Wikisource:Scriptorium

Wikisource News

---

April 2024

Administrator confirmations
WikiProject Chinese
Miscellaneous

ARCHIVES • DISCUSSION • PROJECT

Announcements

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)

I like separate pages. 68.39.174.238 03:24, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that this is a great idea. Why would you want two pages with almost the same text? 213.151.40.223 09:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't tried this, but it might be possible to avoid your limitation No. 1 if you do not put {{annotations}} on the main work page and use

{{:Strivings of the Negro People}}
== Annotations ==
{{references}}

on the annotated subpage instead. I believe this has something to do with the order in which the parser expands templates.--GrafZahl (talk) 09:28, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

enhancements to footnote system

I've made a few enhancements to the footnote system, similar to some discussions here awhile ago.

• There is a new group option, so i.e. <ref group=note> would put that reference in another group, which can be listed with <references group=note/>
• Now, <references/> clears the list of references that was printed (either default or specified group) to allow the group to be reused in the same page, for more notes.

I have a short sample at w:user:sanbeg/ref test

I may try to add a <note> tag which would use letters, or some such, when I get time. -Steve Sanbeg 23:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

Text quality in Edit this page

Can we add a link to the phrase "Text advancement" when editing a page (right next to "This is a minor edit" and "Watch this page") to Wikisource:Text quality? New users might wonder what this is, I know I did when I saw it the first time. - Mtmelendez 20:36, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Restricted access policy

I propose the Restricted access policy to address some of the recent questions about bureaucrat confirmation, the need for a checkuser policy (discussion), and scalability with future access like oversight. It's a generalized and expanded version of the current Administrator policy (see comparison). —{admin} Pathoschild 08:00:40, 05 April 2008 (UTC)

I liked having a general policy that covers all types of access. I would prefer to see separate short policy documents that cover usage of each tool, but can support this policy also including documentation of rollback and checkuser as there isnt much to explain about either of them, at present. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:19, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer your initial suggestion John. Have a general policy on how to obtain, manage, and lose any and all special user rights, since the processes are mostly similar, but have a separate policy for each particular right's use. - Mtmelendez 13:20, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

• I'd prefer to see explicit parameters for checkuser requests that are kept private. In other words define "for privacy". One obvious reason, is that if the request itself would tie an pseudonomynous person to their identity. That is a good reason to post the request on on checkuser-l rather than publicly. With the caveat that the above reasoning be posted with the request and if discusion at checkuser-l agrees that reason does not apply it should become a publis request. There may be other reasons to keep a request private, the tool has been around long enough to figure such things out. Let's have the acceptable reasons to keep even the fact a request was made non-public explicitly stated.--BirgitteSB 18:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

  It's more difficult than you suggest to compile a precise list of situations where privacy is affected, since most other wikis do not enforce transparency at all. Is something like this what you have in mind? —{admin} Pathoschild 16:54:21, 08 April 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions

none.

Questions

The license on licenses

A bit of a confusing concept, but if you have a text on a license, would the text be under copyright or licensed under the license it describes? For instance, Nupedia Open Content License has no indication of its copyright. Would it follow the basic copyright or the NOCL licensing? Another example would be the GNU Free Documentation License. Is it under the GFDL? Although the GFDL says "Copyright (C) 2000,2001,2002 Free Software Foundation, Inc. ... Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies of this license document, but changing it is not allowed", the license is situated on Wikipedia, which is a bit ironic since it effectively releases everything into GFDL. Very confusing. Although the text (GFDL) has been deleted as being "under copyright", I feel that Wikisource's view on these "license on licenses" isn't clear. BTW, another interesting license involved is the GNU General Public License, which has been salted. —Dark ^(talk) 09:50, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

The GFDL and other FSF licenses were deleted due to the discussion at Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations/Archives/2006-11#FSF_Licenses. more licenses can be found at Wikisource:License_documents. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 10:10, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

oh right. I guess the licensing of Nupedia follows the pattern of that discussion (discussion with GFDL and such...) ? —Dark ^(talk) 06:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Here is another one: GNU GPL John Vandenberg ^(chat) 03:11, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

At the bottom of Free Art license/1.3, it says permission to copy, but no derivatives. Free Art license may have a similar problem. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:30, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

UK court judgments

I have an interest in UK Intellectual Property judgments, but a number of important judgments from the mid-1980s to early 90s are not available online. http://www.bailii.org has done a great job of making more recent judgments available, but not the older ones.

