathoschild 23:01:52, 02 February 2008 (UTC)

Permission to throw (sub) tags around the Sister Projects and Other Languages at the bottom like a proper footer? Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Branch Davidians} 04:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Do whatever you like to it. It's a wiki after all :) — DarkFalls ^talk 05:31, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I also made two other main page designs, the first one keeping in mind Pathoschild's comments and the second being my original ideas. — DarkFalls ^talk 05:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like the dude on the ladder... 68.39.174.238 04:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I like all three: User:DarkFalls/Main Page, User:DarkFalls/Main Page 2 and User:DarkFalls/Main Page 3.

The "Wikisource is an online library..." block sucks the readers attention away from the rest of the main page. While there is some important information in that block, I would prefer that our readers first take a look at our content - they can learn about the project as they go.

I dont particularly like the current colour scheme, as it clashes with the logo (which is not going to change any time soon), and it feels dull. My main objection to the current colour scheme is passified if the "Wikisource is an online library..." block is removed. Many of the other sub-domains have integrated more blue into their page design.

Our project is not about simply transcribing and proof-reading; it is also about reading, annotating, translating, and collating. I would rather see new texts arrive at a slower pace, if we recorded more about the texts. Sometimes it feels like the most interesting part of our project is WS:COPYVIO, as there we actually discuss interesting details about the works we host.

My interest in adding a DYK is a way to encourage everyone to take note of the interesting parts of our texts and share them with others. We have lots of new texts appearing these days, so I would rather see our "new texts" area of the front page filled with the most recently found titbits that have caught peoples attention. Contributors can then list new works by writing a DYK.

Featuring an image does not need to complete with our featured texts. They would only need to be good quality images of PD texts, with a blurb to explain them. The text would not need to be transcribed for the image to be appreciated. In this way we can encourage Commons contributors to notify us of good page scans which dont have much chance of being a Commons featured image. For a featured image to get off the ground, Darkfalls would need to be willing and able to commit to keeping it moving for a month or two. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not crazy about any of these color schemes. The blue & brown scheme clashes too much, but using the same blue that's most of the logo, and close to the links, it a bit too monotone. I think it would be better to use something that goes with the logo better, such as one of the minor colors, an average, or a nice greenish shade. -Steve Sanbeg 17:24, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

I got some colours in User:DarkFalls/Main page colours. — DarkFalls ^talk 05:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

OK, then maybe something like this. -Steve Sanbeg 17:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Done the change on User:DarkFalls/Main Page. Seems to be pretty good :) — DarkFalls ^talk 05:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I personally do not like the blue-green color scheme. If you take a look at User:Psychless/MPage, you can see how I think it should look. I removed "the" from the collaboration block, changed the color scheme to a calming blue instead of a clashing blue-green, and put the new texts block in the middle. To me, the new texts block seems to belong in the center. Psychless 17:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm OK with either. The only thing I really didn't like about some of the blue schemes is that they matched both the logo background and the links. Yours seems to go together pretty well without matching either. -Steve Sanbeg 18:37, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian authors

Hello,

After the copyright debate of the last weeks and months, I wonder what is the status of Indian authors' works. I started copying the dairy of Mahadev Desai, Day to Day with Gandhi, which is PD in India since 1st January 2003, and therefore in all countries which apply the rule of shorter term. However what is the status in USA is not clear to me. I am already preparing the publication of many of Gandhi's works which will be PD in India next year. Same issue for Subhash Chandra Bose, Rabindranath Tagore, Paramahansa Yogananda. AFAIK, most of these works are not published in USA, except for Tagore. Any input welcome. Thanks, Yann 22:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

If a work was first published outside the U.S. before 1923, it's in the public domain in the U.S. If a work was first published outside the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and the work was not protected by copyright in its home country as of January 1, 1996, then it is in the public domain in the U.S. So it depends on when the work entered the public domain in India. For Day to Day with Gandhi, for instance, we would need to know when the English translation was first published, and where it was first published. If the English translation was first published in the U.S. (or if it was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publication anywhere), then U.S. rules apply. But if it was first published in India, and wasn't published in the U.S. until later, was it still under copyright in 1996? If it was, then the U.S. considers it copyrighted until 95 years after its publication, even if India considers it PD. It sucks, but it's true. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 01:43, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I worry that some of these texts may still be copyrighted in USA, although there are PD in India. The first English versions were always published in India, usually shortly after the original publication. Day to Day with Gandhi is dated from January 1968 [3], and Indian works are copyrighted by default. The Story of Bardoli from the same author is dated 1929. AFAIK both are not published in USA, and are out of print since years, not available on the Internet, except on my web site (the original Indian web site is down for at least 2 years). Yann 10:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm sure that Yann has heard these rules parroted on numerous occasions, so this is not an issue of stating rules. This entire nonsense of the United States not recognizing the principle of the shorter term, and their restoration of certain copyrights behind the back of foreign authors leads to absurdist interpretations of law. This sort of thing happens too easily in the long tail of legal provisions. The situation is all the more absurd in a common-law country where copyright is primarily an economic property right; this is in contrast to the view in civil-law countries that it is a personal right. In common-law countries there is a greater tendency to interpret copyright law as a balancing of rights between the rights owner and the general public.

