Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Apr 2005 - Aug 2005

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

「他の言語」 / "In other languages"[edit]

ja: 各記事に書かれている「他の言語」を統一すべきと私は考えます。 / en: I think "In other languages" written at each article should be unified. --kahusi - (Talk) 03:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

In fact it is - Template:WS-languages - Patio 09:04, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

ja: 有難う御座います。然し、他にもあるのです: インターナショナル / en: Oh, Thanks. But, there is it else: The Internationale --kahusi - (Talk) 11:40, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dutch special pages[edit]

Is there an admin who can change the following two?

  1. the navigation Community portal to Gebruikersportaal
  2. in Statisics artikels to artikelen and Systeembeheerders to Admins list|systeembeheerders

--Patio 08:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

site[edit]

Messieurs,

Je suis tout à fait d'accord que vous repreniez les textes de mon site sur l'antiquité : je voudrais seulement que vous citiez le site d'où vous tirez les textes.

Une partie des oeuvres latines et grecques sont tirées de mon site

http://remacle.org


Bien à vous

Philippe Remacle

philippe.remacle@skynet.be

Répondu par mail. Marc 15:14, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

FineReader OCR XIX[edit]

I stumbled across an interesting product, ABBYY FineReader OCR XIX, an OCR tool by one of the leading OCR companies made specifically for recognizing older texts that are out of copyright. This seems like it could be a valuable tool for bringing in content from older works. They even have a free trial version that will do 100 pages before expiring (and if many users each did 100 pages, that could add up to a lot). I'm not quite sure how Wikisource works though - will the wiki effect be able to clean up OCR errors here? Also, where does one obtain these older texts? Ideally we can borrow them from libraries. Thanks. Deco 18:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I used a recent version of FineReader through its free trial on some late 19th century books and it worked well -- not sure what the version number was -- but from what I remember, it was more than I wanted to pay, so I downloaded Cuneiform Pro 6.0, and it also worked OK. It's on sale right now for $69. The only problem I have is with numbers that are dropped below the line as they are in many old books. I pretty much have to fix every date that appears in the history book that I'm scanning now. But it's really not much of a problem because I proof-read every pair of pages as I scan them and the software does a pretty good spell check and points out words that it questions. It highlights the word in the original text for easy comparison. I'm not sure what you mean by "wiki effect" being able to clean up OCR errors, but I think it's a lot easier to compare the text with the scanned in image, one right above the other, right from the OCR program than relying of proof readers who don't have the original text quickly available. — Nonenmac 00:55, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
At last somebody has made an OCR engine that is able to recognice gothic letters. It's just a shame that the price on the FineReader is much too high for me - even for the version with the lowest limit on pages with gothic lettering (yes, even the version you buy has a page limit on gothic pages, but not on pages with latin letters, though). Of course if all users scanned 100 pages with the trial version it would add up, but as i have several books in gothic lettering that exeeds 100 pages it doesn't last for long. I agree that the wiki effect is not the best way to clean up OCR errors. It is much easier to clean them up by on-screen comparison to the scanned image before uploading the text, and old books can be quite hard to obtain even from libraries as you are sometimes not allowed to bring the old books home for scanning but only to read the books on-site at the library. Personally, I often obtain the old books from secondhand bookmarkets, carbootsales etc. where many old books can often be found at low cost. --Christian S 05:36, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Wow, I didn't notice that the non-free versions had page limits. It seems they want you coming back for expensive "reloads". It's too bad, because it does seem like no one else has yet done the extensive work of building a model for text from this period. Sometimes I wonder if we should seriously build an open-source OCR engine.
On the topic of obtaining materials, do libraries allow you to scan or, at the very least, take high-resolution photographs of the book in the library? With a good lighting setup and photographing half a page at a time this seems like it might be enough dpi to satisfy OCR. While I've found old books used before, they're usually mid-20th century rather than early 20th century.
Speaking of it being hard to clean up a text without access to the source, I wonder if, at least at first, we should archive the images of the text as well. Storage may be a practical concern here, but there's really no substitute for the original for verification of authenticity and accuracy. Deco
An open source OCR engine would be wonderfull, I would really love to see somebody build it. The libraries (at least in Denmark) do not always allow photocopying of old books, at least not photocopying of books for on-site use only, without special permission (it's a matter of conservation as photocopying can seriously damage the binding). At the bookmarkets that I attend I often find pre-1900 books, sometimes pre-1850, although most of them are not very famous or popular. But the secondhand market may be different where you live. The best place to look is, in my experience, at secondhand markets that specialises in books, that is, the kind that buy bulk collections and sell the books cheaply. At least if you can do without the famous works. And then there is, of course, the antiqarians, but their prices are often higher. --Christian S 10:33, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