I have copies of the judgments I'm interested in which I've scanned from the Reports of Patents Cases for personal use. Question is, what is the copyright status of these documents and can I upload the judgments here?

Help gratefully received! 82.211.95.178 17:48, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I believe (without researching anything) this would fall under Crown Copyright and would not be PD until 50 years after publication. However I am not certain, and if you can find that these decisions are an exception to Crown Copyright let me know.--BirgitteSB 14:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Any legal works of any government are not copyrightable in the US. This means that UK court rulings are public domain in the United States. See WS:PD#Category:Acts_of_the_Scottish_Parliament. Someone wishing to claim copyright are going to have to register for copyright in the United States, and the Copyright Office have said they will not approve requests of that nature, in no uncertain terms, so someone will need to win in the Supreme Court before they can claim copyright in the United States. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 04:49, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Annotations of prose works

I have been slowly going through a few prose works that happen to use quotes from poems and other sources quite frequently. It has seemed that it would be useful to some readers to have information about the author of the quotations which does not appear in the original text so I have been adding footnotes with as much information as I can obtain. Just as an example, you could look at Sketch of Connecticut, Forty Years Since/Chapter VII which is about half done right now. Anyway, I am wondering about opinions as to whether I should link the author's page and the source or just the source... or just the author's page. I think just the source is acceptable and wonder if linking the author right next to the source is overlinking, so to speak. Thanks for opinions in advance, --Mkoyle 04:36, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It really depends on the context of what you are trying to do. I would personally favour both, but you are the one doing the work, so your own best judgement is the guide to use until somebody complains. Eclecticology 08:20, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

"Both" works for me as well. When a quote is not in English, I link to the actual work in the original language (so the reader can quickly see it in context of the original), and then link the author to the local author page.

At the end of the day, as Ec. says, do what you think is right. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:38, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

DjVu Already OCRed...

Okay, thanks to John Vandenberg pointing me to the wonderful Any2DjVU tool, I have my scanned text in DjVu already OCRed and containing a TOC, which I have uploaded. So all of the text is already contained in the file. Is there some automated way to generate the Index: and all the Page: pages, or do I have to do that manually? And while I'm at it, is there any solution to the page number discrepancy problem? I.e., if you look at what the DjVu plugin (or a desktop DjVu viewer) considers to be page 65 the actual page number in the image is 60, due to the title page and various other pages that precede the text of the book. --Struthious Bandersnatch 10:26, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

John has already done the Index page for you, but I am unaware of any tool that allows you to automatically generate the text for the "Page:". I suppose you could ask for a bot to be created if you know what text is on what page though... —Dark ^(talk) 10:52, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, which text is in which page is information that is automatically contained in the DjVu file (because internally that file format splits everything up by page). So if someone wanted to write a bot for that it seems like it would be worthwhile. But in my case I'll just cut and paste. (P.S. if anyone goes to write a bot like this the DjVuLibre library is what you'll need.) --Struthious Bandersnatch 11:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Gosh, now you tell me; after I just typed page 2 :P

A bot to extract the text out of a DJVU file and place the text into Pages would be good, but I dont think anybody has written one.

I saw ThomasV fix the page numbering problem you mention on one of the Index files, but I cant find which one he altered. I'll ask him to comment here. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry 'bout that :D but y'know it was the Any2DjVu tool you pointed me to that did the OCRing automatically, I didn't even ask it to... :P :^) --Struthious Bandersnatch 11:15, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Manually typing things can be very annoying ;) I think I can get someone to write a bot script for this though...but that might take some time. —Dark ^(talk) 11:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

about the syntax : sorry, I did not write a doc about this feature. no time, really atm.

here are a few examples : fr:Livre:Hugo - Les Misérables Tome I (1890).djvu, fr:Livre:Baudelaire Les Fleurs du Mal.djvu

ThomasV 12:06, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

In order to create an index with the book pagination you can use the following syntax (if you are renumbering from the very first page of DjVu file):

• 1=5 : 5, 6, 7, ...
• 1="1;roman" : i, ii, iii, ...
• 1="1;highroman" : I, II, III, ...
• 1="1;char" : char1, char2, char3, ... (char can be any character string you need).

You can begin a new numbering in any page of the DjVu file (<pagelist 1=5 3=12 /> : 5, 6, 12, 13, 14, ...), even to number several pages with the same number (<pagelist 1=5 2=5 3=5 />).