Following the strict blind letter of the law in all cases is bound to be a losing strategy. Although, I believe that there are still strong legal arguments that could be raised to defeat the idea of non-acceptance, (e.g. A US law giving a greater protection to foreign nationals than to its own citizens could be seen as contrary to public policy.) my current argument is not based on a detailed analysis of the underlying law. I also make no argument at this time for national terms that are shorter than the Berne standard of life plus 50 years.

Of course any departure from apparent law needs to be carefully considered and defined. We are not interested in recent pictures that really have current marketability, or works authored by individuals who are still very much alive. We interpret, and should continue to interpret laws in a way that considers the interests of all concerned. We don't thumb are noses at the owners, daring them to come and sue us. Indeed, we would all be pleased if they identified themselves so that we could reach an accommodation, and be prepared to accede to their wishes if they did not want the material published. Although "fair use" might still be a fall-back argument in a legal proceeding, we are not even arguing for fair use. We still don't need to use that as a justification for our actions.

Remember that we are talking about authors who have been dead for at least 50 years, even longer for the citizens of many other countries. The works in question were never published in the United States after 1922, and maybe even not anywhere else after the original publication. Many of the owners would probably be delighted to know that someone wanted to republish the work at all, if only they knew they owned any rights at all.

Assuming that there even was one person out there who would be so bloody minded as to want to take the legal road in the US courts on this sort of thing, unless the work was properly registered they would not be able to collect statutory damages or attorney's fees, only actual damages. It would be very difficult to establish that their economic interests were harmed if they could not show any plans to republish the work themselves. To register the work more than five years after the original publication, they may first need to prove to the registrar that they are indeed the owners. Fifty years after the person's death the most likely descendants will be great-grandchildren who must then trace the ownership from the author's estate, the children's estates and the grandchildren's estates. If the copyrights were not mentioned in the wills it's quite likely the rights are shared by all the great-grandchildren, any one of whom can grant a free licence without regard to the wishes of his second cousins. Seventy years after the author's death we could be dealing with great-great-grandchildren. Should the author not have had any children it gets even more complicated. Remember too that any legal action must be taken by the owners themselves; governments do not start civil actions to enforce private rights.

In summary laws that create absurdities can and should to that extent be ignored. Honesty requires that we still openly state what legal provisions we are ignoring, but there's no difficulty in doing that. I would have no problem accepting personal responsibility for material that meets my criteria, whether put up by me or someone else. This is less because I'm looking for a law suit, and more because I don't believe there will ever be any kind of action rooted in the rule of the shorter term. The risk is that low, much lower than the peril to our lives when we don't wear seatbelts, or we cross the street in the middle of the block through heavy traffic, or we eat junk foods. The risk to WMF is non-existent as long as it complies forthwith with any legal takedown orders. The more of us have the courage to accept the risks involved as personal risks, the sooner the whole issue can be put behind us. This is clearly one of those areas where it would be much easier to get forgiveness than to get permission. Eclecticology 06:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

In the case of Mahadev Desai, I know personally his son, Narayan Desai, and his grand-daughter, so I could get a permission, but that doesn't really solve the issue. 1. They don't really care about the copyright of Mahadev Desai's works in India, as they are all out of print, even much less in USA where they were never published. 2. There is still the issue of other authors in the same case. Yann 11:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it could solve the problems for the Desai works. (This assumes that you would be able to stop them from laughing long enough to grant the needed permissions. :-)) It does nothing to solve the absurd situation of rights protected in the United States when the owners never viewed them as rights. How would Gandhi view civil disobedience in such a context? Eclecticology 10:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the situation is really grotesque for Gandhi's works, as he never got any money for his writings (quite the contrary), and certainly did not want to keep any copyright. I made some research about the copyright on Gandhi's works, and I found this: (Answering to Satish Kalelkar advising Gandhi to keep the copyright of his works, to control that the meaning of his writing are well transmitted. Published in Harijan, 15 June 1940 [4], pp.317-318)

"

... This matter of copyright has been often brought before me. But I have not the heart to copyright my articles. I know that there is a financial loss. But Harijan is not published for profit. I am content so long as there is no deficit. I must believe that in the end my self-denial must serve the cause of truth.

