Wikisource:Scriptorium

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

Bot approval requests

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

Repairs (and moves)

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

See also Wikisource:Scan lab

Index:Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.pdf

Thanks to User:Koavf's effort, the missing pages of Index:Customs and Excise Management Act 1979.pdf has been repaired. Consequently, can somebody help to move all pages of that index after page 6 (i.e. from the current p. 10) by 2 pages? For example, this page should be moved to p. 37 of the index, corresponding to the correct page number of the file.廣九直通車 (talk) 05:49, 29 July 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: Notifying admins who might help with moving pages.廣九直通車 (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

With so many pages, it should be done with a script. Yann (talk) 15:50, 23 August 2026 (UTC)

Thank you. So should I create a new request at WS:BR?廣九直通車 (talk) 13:52, 27 August 2026 (UTC)

Electoral purity and economy

This should be moved to Electoral Purity and Economy, which the title page uses. Nighfidelity (talk) 16:17, 20 August 2026 (UTC)

Can't you move that ? -- Beardo (talk) 22:07, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Weird. It now allows me to. Nighfidelity (talk) 22:08, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

The Poetics translated by S. H. Butcher

This should be moved to The Poetics of Aristotle as the former isn't the actual title. Nighfidelity (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

South: the story of Shackleton's last expedition, 1914-1917

This should be moved to South as to not include the subtitle. Nighfidelity (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Poems of cabin and field

Should be moved to Poems of Cabin and Field as the title itself is capitalized as that. Nighfidelity (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Other discussions

The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)

Can the unproofread pages in The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead) be deleted? They haven't been touched since 2019. It's clear no work has been done there — it's just OCR text, so when someone remakes that page they'll get all the content back. In the meantime, they're a huge nest of lint errors. They also have no headers, and letting the pages get remade means that the header template can be used, which would make the project easier. Eievie (talk) 02:12, 21 July 2026 (UTC)

I would support getting rid of the ones that have lint errors, (or ones that haven't been edited in the past 3 or so years) but I have done some work on a few of them that I didn't finish the whole page, but did individual statutes on those pages, and so I left it as not proofread. Erblanchard57 (talk) 18:40, 13 August 2026 (UTC)

I too have some pages on there that are partly proofread. Arcorann (talk) 02:55, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

| notes =

Is the notes section of the template for a work meant to point out errors in dates or errors in names in the original text, and other notations like that? Or is it meant for something completely different? RAN (talk) 21:58, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

The documentation for the Header template states that the Notes field is "notes to explain the work, to add context, or to impart concise information that adds value to the reader; for example, use of {{listen}}". In other words, bibliographic notes. The types of notes you mention belong on the Talk: page, if they are needed at all. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:56, 14 August 2026 (UTC)

• Pointing out errors in the original text, sure sounds like "context … concise information that adds value to the reader". That is exactly what I see when I see a reprint of an historical text. Can you explains why/how it does not provide "context … concise information that adds value to the reader"? I don't see the word "bibliographic" used in the definition. Why such an extremely narrow definition of what "context" is? And why would you want it on the talk page, where people leave non-contextual comments and anecdotes. I am not sure why adding "concise information that adds value to the reader" such as corrections to dates and names, somehow excludes using {{listen}} or even why {{listen}} is considered context. --RAN (talk) 01:09, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  The documentation I quoted describes the intended use of the notes field. The examples and wording seem to me to be directed toward explanatory information about the work itself, its publication, provenance, and related matters. That's why I referred to them as bibliographic notes. I wasn't suggesting that "context" is limited to bibliographic information in the abstract, only that the Notes field appears to be intended for that sort of material. Corrections to mistakes in the original text are certainly information that may be useful to readers. The question is not whether they add value, but whether they are the sort of explanatory notes contemplated by the Header documentation, or whether they are better suited to the talk page.

  In respect of your comment about people leaving non-contextual comments and anecdotes on a Talk: page, that is not the purpose of our Talk: pages and such comments should be deleted. If that would leave the Talk page blank, then tag it for speedy deletion with {{sdelete}}. Talk pages are for recording more extended bibliographical information (via the {{Textinfo}} template)—including source for non-scanned texts—and for discussions about how to improve texts.

  As for {{listen}}, I agree that it is not "context" in the ordinary sense of the word. To me, that example suggests that the Notes field is intended for ancillary information about the work and its presentation, rather than for textual criticism, emendations, or corrections. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:32, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

  Re "errors" in the text, it helps to be clear what you mean. E.g. are we talking about the text attributing authorship mistakenly, or including a forgery / misunderstanding of current events (e.g. responding to a report about another country that turned out to be false)? Those are more bibliographical. While errors in particular parts of the text are better handled by WS:Annotations, e.g. getting specific facts wrong, struggling with a foreign language / names / locations, scientific inaccuracies etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:55, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

• Wikisource:Annotations covers changes made within the text like a wikilink or using the sic template within the text for typos. This is about adding a note in the "| notes = " area of the header to provide "context … concise information that adds value to the reader". Beeswaxcandle believes these notes belong on the talk page mixed in with other editor's comments or questions. I believe notes belong in the notes section of the header. If it comes down to personal taste, rather than a strict rule, we should side with the person doing the scanning and transcription and research. For instance, if an obituary states that a person was 75 when they died, but a birth certificate or a well researched biography shows that they were still 74, and would not have been 75 until their next birthday, that should be a note in the notes section because it provides "concise information that adds value to the reader". Not taking note of it, allows the error to be propagated. Hiding it on the talk page does not add value to the reader. No reader will see it there, only another editor specifically looking for it. --RAN (talk) 22:40, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

{{Gutenberg}}

Should this be deprecated seeing as linking to Project Gutenberg (despite what Help:Project Gutenberg says) has been discouraged for a while? Nighfidelity (talk) 21:07, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I think we should definitely be consistent, but I also think that we should link to that site, particularly for works that we don't have here--that provides clear value to our readers who can access a work that is in the public domain and isn't here yet. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