--LaosLos 14:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikibooks imports

There are some things sitting in b:Category:Modules for transwiki that are proposed to come here:

• b:William Shakespeare's Works/Comedies/The Tempest/Act 1
• b:Sufism/Nasrudin
• b:Eugene Fama
• b:Extermination Order (Mormonism)

– Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 20:31, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

• I have just reviewed your offer, and would comment as follows
  1. Tempest and the Extermination Order are already on Wikisource, so moving them would only produce duplicates.
  2. It is unclear how much of the Sufism material is is the work of Nasrudin, and how much is commentary. The author of material here needs to be clearly identified, and previously published.
  3. While there has been some acceptance recently of bibliographic pages for authors whose works themselves we cannot house because of copyright restrictions. This would allow for external linking and documenting the copyright status of these works. At the same time there was a disinclination to accept this for authors who are still alive, and Fama is still alive. I would personally support accepting this, but unless others in the community also feel the same way it would not be acceptable. Eclecticology 09:18, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks for reviewing those. There's also b:Image:Desert fever.pdf, if you want it. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:47, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

In terms of the content there is no problem. I do have a question about the copyright. It purports to be a work of the US Government, but on the surface it is presented as for the US Government, and there is a copyright notice in the name of the three authors. Has the US government actually published this, or is it purely a private report provided to the Bureau of Land Management. If the US Government has not published it its copyrights would not yet have become fixed. Vredenburgh's website concerning the report makes no mention of copyrights or that the document is being freely licensed, so I think we should not accept it without it being freely licensed by one of the authors. Eclecticology 23:25, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I think the reasoning there is that if they were contracted to do this report, then they were US government employees like any other, and their work is therefore PD. I think that makes sense, but I'm no expert. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 02:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There is key difference between employees, who do this as part of their employment, and private contractors, who can freelance their work to whomever they choose. I think that this point would merit debate if moving this to Wikisource were to become a reality. Eclecticology 07:47, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Please do move it over; our copy is waiting to be deleted. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 23:04, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

The way that Transwiki works is that someone from the original host project moves it to a Transwiki: page on the new host project. The transferring member from the old project is presumed not to know anything about the rules of the new project. Once it is on a Transwiki: page it is up to the new project members to do with it what they will. That includes deletion. There's no point to keeping an article that nobody is willing to accept responsibility. Eclecticology 00:19, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

outdent

I'm not sure what project you've been transwikiing to/from, but I find it's vastly better to check inclusion policies before moving stuff. Furthermore, you'll need to use Special:Import to bring across the edit history in compliance with the GFDL, at which point the file can follow. Cooperation between projects isn't furthered by pushing content between wikis without checking whether it's acceptable at the destination. Furthermore, simply dumping content in a Transwiki: namespace often results in the content being lost since it sits there unused and unnoticed - that's hardly useful to either of our projects. – Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:41, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

And here's another: b:Muhammed: Superme mentor of humanity (note the spelling mistake in the name!) Webaware 07:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus one more: b:Human face of Relegion / Islam (again, note the spelling mistake in the name) Webaware ^talk 10:01, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Plus one more: b:Dialogues on God, creed and scriptures/ Islam. Webaware ^talk 12:17, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Would this be suitable?

I started making the page pi and then pi/1-1000 would this actually be suitable for Wikisource.Arsenalfan 07:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No, but you can add any mathematical treatise or journal article on Pi. The number on its own is a fact, not a source. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 08:19, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Categorization for texts in a directory tree

I was browsing some categories and discovered a few texts which are placed in a directory tree (e.g. Littell's Living Age/Volume 129/Issue 1665/Any Poet to his Mistress). In the categories, these appear with that entire name in stead of appearing with just the individual poem's name. I just don't know how to override the name that appears in the category... could someone let me know how to do this? defaultsort and using a '|' after the category don't quite do it... is there something else? If there is, I will probably just append it as a note at the bottom of the Help:Categorization page. --Mkoyle 03:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I share your concern, but then I don't agree that this is the best title format for articles of this kind. I believe that the first element of the title should be the name of the poem when it was clearly the work of an independent contributor to the publication. Nevertheless, a lot of people have been using this format, and I don't know if opening up the discussion would be productive yet. Eclecticology 08:17, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I think this might be worth filing a bug over. I can't think of why we would ever want a category show anything but what is after the last / --BirgitteSB 00:32, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