”

(Answering to a comment about mistranslations of his works, published in Harijan, 28 July 1940. [5], p.36)

"

... Experience had taught me that English translations of my articles written in any Indian languages were faulty, but it would not have been proper to confine the copyright to translations into English. All important Gujarati articles would be translated simultaneously into English and Hindustani and published almost at the same time. There is, therefore, no hardship involved, for there is no copyright in the translated articles which can be and are being reproduced.

”

Is this sufficient to determine that Gandhi did not want to retain the copyright of his works? Yann 11:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• (@ EC) I can't agree that we should ignore these issues when Mike Godwin advises otherwise. US law does produce strange results, but all the advice we recieved has been that we need to follow the law. --BirgitteSB 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• (@ Yann) I am not sure how that statement can release copyright entirely unless it had been seen as releasing the original copyrights in India for all these years. Even if we stretch this to say it is a verbal contract only giving permission to translate these works if the translator will release the translation copyright, there is still the original copyright that he owns. There are two copyrights on an English translation: a) the work itself and b) the translation to English. Removing the latter copyright does not necessarily remove the former. It is hard to argue that his works have been copyrighted all these years in India, yet the English versions have been free of all copyrights since 1940. However if there is a chance these were published in the US within 30 days of being published elsewhere that would clear them of the URAA mess.--BirgitteSB 14:52, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Indian law does not give a copyright to the translator in the 1957 law. I suppose that English law applied before the independence, at the time Gandhi made his statement. Yann 14:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

This is a bigger issue than just Indian authors. After a discussion with Lupo, I learned that any work first published outside of the U.S. between 1923 and 1977 (inclusive) is considered copyrighted in the U.S. if it was considered copyrighted in its home country in 1996 -- even if its home country considers it PD now. (Small-print: this doesn't include works published in the U.S. within 30 days of their first publications abroad, as these are considered U.S. works in the U.S. This also only applies to works first published in countries which are WTO members or signatories to the Berne Convention.) This means that some works that are PD in their home countries may be considered copyrighted in the U.S., if those works were first published in 1923 or later. My previous arguments to the contrary (for British works, for instance) were incorrect. I'll expand this in a separate section below. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 16:15, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Of course, it doesn't apply to Indian authors alone, but since Indian copyright rule is 60 years pma, Indian authors are affected earlier. European authors are also affected, and will be more as time passes. Yann 16:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Getting a word to the right of the page

I've just added Poetry for Poetry's Sake to Wikisource. There's a note from Bradley after the title but before the actual text of the lecture begins, where he says that this printed version is almost the same as the lecture. He signs as A.C.B. I'd like to get the A.C.B. to the right of the page, as can be seen in Project Gutenberg, which was the source I used. I tried <right>A.C.B.</right> but it didn't work, even though the same idea works with "center". Can anyone help, please? Cowardly Lion 23:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

You can use HTML to do this:

<div style="text-align: right"> Like this. </div>

displays as

Like this.

John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:16, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

That's exactly what I want. Thank you. Cowardly Lion 23:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Typography queries

When resetting an 18th century text:

1. Is it acceptable to typeset a long 's' (ſ) as a short 's'?
2. If the original has multiple forms of emphasis (i.e. italics and smallcaps), should these be retained exactly as written (even though used far for often than presently, and so quite distracting for a modern reader) and, if so, is it correct to mark them up with <em> and <em style="font-variant:smallcaps; font-style:normal"> respectively?
3. Should abbreviations (e.g. in footnotes, etc.) that exist in the original in order to fit the text to a (small) page be expanded, given that the space considerations do not exist on Wikisource?
4. Is it appropriate to produce a re-set (LaTeX) edition, and to make use of LaTeX features like figures, references, indicies, tables of contents, etc., or should any new edition conform to the original (layout, etc.) as closely as possible?

I appologise if I am repeating questions that have been asked elsewhere, but I searched and could find little. Thanks. —Sam Wilson (Australia) ^{samwilson | talk} 03:08, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll try to answer as best I can.