I agree with Justin. Yann (talk) 21:22, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Strongly disagree with linking to PG for works that we don't host yet. We have evolved a long way from the state in 2006 when this template was set up—the major change being the introduction of ProofreadPage. The current uses of the template are historical and are gradually being replaced with scans, we don't need to add more to that backlog. It's also not our mission to provide a single bibliographical source for all available PD texts that are somewhere on the web. Even if new uses of this template were only on Portal and Author pages, it would derogate from the real value that we provide through our processes of making texts available here. So, yes, we should deprecate the template and mark the Help page as for historical interest only. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:50, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Disagree with linking to PG works. If someone wants to curate links to Gutenberg works the correct place to do that is Wikidata/Wikipedia, not WS. In addition, it is awkward with our flow: When should the links be removed? When the Index is created? When it is validated? But even then it might be from a different edition, so does it need to be that edition? Unlike scan link --> Index link which has a natural and intuitive transition. And lastly, why not other sites? If you can link to [1] what about [2]. Having Project Gutenberg as a sui generis place is problematic as well as getting into quality curation of sites. 22:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC) MarkLSteadman (talk) 22:25, 15 August 2026 (UTC)

Also disagree to linking to PG works. Our role is not to maintain an index of transcriptions elsewhere. So yes to deprecation. — Alien  3
3 3 11:33, 16 August 2026 (UTC)

I do not support quick deprecation. Yet phasing out the links may be considered case by case, as PG does not even care about non-American copyright laws.--TunnelESON (talk) 04:31, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Deprecation: "To declare something obsolescent; to recommend against a function, technique, command, etc. that still works but has been replaced." When saying "I do not support quick deprecation." Are you saying you don't support adding a please don't use message to the template? That adding new links is still recommended/encouraged? That you don't support doing so now but maybe we can revisit in 5 years? The actual process of deprecation, making the announcement is inherently quick. MarkLSteadman (talk) 12:42, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Breadcrumbs in the title

Hi! I think breadcrumbs would be more intuitive, compact and cleaner if they were integrated into the title rather than below it, like so:

• 
  Current breadcrumbs
• 
  Proposed breadcrumbs

What do you think? Sophivorus (talk) 16:03, 17 August 2026 (UTC)

I support this, because it makes the links more visible. prospectprospekt (talk) 19:37, 21 August 2026 (UTC)

The current system is done automatically by the MediaWiki software. To change it would require backend work that I'm not sure is worth the effort. Arcorann (talk) 12:18, 3 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-35

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

Updates for editors

• The Special:CreateAccount page has been simplified as part of ongoing work to modernize the account creation experience. The panel showing project statistics no longer appears next to the form on desktop and mobile web. Multiple account creation experiments show that a simpler form helps newcomers complete registration. [3]
• In order to improve page performance, images now load when they are viewed. This means images lower down an article will not load if a reader never scrolls to that part of the page, which may affect some image-related metrics. [4]

• View all 42 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where image thumbnails in Abstract Wikipedia could fail to display after the corresponding file was moved on Wikimedia Commons, has now been fixed. Thumbnails will now update correctly when files are moved. [5]

Updates for technical contributors

• User Info card is a feature that helps patrollers see information about user accounts. So far, it has been available only in places such as page history, logs and recent changes. Now, it's possible to place it in the page content as well, using the {{#uic:}} parser function. It can be particularly useful in templates like {{Userlinks}} (or their specialized variants), as it will make it easier to see the context about a user on various noticeboard pages. The card will be displayed only to users who have it enabled in their preferences. [6]
• Due to user security and privacy risks, we have disabled access to Special:MyPage URLs when specifically using action=raw. If you are impacted by this, consider whether you can use an alternative approach. Special:MyPage URLs can still be accessed and used without action=raw. Specified user page URLs (e.g. User:Myusername) can still be used with action=raw. [7]
• Due to an update, the thumbnailing software has been improved. This includes upgrading librsvg to 2.60 and ImageMagick to 7, as well as resolving a number of long-standing thumbnailing bugs like rendering errors. [8]

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

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

MediaWiki message delivery 20:45, 24 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:12, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Index:Works of Gustave Flaubert, vol. 1, Madame Bovary.pdf

H, One page left to validate. Thanks for your help, Yann (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 18:05, 25 August 2026 (UTC)

Scrambles amongst the Alps

Hi, I am validating this work. Shouldn't the chapters (in capitals) in the table of content link to chapters? Yann (talk) 16:53, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

The links right after already link to the top of the chapter pages, so I don't think it'd be necessary. — Alien  3
3 3 18:20, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

OK. Thanks for answering. Yann (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: I agree that they are not done correctly. The link to "Chapter 10" actually links to Scrambles_amongst_the_Alps/Chapter_10#pageindex_266. It should not be linking to page indices, but simply to the actual chapter in Mainspace. The Table of Contents links require cleanup. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 30 August 2026 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: 266 is the first page of that chapter, so it doesn't really change anything. — Alien  3
3 3 08:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

No, the first page is page 222. Scan page 266 is the page of the scan which is page 222. This will confuse people, and it also means that someone arriving at the chapter from the link will not see the page header. So it does change several things. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:04, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

So, what is the decision? Yann (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

Finally I added links to the chapters. Yann (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Another small issue: the ToC of chapter 6 is split on 2 pages, which leads to a newline. How to fix this? Yann (talk) 09:05, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

@Yann: You should move some block start or end in footer and header when the entry is split on 2 pages. Chapter 6 fixed. • M-le-mot-dit (talk) 10:03, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 20:44, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Scan's page not displayed

The original scan's page is not displayed at Page:A pickle for the knowing ones (IA pickleforknowing00dextrich).pdf/36. What might be the reason? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:18, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