For what it's worth, see GOCR, an open-source program at sourceforge. An opensource OCR program would exactly the tool appropriate to Wikisource, and perhaphs we should be in touch with them. If anyone tries it and gets some results, please let us all know! Dovi 12:30, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm mistaken, but this may be barking up the wrong tree. I believe JOCR is designed to recognise documents printed out by a computer, given access to the original fonts, which is quite entirely different from what we need.
I had another thought about this. Maybe we could create a "page pool", where people with an excess of un-OCRed pages can drop scanned images of pages for others to OCR and proofread using whatever software they might have (or even just their eyes). They can then be combined together at the end. We could organize it on the Wikisource website itself, using image uploads, some lists, some templates. In this way people without access to original books could still get involved. Deco 22:45, 6 May 2005 (UTC)
Oops, I was thinking of something else. GOCR actually looks pretty flexible. Probably not up to par with commercial stuff in terms of natural language models and all that, but could still be quite useful. Deco

Eigenes Wiki erstellen[edit]

Ich möchte auf einem eigenen Server ein Wiki einrichten. Und weil mir dieses Wiki so gefällt, möchte ich dieselbe Software benutzen.

Irgendwie bekomme ich nicht heraus, welches diese Software ist und wo ich sie bekommen kann.

Sorry I'm not replying in German; I can understand it better than I can speak it. If you would like to use this same kind of software that Wikipedia, Wikisource, etc., use, you can obtain a copy licensed under the GNU FDL here. I hope this helps! Zhaladshar 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Ein bisschen anders aber wenn du kein server zur Verfügung (?) hast eine gute Mögligkeit:

  • Tiddly Wiki - JavaScript, CSS und natürlich HTML ist alles wass es braucht. Entschuldigung mein Deutsch. --Patio July 1, 2005 17:48 (UTC)

Haben Sie diese Seite gesehen? http://moinmoin.wikiwikiweb.de/HilfeZurInstallation http://linuxwiki.org/StartSeite

Primary source[edit]

I received a message a couple days ago by AmbushCommander, wanting help on fixing our documentation, notably Wikisource:Primary source. It got me thinking, really, according to the definition of "primary source" and "secondary source," Wikisource does not reallu prefer one over the other. Sure, we add tons of primary sources, such as novels, poems, historical documents, but we do add secondary sources, like encyclopedia articles, The Cambridge History of American Literature, Moverton's adding National Geographic, etc. Would someone be able to help with how we should word this documentation? Thanks! Zhaladshar 15:21, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Other free licences[edit]

Have you people decided yet as to the matter of other free licences specifically the GNU GPL? I find it would be very odd and frankly, idiotic, that wikipedia is allowed to use pictures under the GPL or FDL or even CC licences when the last I heard Wikisource doesn't allow GPLed works. I do believe at least when wikisource was being considered that it was planned to accept GPLed source code. I await the answer to my original question. --Sunborn 14:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No problem to have GFDL ou CC-BY-SA works here. It is just that most of the works are old and are therefore in the public domain. Don't forget that you can't add unpublished work here. And if it is old, it has to be public domain. Yann 17:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Was kann man hier hinzufügen/What can I write in here?[edit]

de: ich hab nur eine frage: kann ich hier auch polizeierlasse oder reden zu festen ein stadt abtippen oder ist das eher irrelevant? 84.175.249.187 09:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
en: just a question: is it allowed to write police issue from 1890 or laudation or is this irrelevant to the wikisource? 84.175.249.187 09:37, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

It's not disallowed to publish that kind of material on Wikisource. Some might question it's relevance to the project (if it seems to be just a miscellaneous thing which no one will ever care about, some might think you're just wasting your time), but if you want to contribute these pieces to Wikisource, go ahead. You'll probably want to submit them to Wikisource:Miscellaneous material. Zhaladshar 13:59, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Editions[edit]