1. Yes. From what I have seen the conversion is perfectly reversible, so there is no harm in making it.
2. I would try to retain the original emphases wherever possible, but I don't see the point of your more complicated technique. Why not just use the usual double apostrophes technique for italics, and the existing template for the small caps? Thus ''italic text'' and {{sc|Small Cap Text}} . These changes are not reversible unless you know what rules the original author was using. I agree that it can be distracting for the modern reader, but most modern readers who would be reading this kind of thing would already be familiar with the peculiarities of old typography.
3. I would normally retain the abbreviated forms rather than expanding them. If expanding them there would need to be a way of showing that you have expanded them as in "ab[breviation]", but that can lead to a lot of awkward typing. Starting a new series of footnotes to explain them would make sense.
4. Wiki markup is to be preferred, including the Wiki table format, but this is not always possible. Tables especially can be awkward to work with, and compromises are often necessary.

I hope this helps. Eclecticology 10:16, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, regarding the long 's' vs. short 's,' this falls into Wikisource's desire to faithfully reproduce texts, so a long 's' should be copied as a long 's' and not transcribed as a short 's.' Likewise, all abbreviations should be kept the way they are printed in the book.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:26, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Note: Distributed Proofreaders changes ſ to s -- they consider it a "font" issue, not a content issue. I don't think Wikisource has a firm guideline on the matter. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 21:20, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. The difference is typographical, not orthographical. This is not the case with the emphases and the abbreviations. Modern readers too easily misread the long "s" as an "f". It's easy to go too far in the faithful reproduction of texts. We already let the software wrap lines to suit circumstances, and suppress the original author's word-breaking hyphens there. Eclecticology 00:45, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Spam protection filter?

I just tried to add more info for Niger on Help:Public domain (see Help talk:Public_domain#Niger: Copyright legislation) and got the following error message:

The page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This is probably caused by a link to an external site.

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http :// ezinearticles.com

Return to Help:Public domain.

There is, indeed, a link to this site on the help page, but it was not added by me, and furthermore it appears to be legit. This is ridiculous. Is there some way to override this filter I have missed? The docs only yield mw:Spam Filter which appears to be something different.--GrafZahl (talk) 10:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

That site is specifically listed on meta:spam filter. Maybe they have legit content, but push it too aggressively? I see there is a section of the talk page to request removal, so I guess you can try that. For now, I've unlinked that reference, which seems to allow the URL to stay on the page with no link, so it can be edited. -Steve Sanbeg 22:39, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we can override the spam filter by editing MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:56:41, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

@Steve: the page appears to be gone.

@Pathoschild: thanks for pointing this out, and for adding the link to the whitelist. I've enhanced the description at MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext so people know what to do in the future.--GrafZahl (talk) 13:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

How to determine if a work is PD in the U.S.

There have been many misunderstanding (some from myself) about what is PD and what is not. Let's go through this systematically, so that we're all equally informed about this.

Preliminary

1. If a work is PD in the U.S. we can use it on the English Wikisource, even if it's considered copyrighted in other countries. (There's no policy saying so specifically, but this seems to be our longstanding tradition.)
2. If a work is considered copyrighted in the U.S. (and is not available under a free license), then we can not use the work on the English Wikisource (or any other Wikimedia project), even if it is considered PD in its country of origin. (This is per Mike Godwin's comments -- Mike Godwin is the legal council for the Wikimedia Foundation.)
3. U.S. copyright law may be complex, counter-intuitive, or even absurd, but the Wikimedia Foundation is still bound to adhere to it.

General cases for the public domain

1. If a work contains no "creative content", then it is not eligible for copyright. Lists of facts, transcriptions, etc., are not copyrightable and are PD. (See w:Feist v. Rural for reasons.) But note that the amount of creative content may be minimal: word choices, formatting choices, translations, and organizational decisions are all copyrightable. (See, for example, w:Bridgeman v. Corel.)
2. If a work was created by the United States Federal Government (by a U.S. federal employee acting in his or her official capacity), the work is not eligible for copyright. (See Title 17, Chapter 1, Section 105 of the US Code.) Other countries' governments may have similar policies on some types of works. (See w:template:PD-CAGov, w:template:PD-PolishGov, etc.)
3. If a work has been explicitly released into the public domain by its (former) copyright holder, then (at least in the U.S.) the work is PD.
4. If a work was created in a way that was never "fixed", or written down -- such as an extemporaneous speech -- that work is not eligible for copyright. (See Mike Godwin's comments.)
5. If a work was once copyrighted, but that copyright has expired, then the work is in the public domain. For instance, if a work was published before 1923 anywhere in the world, it's PD in the U.S.