• The image is dynamically resized based on the text; if there is a string of text too long (or with table formatting, the longest words in each column are too long), then the image will be smaller. In this case, the long list of commas pushes off of the screen, thus taking up all of the room where the image would have been. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:28, 29 August 2026 (UTC)

Index:Gandhi - The Story of My Experiments With Truth, vol. 1.pdf

Hi, Chapter 13 of Part 2 is titled What It Is to be a Coolie. Shouldn't it be What It Is to Be a Coolie with a capital B? Yann (talk) 09:58, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Or it could be "What It is to be a Coolie" or "What it is to be a Coolie". The style has changed over the years, and even if the particular choice here is weird, I wouldn't bother with a {{SIC}} or anything. Maybe a {{sic}} if it really bothers you.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:11, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 20:45, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide

I have been having an argument with User:Pigsonthewing regarding this page, and we are at an impasse, so I am bringing it to the community at large for discussion.

• I told Pigsonthewing that if this page represents the work Bradshaw's Guide itself, then it MUST have a license tag (such as {{PD-US-periodical}}); whereas if it is a page "about" Bradshaw's Guide then it must be moved to Portal namespace where it belongs.
• Pigsonthewing disagreed with what I told them, and claims that the page does NOT need a license tag, despite being in Mainspace.

What is the community's consensus regarding this page? Does it require a license tag due to being a work in Mainspace? Does it need to be moved to Portal space due to the page not being a work? Or should we make an exemption to our standard practices and leave it as it is? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

For the record, it is my understanding that this page CANNOT be allowed to remain in mainspace with no license tag, and though we can make exceptions when supported by community consensus, I strongly oppose making any such exception. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:11, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Prior discussion is at User talk:Pigsonthewing#Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide.

I have already invited User:Beleg Tâl to nominate the page for deletion, as their tag threatens to do; they have not done so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

You will note that deleting the page is not among the options that I suggested for resolving this issue. (This is tangential to the current discussion, but I have proposed rewording the text of {{no license}} to reflect the fact that deletion is generally not the appropriate action to be taken, but the consensus was to keep the current wording) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:16, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The tag you have repeatedly added to the page says "Pages with no license information may be nominated for deletion." Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:26, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

That is correct, the maintenance tag {{no license}}, which is used on pages with no license tag, mentions that such pages may be nominated for deletion. This page has no license tag, and as such may be nominated for deletion—but at no point did I ever say that I intended to do so, nor did I say that this would be the correct action. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

At the conversation linked above, Pigs/Andy notes correctly that many pages in the main namespace do not have a license tag, but all of those are some kind of version, translation, or disambiguation page (e.g. Bible). I don't know of any works in the main namespace that lack a copyright tag. If I'm reading this correctly, the work in question is a periodical, like The New Yorker or Harper's Magazine and those have license tags. Why wouldn't this periodical? I just don't see why this page is better off without a license tag. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:27, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

The page in question is not "a work". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Okay, but I am reading this correctly that it's a monthly magazine, similar to The New Yorker, correct? I just want to make sure that I know what it is that I'm seeing. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:13, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

"Bradshaw's Monthly Railway and Steam Navigation Guide" was a monthly publication; whether it was a magazine or a book with many editions is up for debate.

The page in question is a list of such editions, not a transcluded work, and is the original work of Wikisource contributors, never having previously been published; so—like this discussion page—carries an "available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License..." statement which is entirely correct and adequate for the content of the page.

There are no grounds for nominating the page for deletion (much less deleting it) as the template it is still tagged with claims; and no grounds for moving it to Portal space, as Beleg Tâl has suggested doing. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:30, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I further note that the template currently on the page is causing the page to be in Category:Works with no license template. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:34, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I can understand both views.
A periodical is not a work in itself, as in it's not a published unit of text. Licenses in mainspace often correspond to a published unit of text. Different issues of a periodical could theoretically have different licenses.
(Goes without saying, it makes more sense to have individual issues be a subpage of a parent mainspace page, than to not have such a parent.)
However, when possible, putting a license on the parent page, as a global indicator of the copyright status of the contents hosted under that root page, is useful and helps organise content, and should generally be done.
(Also, maybe stop arguing? You've been at it for a while and clearly you're not going to convince each other of anything anytime soon.) — Alien  3
3 3 15:28, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I've given up arguing, that's why I'm leaving it in the hands of the community. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:35, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

My personal opinion. For serial works, they should be tagged with the most permissive license like we tag authors, justifying the presence of the series at all. No valid parts of the series, no hosting. I would be in favor of adding a series flag to our license as a warning that individual volumes in the series may have their own licenses and that it is required to tag any volume specifically that is more restrictive. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:31, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Regarding a warning that individual volumes in the series may have their own licenses, &c.—this is exactly the function of {{PD-US-periodical}}, which is the tag I indicated should be placed on the page under discussion. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 23:03, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

It's not just for periodicals, a multi-volume history, biography, collection of papers, translation etc. may have different authors / publication dates. MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:01, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Separately, that text is useless, it doesn't say anything informative about the status. Even though it starts with "PD-US" it doesn't make any statement that any of the content tagged is actually public domain in the US. It perfectly describes a periodical published from 2000 to 2003 that is likely copyrighted possibly into the next century. Separately being "PD-US" it is unclear whether it can be applied to a freely licensed periodical, like say an open-access journal. MarkLSteadman (talk) 13:45, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the name of the template makes no sense, but all it does is provide a license tag for works where individual parts of the work may have their own licenses —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

It is most definitely a periodical, and should have a license tag for that, similar to the way that an author page has a license tag.--Prosfilaes (talk) 11:34, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

OCR tool not working

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T436551

The OCR tool is not working for me. It returns the following error.