If I would change something in the PD-editions of Latin texts (e.g. M. (Marcus) in stead of M'. (Manius), which is now generally accepted as correction of the Annals of Tacitus) would this violate the copyright of the authors who proposed this correction (in this case R. Syme)? Because I have mentioned in my dutch translation of the Annales references to some works that helped me with my translation(1). It would be handy if the PD-texts can be "updated" to the modern interpretation of the text.--Evil berry

Advices[edit]

Scrivo in italiano, ok? I could write in english too, but I'm too lazy for now :D

  1. Sulla pagina principale, alla sezione italiana, si dice che Wikisource "è un progetto collaterale di Wikipedia". Collaterale? Come gli effetti delle medicine? ;p Da una discussione veloce sul canale irc di wikipedia è uscita fuori la proposta "Wikisource fa parte della grande famiglia di progetti Wikimedia, ed è "cugina" di Wikipedia, un progetto multilingue per creare una enciclopedia a contenuto libero completa ed accurata."
  2. Ehi, vi siete dimenticati che ora esiste anche Wikinews, fra i progetti Wikimedia in cima alla pagina? Su su, correte ai ripari :D

Questo - naturalmente - in attesa della terribile migrazione prevista a breve... --Gatto Nero 15:14, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I oppose closing Wikisource[edit]

Hi,

I saw mentions that this projects will be put ready only for transfer to other subdomains. I totally oppose this. There are a lot of documents in languages other than English whcih won't never have their own subdomains. These documents should remains editable in the actual Wikisource, whatever happens to subdomains. Yann 17:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I thought a main Wikisource for languages without own subdomain would stay? Anything else wouldn't be useful. --Jofi 17:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yann: I never suggested that. I believe Wikisource should remain editable. to my knowledge, nobody ever suggested to close it. ThomasV 18:21, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Of cource Wikisource should not be closed, but remain editable. As I understand the general discussions that have taken place, subdomains shouldn't be created, unless they are requested by serious users who intent to maintain that language domain. The wikisource.org domain should then continue as a repository for texts in languages without their own subdomain, as well as a kind of meta-like site for interlingual coordination and discussions for Wikisource as a whole. I guess that what you refer to is the "copy to subdomain and delete texts" procedure suggested by ThomasV. That process does not mean that Wikisource will be closed, it means that texts in languages that have their own subdomain will be deleted from here, but texts in languages that does not have a subdomain will not be deleted. "Making the project ready for transfer to other subdomains". Well, the concept in this is for the smaller languages which want a subdomain to wait till the source texts in larger languages, like English which reprecents more than 40% of the texts, have been moved to their (requested) subdomains and deleted at the main site as they are not needed here when transferred to the subdomain, in order to reduce the number of pages to delete at the rest of the requested domains. When all the requested language domains have been created and the texts in those languages have been deleted from the main site, the process stops and the remaining texts will remain here, as editable as they are today, until some time in the future a new language subdomain is requested, then the cycle will be run once more for that language, and then the process stops again, etc. etc. I hope this clarified the issue.--Christian S 18:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Yann, look at Wikisource:Language_domain_requests#Links_between_languages and you will see that everyone here is strongly in favor of keeping wikisource.org permanently active. No one ever suggested anything else. It must have been a misunderstanding. Dovi 07:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Template:Interlang: namespace proposed[edit]

I just found out that the What is Wikisource? pages use a single template in order to display all their languages. I'm going to expand this to all the other documentation pages (I've already done work on Administrator vs Administrateurs). The templates I'm making will go into Template:Interlang:Name of English Page. Do you agree with Interlang being the prefix? Thanks Ambush Commander 20:55, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

when subdomains are here, I think this template should be replaced by interwiki links ThomasV 07:39, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Long pages[edit]

Some pages are insanely long. List is here : Special:Longpages.

I believe we should absolutely avoid pages larger than 1 megabyte (at least for a beginning). I already broke many books into chapters, but I do not feel comfortable with books that are not in my own language. This is because I am not sure about the spelling (the Old Testament seems to be full of typos, while the Bible seems to be in old-german), so I might create wrong titles, out of ignorance. Finally, my DSL connection is not sufficient to just read the longest page, so I'll never be able to break it.