I see. Actually, it appears that a bug has sort of been filed for ages. If you want this change, I suppose you could go register and add your vote for the bug at https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=491 --Mkoyle 01:58, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Side bar link to this page

I see that the link to this page in the side-bar has recently been changed from "Community discussion" to "Central discussion" what was the reason behind this change? I didn't see any previous proposal made for this on this page. Eclecticology 07:40, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Sidebar hasnt been modified; I cant see on Special:AllMessages what has caused this. Could it be due to a software upgrade? John Vandenberg ^(chat) 14:36, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Pathoschild changed it to fix the line wrapping. On some browsers (for me, it's Firefox), even at the smallest text size, "Community discussion" spanned two lines.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 14:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

I use firefox too, and didn't have that problem. Eclecticology 15:56, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

My firefox was two lines, but I never gave it much thougt. Is the site going crazy with italics for anyone else in the past half hour?--BirgitteSB 20:41, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, maybe it just depends on what skin we use. Why not just simply make it "Scriptorium"? Eclecticology 06:42, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

The sidebar is most useful for new users, who aren't well-aware of the wiki's organization. The purpose of a "Central discussion" link is immediately apparent, while "Scriptorium" gives no indication whatsoever of its purpose. The word literally refers to a quiet room for writing or copying manuscripts, which has nothing to do with discussion. —{admin} Pathoschild 06:52:04, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Why not simply write "Discussions" (in plural)? Yann 09:38, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep the qualifier, so it's clear that this page is for community/central discussion, not all discussion (which should go on talk pages). —{admin} Pathoschild 10:36:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

"Community talk" would get around the length problem of "discussion". It's "central" that carries the connotation of something that is under the control of a ruling cabal. Eclecticology 23:39, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Is DoubleWiki broken?

I can't find a page (or a browser) for which the DoubleWiki <=> works. The right panel comes up empty. Am I the only one? --Mccaskey 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It depends on what skin you are using. Eclecticology 06:44, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

It's blank for me too with the MonoBook skin; it's not the JavaScript component (that part still works fine), so a recent change in MediaWiki might have broken the extension itself. I left a note on ThomasV's talk page, since he developed the extension. —{admin} Pathoschild 08:43:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[[Yes Double Wiki is broken i am sorry to say. And we can not fix this problem for a while. Please do not get upset by this and we are trying our best to make it work and up and running again. Thank you for your time reading this note and once again we are trying to do the best we can to fix everything.]] —unsigned by 125.236.44.47 20:29, 2 April 2008.

Who is included in we? —{admin} Pathoschild 20:54:43, 02 April 2008 (UTC)

"Cite this" template?

For works that are books or other documents that might potentially be cited in an academic paper or in Wikipedia (like this) is there a template or anything that generates the citation text? I'm thinking of the sort of thing that you get when you click "Cite this Item" in a WorldCat entry. --Struthious Bandersnatch 22:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes. From any page in the main namespace, click "cite this text" in the left sidebar. —{admin} Pathoschild 22:49:57, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

But that provides a citation for the Wikisource web site, not the work itself. It looks like it's a copy of the code for citing a Wikipedia article. If I was going to cite something like my example there I would want to explicitly indicate it was authored by the President of the United States, not a Wikisource user which is kind of implied by citing the web site. Or I'd want to indicate the volume, issue, and page number that a work from a scientific journal came from, for example. I guess the broader question is, is there a standard way of including this kind of original bibliographic information in a Wikisource entry? --Struthious Bandersnatch 23:36, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

(To hopefully make it clearer, I'm looking for something that I, as the person assembling the Wikisource entry, can put in the page to make it easier for visitors to cite the text. And maybe all that's possible at this point is to paste in that information as straight text, but I just want to make sure I'm doing it in a standard way if there is one.)--Struthious Bandersnatch 23:40, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Currently there is no way to do what you're asking. Copy-and-paste of the information into the "notes" parameter is how we've been doing it, and that only happens for less than 1% of all the texts. Unfortunately, there's no way to get the software to generate that kind of bibliographic information.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 00:45, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is one of those things that would require a more "database" aspect of MediaWiki to be developed.--BirgitteSB 14:18, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This could be done with with JavaScript using {{header2}}, which already has all the metadata needed. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:05:38, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

{{header2}} appears to only have a small fraction of the fields for citations. Take a look at all the possible combinations used on Wikipedia. This actually isn't a very database-like application; since the information that is needed for a citation varies widely by the type of source and the desired format (MLA, APA, etc.) the fields and data types wouldn't be consistent enough for a database to accomodate (or at least I think you'd end up with a heinously inflexible and difficult-to-use application.) The way Wikipedia handles citations of external sources with templates is good and well-vetted; if some kind of wrapper could be made for the existing code Wikisource could re-use it. The wrapper could take the citation template fields and pass them via a link to a PHP page that actually displays the citation. But for now plain text is the thing... --Struthious Bandersnatch 18:52, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

This is the pretty version that Pathoschild was referring to.