Error from the OCR tool: Image URL must be for one of the following domain names: upload_wikimedia.org and uploadwikimedia-betawmflabs.org Chrisguise (talk) 18:55, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

I'm getting the same. I've had that (or something similar before) but it cleared shortly after. -- Beardo (talk) 19:10, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

Same for everyone everywhere it would seem; it has been flagged and will apparently be fixed in a few hrs: phab:T436551 Psephos (talk) 20:08, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-36

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

Weekly highlight

• A new format for the Community Wishlist is open for feedback. You can read the proposed ideas on Meta. This new process plans to improve how wishes are triaged, voted on, and prioritized in a way that is transparent and balanced across project families and language editions. This consultation is open for two weeks.

Updates for editors

• The latest release of the Wikipedia Android app includes updates to the Saved feature, bringing the app’s saving experience closer to iOS and Web. The update redesigns the Saved tab with an “All articles” view, removes the default “Saved” reading list, renames reading lists to “Collections,” and modernizes the article-saving experience. [9]
• The Reading Lists feature was enabled for all logged-in users on Bengali, Chinese, Czech and Vietnamese Wikipedias on August 25, after several months as a beta feature. Reading Lists will be available to all logged-in users on Arabic, French and Indonesian Wikipedias on September 1, followed by English Wikipedia on September 14, and all other Wikipedia wikis on September 28.
• At the end of the month, some logged-out readers on Bengali, Czech, Persian, English, and Polish Wikipedias using the Minerva skin on mobile will see an updated navigation bar in an A/B test. The test will compare the current navigation bar with a new version designed to make it easier to find information more quickly. The goal is to determine whether these changes encourage readers to return more often. This experiment will not change the experience for logged-in readers and/or editors.
• Editors who maintain redirects, templates, and categories used on redirect pages now have improved ways for finding and curating redirects. Previously, redirects pages could not be searched. Two new search keywords, onlyredirects: and withredirects:, now allow redirects to be searched directly and can be combined with existing keywords such as incategory:, intitle:, and insource:. [10]
• The ISBN lookup tools for generating citations were recently not working because of external service problems. Developers are working on solutions. [11]
• View all 30 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where searching for pages by category using deepcat could return no results or unrelated results has now been fixed. [12]

Updates for technical contributors

• The domain of URLs for thumbnails is changing from upload.wikimedia.org to thumb.wikimedia.org. The old URLs will continue to work for the foreseeable future but MediaWiki will advertise the new domain instead. URLs to other types of media such as original files, videos and transcodes will still be served from upload.wikimedia.org. [13]
• The Wikimedia Math API is now deprecated. These endpoints will be fully sunset by the end of September 2026. Developers who call these endpoints should transition to alternative math rendering solutions, such as the native MathML or MathJax. Third-party MediaWiki installations that utilize the Math extension for formula rendering are required to upgrade to v1.43+ to avoid disruption of service.

• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

In depth

• Read more about TextMatch in a Diff post titled, Custom edit suggestions for every wiki: How communities are shaping Suggestion Mode with TextMatch.

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

MediaWiki message delivery 20:53, 31 August 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

DjVu failing for me for the first time

I began proofreading Index:Anaximander and the Origins of Greek Cosmology (1960).djvu for this month's MC, then suddenly lost the ability to see pages from the scan. Purging / refreshing has not helped. This is the first time this has happened for a DjVu, and (as I say) it was working until a few minutes ago. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:22, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

• For me, the pages don’t load on first glance, but will load if the page is refreshed. This has also happened with other DjVu files on which I have worked relatively recently, but it is very inconsistent. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:57, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  Loads for me fine, but takes 1-2s. MarkLSteadman (talk) MarkLSteadman (talk) 02:02, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

  It's working again for me now. shrug --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:20, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

   This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Wishlist 2027, invitation to share feedback

Hi, I’m Sonja and I lead some of the teams at the Foundation who will be responsible for picking up wish work under the new wishlist process.

As you may know, the Community Wishlist started out as an annual process through which Wikimedia contributors submit and vote on technical improvements they would like the Wikimedia Foundation to work on. The main goal of it is and has been to improve the editing experience by making changes and features the community asks for specifically.

In recent years, the process behind the wishlist has changed, and we’ve heard from many of you that it no longer meets many community members’ needs. So now, the Foundation is designing a new process with the community to improve how wishes are triaged, voted on, and prioritized in a way that is transparent, balanced across project families and language editions, and takes into account what the Foundation can deliver.

I would like to get community input specifically on these three stages of the Wishlist process:

• The triage stage, meaning how wishes are fleshed out, organized and filtered prior to voting
  • We recommend to have a working group, including volunteers from various wikis and Wikimedia Foundation staff to work through this together
• The voting stage, including who may vote and how votes are structured
• The post-vote stage, including how to bring equity into what work is prioritized
  • One way to do this is to rank wishes within 3 categories: Large Wikipedias or covering all wikis, small and medium-sized Wikipedias, and sister projects, so that top-voted wishes from smaller projects also get attention

This message is an abstract of the full proposed process. As you read the proposed ideas on Meta (available in your language), please speak up about whether you think this will work well or if there are ways to make it stronger.

Regarding the timeline, this consultation is open for two weeks. You can post your feedback on Meta (in your preferred language) or in response below.

For this year’s cycle, we plan to have the wish submission period in late October/early November and the triage process completed by late November. To respect the end-of-year holiday season, voting would happen in early to mid January. This first voting cycle is meant as a first step to try out a new process, and there will be more opportunities to provide feedback along the way, so that we can figure out the best process for future years together.

SPerry-WMF, delivered by Trizek (WMF) (talk) 13:52, 1 September 2026 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who engaged in the discussion around the proposal from August 26. We've processed your feedback and made changes accordingly. Note that we weren’t able to implement all of it for this cycle, mostly for logistical reasons, but this is merely meant to be a first step and we will continue to improve this process with you all before we run through the next cycle. We plan to use this updated version for the Wishlist 2027, and we look forward to hearing from you all during the submission and voting periods.