So this is a call: Is there somebody willing to break Patrologia Latina, or another large page, into parts? ThomasV 19:45, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, my connection will allow me to edit this page, but I have no clue where to begin. It's entirely incomprehensible with all of the HTML tags on the page. I don't even know if it would be worth editing. It would probably be best just to delete it and re-add it to 'Source. It's just a mess. Zhaladshar 22:12, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Someone's fixed the longest one. We need to really community orient this: set up project pages of "stuff to do". Ambush Commander 03:20, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
I've split Rig Veda (ascii-transliteration) (warning: over 1.6 GB!) into sections and put it (them) at Rig Veda (ASCII) (tiny index page). Please support deletion of the full version at Wikisource:Proposed deletions#July 2005. - dcljr 09:15, 17 July 2005 (UTC)


Default image description[edit]

Can we have the default image description changed? Currently images pulled from the Commons only display this message on the Wikisource image page:

This file is a shared upload and may be used by other projects.
(There is currently no text in this page)

Other projects display a link to the Commons image page. Is it a simple change to do that in Wikisource? —Mike 20:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Yes, a sysop can copy w:en:MediaWiki:Sharedupload to MediaWiki:Sharedupload.--Patrick 27 June 2005 10:51 (UTC)
Done. --Christian S June 27, 2005 15:45 (UTC)

Should I donate my book?[edit]

I am a real-live author. About ten years ago Motorbooks published my Codeword Dictionary. We sold about three thousand copies. (Which is not as good as having a million-seller, but better than having a million in your cellar.)

Here is an entry: ICEBERG (Allied 45) The American invasion of Okinawa on Easter Sunday, 1 April, 1945. The Japanese consider Okinawa an integral part of Japan, and so they defended the island using the same techniques they planned to employ against an Allied invasion of the home islands. The one hundred thousand defenders avoided the massive pre-invasion bombardment by establishing their defensive lines inland (TEN-ICHI). The resulting battle was the largest in the Pacific theater. The island was secured after eighty-two days, at a cost of over 107,000 Japanese soldiers and 150,000 local civilians. This was a rate of over 1,300 Japanese soldiers killed each day. At sea and in the air, the Japanese countered with a massive kamikaze attack (FLOATING CHRYSANTHEMUMS), sinking thirty-four ships, and damaging an additional 368. Over 7,500 Americans were killed on the ground, and another 5,000 in the surrounding sea. The deception operation for this invasion was BLUEBIRD.

If I post it here, will it preserved (and edited, I know) for ... ever? I would hate for my work to go away.

Further, if I were to post it, should I do so in one honking huge file, or about twenty chapters? [[PaulinSaudi 02:34, 22 May 2005 (UTC)]]

Theoretically, that's what the wiki's supposed to do. However, talk to your publisher first: you may have given them "exclusive rights to all derivations of this work for X years," and then you are legally bound not to release this text into Public Domain. If you are free to do so, you are encouraged to release your book into public domain! That would be great!
In terms of formatting, it is probably preferable to seperate the chapters. Hope I answered your question. Ambush Commander 03:17, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
It will not be edited forever. It will be maintained in its original form. That is the purpose of Wikisource. Superm401 03:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)
OK, I shot an e-mail to Motorbooks to see if they object. [[PaulinSaudi 13:47, 22 May 2005 (UTC)]]

Mathematics[edit]

concerning the subdomains split, I wonder where the pages in category:Mathematics should go: do they have to be in en.wikisource.org, or should they remain on the main site? math demonstrations have to be written in one language - otoh constants like Pi do not need be duplicated in each subdomain. what do you guys think? ThomasV 06:31, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I was wondering that myself, Thomas. Before I answer that question (I do have my own ideas), I need to ask what wikisource.org will be like after sub-domains go up. It will be unlike any other project in that www.wikisource.org will continue to be used by everyone and will be more than just a "front page" like www.wikipedia.org. Am I understanding the future of Wikisource correctly? Zhaladshar 13:00, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe you are. we will need to keep wikisource.org, at least for the languages that are not supported by a strong community. I think mathematical tables could stay here too, because there is no point duplicating them. maybe the source code of programs could stay here too... ThomasV 13:09, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. I don't really like the idea of not having that information on the subdomains, but there is no need to duplicate it twenty-five times. Linking from en./fr.wikisource.org to wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Mathematics should suffice. Election data, mathematics, and source code probably can stay here, since it isn't necessary to know a particular language in order to understand these things. Zhaladshar 13:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