Copyright expiration: U.S. works

1. If a work was published in the U.S. within 30 days of its first publication anywhere in the world, it is considered a U.S. work under U.S. law. (See "Copyright Term and the Public Domain in the United States", footnote 9.)
2. If a U.S. work (or any work) was first published before 1923 then it's PD, as stated above.
3. If a U.S. work was first published before 1978 without a visible copyright notice, it was never copyrighted and it is in the public domain. (See w:Template:PD-Pre1978.) But you have to make sure it was missing a © note on the very first publication.
4. Rare case: If a U.S. work was first published without a visible copyright notice between 1978 and March 1, 1989, but that copyright was not registered with the U.S. copyright office within 5 years, then the work is PD. (This can be determined by searching the U.S. Copyright Office Online Search.)
5. If a U.S. work was first published before 1964, then its copyright will have expired 28 years later unless they renewed the copyright with the U.S. copyright office within 28 years of its first publication. To determine if a renewal was filed in 1978 or later (for material first published between 1950 and 1963), you can search the comprehensive U.S. Copyright Office Online Search. To determine if a renewal was filed before 1978 (for material first published before 1950), you can search the Stanford's Copyright Renewal Database, which lists only books, or the longer and less user-friendly Project Gutenberg listing for all materials. If the copyright was not renewed, the work is PD. (See w:Template:PD-US-not renewed.)

Copyright expiration: non-U.S. works

This one is tricky, counter-intuitive, and disappointing. (Remember that works published before 1923 are PD in the U.S., and that works published in the U.S. within 30 days are considered U.S. works.)

1. If a non-U.S. work was published in compliance with all U.S. policies, such as being published with a © notice and registered and renewed with the U.S. Copyright Office, then you can treat it as a U.S. work (even if it was never published in the U.S.)
2. If a non-U.S. work was not published in compliance with U.S. policies, and if it was first published in 1923 or later, then the magic year is 1996. If the work was in the public domain in its country of origin on January 1, 1996, then it's considered public domain in the United States. But if that work was considered copyrighted in its home country on January 1, 1996, then the U.S. still considers that work to be under copyright, even if the copyright expired in the work's home country. (See Mike Godwin's comments here and here.) (Exceptions: If a country didn't sign the URAA, its works aren't covered -- but all WTO and Berne Convention countries signed the URAA, and that nearly all countries. Also, if a country became a WTO member after 1996, like Tongo or Vietnam, its "magic year" is the year it became a member.)
3. It's tricky to determine whether a work was copyrighted in its country of origin in 1996. There is some good information at w:List of countries' copyright length, w:Wikipedia:Copyright situations by country, Commons:Commons:Licensing, and Commons:User:Lupo/Hairy copyright.

Caveats

1. This doesn't cover sound recordings, which are much more complicated.
2. This doesn't cover unpublished works. (Unpublished works usually aren't acceptable on Wikisource anyway.)
3. I'm not your lawyer, and this isn't legal advice.

Comments, questions, and clarifications

Anyone? —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:40, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I make particular note of your last comment. This is not about citing statutory provisions; we're all familiar with them. It's about having the courage to take a stand. Eclecticology 21:12, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "But if that work was considered copyrighted in its home country on January 1, 1996, then the U.S. still considers that work to be under copyright, even if the copyright expired in the work's home country." Presumably such works won't remain under copyright in the U.S. for all eternity. What is the trigger for these works to fall into the public domain in the U.S.? Hesperian 22:49, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

95 years after the date of first publication. (This is the same copyright term given to U.S. works.) —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 23:34, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Quadell, so according to this, in the U.K., on January 1, 1996, authors who had died before January 1, 1926 lost their copyrights, and in the U.S. are copyright free, even if their works were published after 1922? ResScholar 08:56, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think that's right. Yann 10:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Yep, that's right. Other countries have shorter terms, so works by Canadian or New Zealand authors (for instance) who died before 1946 are also not protected, either in the U.S. or in their country of origin. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh wait! One caveat: if they complied with U.S. formalities (registering the copyright in the U.S., including a © mark, and renewing the copyright in the U.S.), then the work is treated as a U.S. work and is still copyrighted. So be sure to check the renewal databases listed above to make sure it doesn't count as a U.S. work. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:29, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