SPerry-WMF, delivered by Trizek (WMF) (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Long lists of copyrighted works on author pages

Do we want long lists of copyrighted works on author pages? See, e.g., Author:Alexandre Christoyannopoulos, which contains external links to works that will remain copyrighted until 70 years after the author's death, while the author is still living and relatively young. I understand if some author pages include works that are going to enter the public domain in the near future, but this seems like too much to me. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Keep Listing these works is useful for readers, particularly in cases where we can refer that person to a copy to read now. This is similar to an interlibrary service, where a given institution may not have every piece you are looking for but will try to help you find it. There may be concerns about users trying to pre-emptively add local copies of works that we cannot host for copyright reasons and if so, the solution is to have a template that points out how it can't be hosted here, similarly to how we have {{copyright-until}}. Having a list of works that includes some things and excludes others gives a mistaken impression that the list is exhaustive or at least an attempt to be comprehensive, which is what we do for authors of classic literature. It would be confusing and inconsistent to have some author pages list all works and then some only list a subset and some others still list all works but tag a few with {{copyright-until}}, etc. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:43, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Well the current listing does not distinguish between copyrighted freely-licensed works that have not yet been hosted vs. copyrighted works that have not been released. I certainly don't object to long lists of freely-licensed works that wouldn't enter the public domain until a long time in the future, if that is the question. MarkLSteadman (talk) 17:47, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

I mean copyrighted works that have not been released and will not be hostable for many decades. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:53, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

For contemporary authors, I would generally delete. As here, it just promotes confusion between hostable and non-hostable works. For authors where we are looking at renewal / non-renewal, I think it makes more sense to have the lists as they serve to track why clearly, but for a contemporary author, the proper place for sticking such bibliography is on the wikipedia page. It allows linking to other sources, narrative text about the works, context etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 18:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

• I don’t think that one standard policy is a useful solution. My opinion on whether an individual author should have many items listed depends on several factors. For instance, the author in this case I think should not have a list, because most of his works are copyrighted and published recently, and the author is still alive. But I don’t think that such a list would be always inappropriate; for a different example, I think it would be fine to list Donald Trump’s privately published works (especially The Art of the Deal), if only to note that they’re copyrighted. On the other hand, for long-dead authors whose published works are still subject to copyright based on the year of publication, I think it makes more sense to list all of them, with the renewal IDs, as this is helpful for contributors to the project in the future and avoids duplication of work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:59, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

  This is roughly my opinion as well. For nearly all modern authors, especially living ones, for whom most of the works are still under copyright and likely to be for decades to come, no list should be maintained. In the past, we have made a few occasional exceptions for very high profile authors whose fans will continually add to the lists, such as Author:Stephen King, which I see has been recently deleted. (I thought we had found a couple of his works now in the public domain, but perhaps not). But for deceased authors, whose works have begun to enter the public domain, the focus should be on listing hostable works (ideally with source links), and tagging listed works that are not hostable with a template to discourage copyvio. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:26, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

\hline not working in <math>

While working on Spherical Trigonometry, I noticed that \hline no longer renders as a horizontal line in the alignat environment in <math>, instead replaced by the text "HLINE TBD". This can be seen, for example, on this page. Does anyone know why this is happening, and possible solutions or alternatives? Gunjounoame (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2026 (UTC)

Book subtitle

Hi, I added "book subtitle" in MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index data config.json, and it can now be added in indexes. But it doesn't display, e.g. Index:David-Neel - My Journey to Lhasa.pdf or My Journey to Lhasa/Introduction. Any idea? Thanks, Yann (talk) 15:57, 4 September 2026 (UTC)

May need to be added to Module:Proofreadpage index template? --Yodin^T 11:54, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Yeah, the module controls what is displayed. The json only controls the forms that are in the page.
I've added the option to the module. — Alien  3
3 3 21:03, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

@Alien: Thanks, but something is still missing. The subtitle doesn't display either here or here. Yann (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

You asked for a subtitle parameter to indexes. Adding it to mainspace pages is a whole other question. — Alien  3
3 3 17:29, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Well, what would be the point to have them in indexes if subtitles do not display in pages? Yann (talk) 17:51, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Guidance requested: supervised AI-assisted transcription and proofreading pilot

I would appreciate guidance before proceeding with a small Proust transcription pilot.

I am working, in a strictly personal capacity, on the 1922 Chatto & Windus edition of Marcel Proust's Swann's Way, translated by C. K. Scott Moncrieff: https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Swann%27s_Way,_trans_Scott_Moncrieff_(f).pdf. I use an AI assistant in a supervised browser session. The assistant has helped with bibliographic metadata, page-list checking, OCR correction and visual comparison of provisional transcriptions against the scan. Public actions are performed only after my explicit authorisation; there is no unattended process. The assistant has already created Index metadata through the normal web interface, but no Swann's Way Page-namespace transcription has yet been published.

The proposed pilot is deliberately small and continuous: scan views 1–25, comprising nine blank views, six textual front-matter pages and printed pages 1–10. Sixteen textual pages have been visually compared with the scan, with a second AI-assisted comparison, and the page boundaries, running headers and printed folios have been checked. Validation would be left to a different human contributor.

Before making these Page-namespace edits, I would like the community's view on three points:

1. Should AI-prepared and AI-checked page text initially remain at Not proofread until a human has personally compared the complete page with the scan, rather than being marked Proofread?

2. Does supervised browser automation for a small number of explicitly authorised edits require a separate bot account and prior bot approval, even when each page is reviewed and the rate is kept low?

3. Is there any additional disclosure, edit-summary wording or project documentation that the community would like for this pilot?