For source code, I believe the pages should belong in subdomains, because the comments that explain it are writen in a language. example: Smalltalk в примерах:Сазданийе экзэмпляра. And for math too, some pages contain text that should go to a subdomain. example: Structures in Game of Life. I guess only the constants and the tables would stay here. I wonder if there would be a way to display a table in wikisource in a page of a subdomain, wrapped with explanations in the correspondng language, in the same way as Commons does. ThomasV 15:11, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Which language they are in depends mostly on whether there is any explanatory text with the math. That text determines which subdomain they would belong in. Incidentally, some of these math articles can be deleted because they are redundant. For example: Phi to 20,000 places, Phi to 30,000 places, Phi to 40,000 places, and Phi to 50,000 places are not all necessary. Are we supposed to believe that the first 20,000 digits change based on how far we carry out the number? We only really need one article called either Phi to 50,000 places or just Phi (with explanatory text mentioning how many digits are being included). Then the user could just use however many digits they want. —Mike 22:14, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

The main problem is documentation/annotation. Sometimes, I think that Wikisource is meant to be much more than just a reference library of texts: we should all be creating and working together on annotated versions of the text, something that the wiki can help. Otherwise, using a wiki system has very few benefits. We need to reconsider our mission.
On the aspect of languages, it probably is wisest to port the explanations to the relevant subdomain, and then link it back to the www version that is language-neutral. Wikis aren't exactly the greatest when it comes to multiple languages coexisting together (as you can see from this page). And I will plug Wikisource:Scriptorium#Template:Interlang:_namespace_proposed Ambush Commander 01:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Annotated texts[edit]

Moved to Wikisource talk:Wikisource and Wikibooks. Participation in the discussion is strongly encouraged!

Babel[edit]

Hi,

I started copying Babel templates from Meta. Use at will ! Yann 15:36, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Votazioni per Consiglio Direttivo di Wikimedia[edit]

Sono iniziate le procedure per le elezioni del Consiglio Direttivo della fondazione Wikimedia. maggiori informazioni sono consultabili sul sito meta alla pagina m:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/It.

Le candidature sono accettate da martedì 7 giugno a lunedì 28 giugno. Le votazioni si svolgeranno da martedì 28 giugno a lunedì 11 luglio.

La Commissione Elettorale ha chiesto di diffondere la notizia su tutti i siti di Wikimedia.

AnyFile 20:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

The Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation has started. For more information see m:Elections for the Board of Trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, 2005/En. (many language avaible)

AnyFile 20:47, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Own subdomains for big projects?[edit]

I itend to start a project to digitalize the w:de:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (ADB) after the subdomains have been created. It is a 55 volume work of more than 25,000 German biographies. Scanned pages are available at http://mdz.bib-bvb.de/digbib/lexika/adb/. Normally this would belong to "de.wikisource" but in my opinion it doesn't make sense to mix up the ADB articles with others. So I would like to have a "adb.wikisource" subdomain. --Jofi 21:34, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

To me, it doesn't make sense to divise everything in bits. Even if there are big bits. Otherwise I will ask a subdomain for The Collected Works of Mahatma Gandhi. This is a hundred volumes, more than 50,000 pages. Yann 09:34, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)


Texts in verse: solution![edit]

Hi,

Now there is a new class "verse" (See MediaWiki:Monobook.css). So texts in verse could be easily formated with <pre class="verse">...</pre>. Yann 09:55, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Poésie[edit]

Bonsoir,

Ce que tu as indiqué au scriptorium est très utile pour éditer une poésie ; mais peut-on modifier le style des caractères ? En l'état actuel, cela ne convient pas trop à un texte de poésie. Marc 17:49, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oui, la police. Je n'ai rien trouvé dans l'aide de la Wikipédia. Est-ce que c'est possible ? Marc 13:48, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Merci ; il semble qu'il faille ajouter quelque chose comme font-family:georgia; dans ce que tu as indiqué pour les vers, pour que la police soit ensuite modifiable par le navigateur. Marc 14:46, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Bonsoir !
Le <pre class="verse"> rend très mal, en effet. "Georgia" n'est pas une police très standard. Il faudrait plutôt "font-family:serif" ou "font-family:sans-serif;" ou un compromis "font-family:Trebuchet MS,serif; "
Exemple :
Les sanglots longs
Des violons
De l'automne