Probably more what you are looking for is embedding COinS metadata into each page. I sort of started that with {{COinS journal}}, but never put it into use. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 19:15, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

How to include links to sources?

Wikisource:What Wikisource includes#Documentary sources states: "The source of these works should be noted in order to allow others to verify that the copy displayed at Wikisource is a faithful reproduction."

This requirement is quite understable. But... where to put those notes in the wikisource page? How to format them? I tried searching around for examples. But I couldn't find any page which lists links to sources.

Thanks! --213.142.223.145 10:56, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

See this months featured text: South Africa Act 1909. The source is documented on the talk page (Talk:South Africa Act 1909), using the {{textinfo}} template. Another example is Gettysburg Address, and Talk:Gettysburg Address. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 11:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you! Now someone ought to add instructions to the guide. --213.142.223.145 12:45, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

It is covered on Help:Adding_texts#Advanced_procedure, as that process is the same for any type of sources.

Also note, that if you can put your hands on some digital images of the source, we prefer to have the source also on our server, so that the text can be proofread. The Wikisource project has special support for either a series of single images, like Index:Publick Occurrences, and for "DjVu" files like Index:Carter Presidential Directive 59, Nuclear Weapons Employment Policy.djvu. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 12:57, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Line numbers?

Should we add line numbers with poetry, and, if so, how? It Is Me Here 17:43, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikilivres: Systematic linking?

What do you think about creating systematic linking to Wikilivres, from authors pages where the equivalent exists there? If yes, what to mention? In French WS, there is a link in the RC header. What do you think about adding it here? Yann 19:48, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW I just discovered that there is now a wiki link to Wikilivres with [[wikilivres: (since May 2007!...).Yann 11:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Scripts

Are there any editing scripts available on Wikisource other than those listed at WS:SCRIPTS? I'm looking for one that can automatically "pipe links" for Authors and Wikipedia articles. On the English Wikipedia, w:User:MarkS made an "extra edit buttons" script which automatically creates the brackets and | for categories and images, so creating a piped link edit button seems doable, and would certainly save time when editing. - Mtmelendez 13:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

We have a gadget that can be enabled in Special:Preferences to add template header/textinfo blocks on new pages. Pathoschild has also written a regex framework to automated pattern updates to a text (see my monobook.js). John Vandenberg ^(chat) 13:41, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

That would just be like the internal link button with one extracharacter. You could just add a button to your monobook.js, or if it's generally useful, someone could draw a new button and add it to the site. something like this hould work:

 if (mwCustomEditButtons) {
 mwCustomEditButtons[mwCustomEditButtons.length] = {
     "imageFile": "http://en.wikisource.org/skins-1.5/common/images/button_link.png",
     "speedTip": "piped link",
     "tagOpen": '[[',
     "tagClose": '|]]',
     "sampleText": "Insert link here"};
};

Steve Sanbeg 19:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Javanese books

Javanese literary history spans more than 1200 years. There are literally thousands of works in Javanese. So I plan to put them on the internet by setting up a Javanese wikisource. However nowadays before commencing a new project, one should place this first on a multilingual wikisource. So my question is: is it better to place this material here or for exemple at another wikisource edition, for exemple the Indonesian Wikisource? Meursault2004 13:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You can put these on the multilingual Wikisource. Yann 15:53, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

DjVu upload problems

Has anyone successfully uploaded a DjVu file recently? I have one that opens properly with the DjView desktop viewer but when I try to upload it to Wikisource the upload page gives me The file is corrupt or has an incorrect extension. Please check the file and upload again. I tried slicing and dicing and rebuilding the file with the DjVuLibre software but to no avail. (Originally converted with the Any2DjVu site.) Here's the file I'm using if anyone else wants to give it a try. --❨Ṩtruthious ℬandersnatch❩ 10:45, 7 April 2008 (UTC)