I will not publish the proposed page batch or change its quality statuses until this discussion has had time to receive guidance. HyakinthosPorphyreos (talk) 04:35, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

• Funnily enough, you’re not the first person to do AI-assisted editing. From the discussions last time, the consensus seemed to be: (1) yes, pages made with AI should be marked Not Proofread; (2) you don’t need a separate bot account or the flag, so long as you don’t edit too quickly; (3) since it’s being automated, a short notice in the edit summary should be fine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  Thank you, this is very helpful and gives me a clear framework for the pilot.

  I will therefore keep all AI-assisted page transcriptions at Not Proofread, use my regular account at a low editing rate, and include a brief disclosure in each edit summary. A human contributor will independently compare each complete page with the scan before marking it Proofread, and validation will then be left to a different contributor.

  I will begin with the small Swann’s Way pilot described above and document any recurring formatting or transcription issues on the Index talk page. HyakinthosPorphyreos (talk) 14:01, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

  One other comment, as long as it is used for facilitating future proofreading, not just loading text and leaving walls of red not proofread in the indices across many works. That seems to be the intent here, but just stating for anyone else who reads this. MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:42, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-37

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

Updates for editors

• Add a Link has been upgraded for English Wikipedia users with improved detection of links that have different capitalization. This will help reduce ambiguous suggestions caused by differences in capitalization in article titles, including articles about cultural goods. A second phase of improvements is planned, which will also prepare the feature for release in other languages. [14] [15]
• The Article guidance feature will be enabled by default for junior editors on Simple English and Turkish Wikipedia starting 10 September 2026 following an experiment. Junior editors with 0 to 99 edits will automatically see the feature when they click a red link or use the "" option on Turkish Wikipedia to create a new article. The change is intended to help junior editors create higher-quality articles that meet each Wikipedia’s standards. Additional improvements will continue based on the experiment results and community feedback.
• The Pageviews Analysis tool which allows users to compare pageviews across multiple pages, turns 10 years old this year and several new features have been added. They include WikiNav which provides insights into how readers of Wikipedia explore the content, editing stats in Siteviews, the ability to lookup articles belonging to a WikiProject, and support for dark mode. [16]
• A visually simplified Minerva navigation bar is being tested for logged-out readers using mobile web on the Bengali, Czech, English, Farsi, and Polish Wikipedias. The experiment aims to determine whether simplifying the navigation improves reader retention. The test will run from August 31 to September 28, and no action is required from users.
• WMDE Technical Wishes is working on improving auto-generated reference names in VisualEditor. Editors will only notice a slight change starting this week. When adding automatic reference names the numbering will start at :1 instead of :0. Read more on the project page. [17]
• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 23. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming weeks. [18]
• View all 25 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where Parsoid could mishandle nested nowiki tags, causing content to be lost and displaying unwanted text has now been fixed. [19]

Updates for technical contributors

• Interface administrators can configure gadgets from MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition. The definition format has been updated and no longer requires the ResourceLoader option, as gadgets are always loaded through ResourceLoader. This simplifies gadget configuration by removing an option that is no longer necessary, making gadget definitions easier for administrators. [20]
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

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

MediaWiki message delivery 18:44, 7 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:11, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

WikiProject Organized Labour

From 1 to 30 September 2026, a month long online community editing event dedicated to all topics covered under WikiProject Organized Labour including strike actions, trade unions, labor law, union busting etc.

This edit-a-thon is inspired by the Wiki Workers United campaign and shows its solidarity by improving coverage of union-related topics across the different wiki projects in a policy compliant manner.

— m:Event:WikiProject Organized Labour Month Online Campaign

For anyone who wants to contribute to this WikiProject here on English Wikisource, I have created a local project page at Wikisource:WikiProject Organized Labour Month Online Campaign. —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:07, 8 September 2026 (UTC)

I linked to the scans of the fundamental conventions as published in the UN Treaty Series. One other topic might be collecting primary source material on various strikes (e.g. Lowell, Pullman, Homestead, Lawrence, 1926 General strike, etc.) MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:23, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

WSExport

Tracked in PhabricatorTask T437349

I haven't seen any other discussions of this here, so just to say it seems the WSExport tool for exporting ebooks, etc. is currently down. --Yodin^T 10:51, 9 September 2026 (UTC)

Now fixed. --Yodin^T 09:27, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Great. And even the .pdf is now working, which it hadn't for quite a while. -- Beardo (talk) 17:48, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Best kind of page to collect reviews of a single work? Portal? Author page of reviewed work?

In 1926 and 1927, multiple Wikisource-eligible reviews of Charles Caldwell Dobie's novel Less Than Kin were published. What kind of page should link to these reviews? A Portal for Less Than Kin? Or should the reviews be under a section of "Works about Dobie" on Dobie's author page? I've listed various reviews below:

• Joseph Henry Jackson (1 October 1926). "The New Books". The San Diego Sun (in English): 10. Wikidata Q141403415. 
• Anonymous (31 October 1926). "Dobie: "Less Than Kin" Proves Charles Caldwell Dobie's Merits as Novelist; Is a Tale Out of the Old Life in San Francisco and California.". Oakland Tribune (in English): W–4. ISSN 1068-5936. Wikidata Q141402078. 
• Walter S. Adams (2 January 1927). "Fate's Cruel Prison". Asheville Citizen-Times (in English): 9. ISSN 1060-3255. Wikidata Q141403212. 
• E. R. S. (11 September 1927). "Vividly Told Story of Life of Unusual Girl". Kansas City Journal (in English): 10. ISSN 2157-3506. Wikidata Q141402602. 