See also Wikisource:Licensing form. Corrections and additions would be welcome. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:53:51, 06 February 2008 (UTC)

Classified information or documents made by the US government can be copyright so "if a work was created by the United States Federal Government (by a U.S. federal employee acting in his or her official capacity), the work is not eligible for copyright." isn't entirely correct. ("However, there is a small number of U.S. government publications which have been copyrighted, and a notice will appear in them ... Examples of restricted government documents include classified information and trademarks (ex. Smokey the Bear)." from http://www.ptc.edu/Copyright_Center/Public_Domain.htm) — DarkFalls ^talk 06:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

That statement by Piedmont Technical College is incorrect. Government documents may have restrictions on reproductions--such as trademark restrictions or laws against reproducing classified material--but these are not copyright restrictions, and the works are still in the public domain. There are all kinds of non-copyright-related restrictions on copying PD materials, from anti-counterfeiting laws to anti-obscenity laws, but they don't affect the copyright status of the material. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 17:11, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to see this followed through with a revision or explication of the various licence templates. e.g. over the next few weeks I'll upload a work published in Australia in 1899, by an author who died in 1936. So what template should I use: {{PD-Australia}}, {{PD-old-70}}, {{PD-1923}}, or all three? Why? Hesperian 04:42, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually I think I've answered this for myself. I will roll something out shortly. Hesperian 05:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Users' rights and obligations

Hi. I've been trying to find some guidelines or explanations for those users who want to copy, modify and redistribute works from Wikisource. What are the users' rights and obligations? Apparently Wikisource:Copyright policy doesn't have an answer. The question actually came through the Wikimedia OTRS, from someone who would like to copy books from Wikisource, put them in PDF format, and redistribute them (freely, if that matters).

What I don't understand is the application of GNU license to works that are in the public domain. The GNU license requires that a user releases the copied work under the same license (GNU) and also acknowledges Wikisource as the source of the work (!). I don't see the logic of this in the vast majority of cases where the works are in the public domain and, as such, free for anyone to use as they see fit, without worrying about GNU.

How does this work? How does GNU apply for public domain works? Thanks. --AdiJapan 08:31, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

As I understand it, the GFDL applies only to the "original" work hosted on our servers, essentially things like what's on the Scriptorium, talk pages and the like. To simply copy the stories and redistribute them does not require any form of attribution or GNU compliance since, as you said, they are Public-Domain texts. Theoretically you could run into a bit of trouble if you included the "notes" section of the header, since "Written in 1855, this novel is about the illicit love between two adulterers" is my original writing (and thus automatically GFDL-ed when I post it on here), but that's really the only concern (and frankly, I imagine we're willing to turn a blind eye.)

But I'm giving this advice as a user, not an admin, so don't sue me :) Sherurcij ^{Collaboration of the Week: Author:Sabine Baring-Gould} 08:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

For the purposes of answering the OTRS query, Wikisource:Copyright policy states that all Wikisource content "is released under the GNU Free Documentation License", so if they intend to redistribute it freely, they can do so with absolute confidence if they use the GFDL for their compilation (e.g. PDF).

A simple analogy is Wikimedia Commons - the images on commons are under a variety of licenses, and many are in the public domain, but the remaining components of the site are all GFDL.

In the same way, the GFDL license covers the entire Wikisource collection. i.e. in order to produce a DVD of "Wikisource", the DVD would need to be licensed as GFDL. Taking a screenshot of Wikisource is also only permitted under the GFDL. If someone clones the Wikisource wiki-text, it would also need to comply with be GFDL, because technically the headers, categories, formatting and license templates, etc., are all technically GFDL content. In some cases the wiki-syntax has considerable creativity involved.

Where texts or images are tagged as being in the public domain, the text and images are unable to be copyrighted. Attempts to claim copyright on works in the public domain are called Copyfraud. It is possible that a Wikisource contributor could claim that their presentation of a PD text is creative, but if this was ever to occur, I think the appropriate response from the Wikisource project would be to remove the creative presentation and replace it with the presentation in the original so that is nothing more than the sweat of the brow.

Also keep in mind that we have a considerable number of pages that are not PD texts. e.g. The New York Times. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:38, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

John is correct. If they use any Wikisource-original material (including headers, author pages, etc.), then they will need to comply with the GFDL, which (unfortunately) requires appending a multi-page license to the end of the document and listing all contributors in the history. But if they only use the same PD material that we used, then they don't have to worry with that. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 13:26, 8 February 2008 (UTC)