Lovelano (talk) 06:29, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

I suggest a portal, such as Portal:The Makropoulos Secret, which can be then linked from the Wikipedia article using the w:Template:Wikisource portal, and also the portal's Wikidata item can be linked with the work's item using the d:Property:P1151 (topic's main Wikimedia portal). -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:04, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Commons gallery in Letters from England

Among the sister projects links there is a link to a "Commons gallery", but it goes to the category of the work for some reason, while the Commons category link goes correctly to the category of this specific edition. There is no gallery related to this work or edition on Commons. Why is it happening? -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:20, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

This seems to be from Wikidata, probably because Letters from England is an "edition or translation of" (P629) Anglické listy. Module:Plain sister seems to get data from these items (P629) on line 143, but probably doesn't apply the same logic to them, as Anglické listy only has a Commons category, not a gallery. --Yodin^T 11:51, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Vandalism

@~2026-49013-57 needs to get banned for doing vandalism like this. Eievie (talk) 16:42, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the report. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 16:46, 10 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Request for adjustment to Author module

Hello all!

I am looking for consensus on adding a couple of new categories in Module:Author/data to assist in better disambiguation between various denominations of authors that are part of groups related to the Latter Day Saint movement (Portal:Mormonism).

I think it would be beneficial to make it so that there were individual author links (at least for the three larger movements)—Latter-day Saints (specifically the group that uses the hyphen and the lowercase "d", i.e. Portal:The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints), Community of Christ, and the Strangites. The views of these various denominations are so different that I don't think it is beneficial to lump them all under the same heading of "Category:Mormon authors." I think that Category:Mormon authors could be used for authors linked to Q747802 in wikidata, which could help encompass some of the smaller splinter groups unless enough works were found to warrant a new discussion in the future to change this further.

So I am specifically seeking consensus for the following changes:

(1) Change: "Q42504 = 'Mormon authors'," to "Q747802 = 'Mormon authors',"

(2) Add the following subs underneath that new section—

(2.1) Q42504 = 'Latter-day Saint authors'

(2.2) Q520362 = 'Strangite authors'

(2.3) Q625363 = 'Community of Christ authors'

Erblanchard57 (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2026 (UTC)

I am not an expert here, but per Latter Day Saint movement and Community of Christ the "Community of Christ authors" would consider themselves "Latter-day Saint authors", as part of the "Latter Day Saint movement", while not part of "Latter-day Saint Church", and if that is correct I would have Q42504 sub into "Church of Later-day Saints authors" MarkLSteadman (talk) 20:36, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree that Community of Christ authors could be considered Latter Day Saint authors in the broader movemental sense. I think the distinction here is that pretty much all of these groups would consider themselves Latter Day Saints in that broader sense, as part of the Latter Day Saint movement. That is actually why I think something more specific than “Latter Day Saint authors” or “Mormon authors” is useful for disambiguation.

I am using “Latter-day Saint authors” intentionally for Q42504 because the hyphenated, lowercase-d form is the designation specifically associated with The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. I am using “Latter Day Saint” without the hyphen for the broader movemental sense. So my proposal is to have the broader “Mormon authors”—or “Latter Day Saint authors,” I’m open to both; I agree that members of all those groups would probably prefer “Latter Day Saint authors”—(Q747802) encompass the movement, with separate subcategories for Latter-day Saint (Q42504), Strangite (Q520362), and Community of Christ (Q625363) authors.

So my clarified proposal would be as follows (edited, to add "Movement" for better clarity):

Latter Day Saint Movement authors (Q747802)

→ Latter-day Saint authors (Q42504)

→ Strangite authors (Q520362)

→ Community of Christ authors (Q625363)

Erblanchard57 (talk) 23:52, 13 September 2026 (UTC)

I will note, I was suggesting "Latter-day Saint authors" for the sake of having a shorter alternative than "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints authors". I agree it is a completely visual difference (Latter-day Saints being members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, vs. Latter Day Saints being members of the other groups of the Latter Day Saint movement), but that is the established usage, as I've seen it. If consensus wants to do

Latter Day Saint Movement authors (Q747802)

→ Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints authors (Q42504)

→ Strangite authors (Q520362)

→ Community of Christ authors (Q625363)

I'd be okay with that too.

Erblanchard57 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

The Einstein Theory of Relativity (Lorentz)

Hi, Why does the source link points to a non-existent page while the index is at Index:LorentzStatement1920.djvu (I have tried purging). Any idea? Yann (talk) 13:52, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

The file on Commons was moved. So the source link is looking for the index under the new name. I think the Index needs to be moved to match that, but perhaps someone who is more of an expert can confirm. -- Beardo (talk) 14:09, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Correct. We should request index/page moves above. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:21, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

OK fixed. Thanks a lot! Yann (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. Yann (talk) 14:30, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

Tech News: 2026-38

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

Weekly highlight

• The Future Audiences team has started a discussion on English Wikipedia about a proposed new experiment to show a temporary notice about the new Google Preferred Sources feature to Wikipedia readers coming from Google. The experiment is to test whether this notice makes visitors come back to Wikipedia more often. Preferred Sources feature lets users choose websites they trust so Google can highlight content from those sources more prominently in Search and AI experiences. We are interested in testing this on other languages that Google supports and would welcome assistance with starting conversations on other wikis. If interested, please reach out to Future Audiences on the talk page.

Updates for editors

• The chat platform Discord is releasing a new self-service framework that websites can use to specify how their links should look when shared on Discord. The Future Audiences team is planning to start using this new framework to improve how Wikipedia links look when shared on Discord, giving better attribution and credit to contributors. The link appearance and behavior won't change in the first phase of this project as we want to first collect some baseline data to assess the impact of future changes. However, if community members who are active on Discord spot any issues, they can reach out on Phabricator or Metawiki.
• The Reader Growth team will be running an experiment to test whether compacting article lead sections on mobiles with the addition of a "read more" button improves reader retention. The test will begin on September 17 on Arabic, Spanish, French, Indonesian, Italian, Japanese, Portuguese, Vietnamese, and Chinese Wikipedias and will run for four weeks.
• All wikis will be read-only for a few minutes on September 23. This is planned at 14:00 UTC. More information will be published in Tech News and will also be posted on individual wikis in the coming week. [21]
• View all 28 community-submitted tasks that were resolved last week. For example, an issue where Wikistats for Wikipedias was returning an HTTP 500 error and could not be reached, has now been fixed. [22]

Updates for technical contributors

• Developers who maintain a tool that queries the Wikimedia Commons links tables need to update their code to connect to the new x4 database cluster. The links tables have been moved from the s4 cluster to x4, and will no longer receive updates on s4. The page and redirect tables remain available on both clusters. A wiki replica for the x4 cluster will be set up afterwards. The change is being made because the s4 cluster has grown too large to operate efficiently. You can read more.
• Detailed code updates later this week: MediaWiki

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

MediaWiki message delivery 15:31, 14 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:10, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Server switch - Your wiki will be read-only for a short time soon

Read this message in another language • Please help translate to your language

The Wikimedia Foundation will switch the traffic between its data centers. This will make sure that Wikipedia and the other Wikimedia wikis can stay online even after a disaster.

All traffic will switch on 23 September. The switch will start at 14:00 UTC.

Unfortunately, because of some limitations in MediaWiki, all editing must stop while the switch is made. We apologize for this disruption, and we are working to minimize it in the future.

A banner will be displayed on all wikis 30 minutes before this operation happens. This banner will remain visible until the end of the operation. You can contribute to the translation or proofreading of this banner text.

You will be able to read, but not edit, all wikis for a short period of time.

• You will not be able to edit for up to an hour on Wednesday 23 September 2026.
• If you try to edit or save during these times, you will see an error message. We hope that no edits will be lost during these minutes, but we can't guarantee it. If you see the error message, then please wait until everything is back to normal. Then you should be able to save your edit. But, we recommend that you make a copy of your changes first, just in case.

Other effects:

• Background jobs will be slower and some may be dropped. Red links might not be updated as quickly as normal. If you create an article that is already linked somewhere else, the link will stay red longer than usual. Some long-running scripts will have to be stopped.
• We expect the code deployments to happen as any other week. However, some case-by-case code freezes could punctually happen if the operation require them afterwards.
• GitLab will be unavailable for about 90 minutes.

This project may be postponed if necessary. You can read the schedule at wikitech.wikimedia.org. Any changes will be announced in the schedule.

Please share this information with your community.

Trizek (WMF) 12:58, 15 September 2026 (UTC)

Move “Display Options” to the Appearance section

Display Options should be moved to the Appearance section that is available in the default Vector skin. It’s incoherent to show these options on the opposite side of the page. Thanks. Midleading (talk) 03:39, 16 September 2026 (UTC)

Yellow area instead of some pages of File:A hundred years hence repaired.djvu

Does anybody have any idea what might have happened with the scan of File:A hundred years hence repaired.djvu? Instead of pages >192 only yellow area is displayed, see e.g. Page:A hundred years hence repaired.djvu/247. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:08, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

I guess the DjVu file is damaged. Yann (talk) 14:02, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

That is weird, it apparently was not after it was uploaded and when it was proofread. How can it "get damaged" while being on Commons? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Note that a lot (or all ?) the proofread Pages were moved from Index:A hundred years hence - the expectations of an optimist (IA hundredyearshenc00russrich).pdf. Perhaps something went wrong with that repairing? -- Beardo (talk) 15:26, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Ping Arcorann. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:34, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

The Djvu is clearly damaged; when I download it and examine it, it's broken at that point.--Prosfilaes (talk) 05:22, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: I've reloaded the DjVu file from IA, it looks good. • M-le-mot-dit (talk) 08:36, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

I re-fixed the duplicated pages that were in the IA file. Should be good now. Arcorann (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2026 (UTC)

Will check the DjVu later today. Possibly there was an error in the conversion process, it was done a while ago so I need to verify the images. Arcorann (talk) 23:42, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

Zambaonga City Ordinances

There are two categories - Category:Zamboanga City Ordinances and Category:Zamboanga City Local Ordinances (Regulatory) - the latter has a lot of detail which looks unusual for a category.

As well as those pages included in the categories, there are also:

• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1939.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1940.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1941.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1945.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1946.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1947.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1948.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1949.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1950.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1951.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1952.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1953.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1954.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1955.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1956.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1957.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1958.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1959.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1960.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1961.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1962.pdf
• Index:Zamboanga City Ordinances 1963.pdf

A lot of the work on these was done by User:KenJstn who is now blocked.

(There is also Portal:Local Government of Zamboanga City.)

Do we do anything with those categories? Perhaps combine them?

And do we do anything about all those indexes? -- Beardo (talk) 22:24, 17 September 2026 (UTC)

Indexes are fine if there is no copyright issue. Yann (talk) 14:01, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

• I have worked on some of these before (from Urbiztondo and Mayantoc), and there don’t seem to be any copyright issues; these are just local urban ordinances. Alien333: Did you CheckUser before the block, or was it based entirely on circumstantial evidence? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:45, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

  I did not checkuser because there are no checkusers, and because this was a pretty clear case.
  (Five users suddenly appearing at the same time, to make bot creations, on the same topics, with the exact same edit summaries, can hardly be a coincidence. See User talk:KenJstn.) — Alien  3
  3 3 14:51, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

ia-upload

ia-upload seems to have fallen over (items queued for the last 6 hours or more); can anyone here restart it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:29, 18 September 2026 (UTC)

Working now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:33, 19 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Page:LorentzGravitation1916.djvu/31

Hi, It seems that in this page, the notes are shifted: they should be 1 -> 2, 2 -> 3, 3 -> 4, 4 -> 5, 5 -> 1. Am I right? Yann (talk) 15:25, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Weird. This is just a manual error, not some weird technical thing. After the text "...form a covariant tensor of the fourth order", there should be the "This means..." note, but it's not put there. The solution is just rearranging the text to be correct. Odd. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:29, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. I thought may be I missed something. Fixed. Yann (talk) 15:53, 21 September 2026 (UTC)

 This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:09, 21 September 2026 (UTC)