Blessent mon coeur
D'une langueur
Monotone.
Cela dépend des goût...
<pre class="verse" style="font-family:Trebuchet MS,serif;"> pourrait se coder, il me semble, en un {{verse}}... si quelque chose comme ça n'existe pas déjà
CTanguy 18:36, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Je pense que c'est le navigateur qui doit indiquer la police à utiliser. Mais est-ce possible de proposer une police tout en laissant à l'utilisateur le choix ? Par ailleurs, la classe "verse" est aussi utilisée pour des textes avec d'autres alphabets. Imposer la police ne convient pas dans ce cas. Yann 18:51, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Exemple du Rig Veda ऋग्वेद: सूक्तं १.१ :
ॐ अग्निमीळे पुरोहितं यज्ञस्य देवं रत्वीजम ।
होतारं रत्नधातमम ॥
अग्निः पूर्वेभिर्र्षिभिरीड्यो नूतनैरुत ।
स देवानेह वक्षति ॥
अग्निना रयिमश्नवत पोषमेव दिवे-दिवे ।
C'est la feuille de style CSS de la présentation choisie par le lecteur qui compte. Celle par défaut [1] impose "sans-serif" (=la police sans-serif par défaut de l'utilisateur) pour le texte ordinaire. Par contre, la class "verse" est définie dans [2]. Il faudrait proposer de le changer pour définir un "verseBIS" avec font-family:sans-serif... Parce que le look machine à écrire (des polices proportionelles ordinaires - les indiennes je sais pas) c'est spécial... CTanguy 19:27, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK, j'ai aussi vu le bug [3].
Rajouter ceci style="font-family:sans-serif; border:0; background:#fff;" suffit :
Les '''sanglots longs'''
Des [[violons]]
   De l'automne

Blessent mon coeur
D'une langueur
   Monotone.
Donc rajouter font-family:sans-serif; à verse ! CTanguy 20:05, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Désolé, mais non. Chacun peut redéfinir la classe "verse" dans sa feuille de style perso. Et ce que vous dites n'a pas de sens. Pourquoi ajouter "sans-serif" alors que la feuille de style par défaut est déjà "sans-serif". Yann 20:33, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
La feuille de style par défaut est déjà "sans-serif"... oui... sauf pour pre ! (qui a "font-family: monospace" très exactement)
Et la quasi-totalité des utilisateurs (lecteurs...) de Wikisource n'ont pas de feuille de style perso !
Non non, il faut soit ajouter font-family:sans-serif; soit revenir au système des ":"
CTanguy 00:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Perso, j'utilise "Bitstream Vera Sans Mono" comme police, et ça me convient très bien, y compris pour les poêmes. Mais sinon, ok pour moi. Yann 11:03, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
"Bitstream Vera Sans Mono", les utilisateurs l'auront rarement sur leur ordi, je pense. CTanguy 19:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Could someone translate a summary of this conversation into English for me? I tried Google translator but it had some issues (what is a police force?). Is the consensus that we should use <pre class="verse">? Thanks CSN 23:51, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CTanguy asked that "font-family:sans-serif" be added to the "verse" class I created. Which I did because the style sheet for "pre" is defined as "monospace". (First I didn't understand why he wanted that.) My argument was that the font should be defined by the user's browser not here. Nobody objected the use of <pre class="verse">, so I would say, yes, there is consensus about it. Yann 16:01, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bug[edit]

Existing texts with <pre class="verse"> do not display correctly anymore, because ".verse pre {" in the CSS would not match this : it should be "pre.verse {" ! CTanguy 19:45, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Majuscules dans titres français[edit]

Bonjour,

Quelle règle utilise-t-on pour les majuscules dans les titres ? Utilise-ton aussi pour les poèmes ? Par exemple, les majuscules dans les titres de Stèles ne semblent pas très consistants. Yann 10:24, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Il me semble que ce sont les mêmes règles. Mais certains auteurs/imprimeurs prennent des libertés. Pour Stèles, les titres sur ce wikisource n'est pas tout à fait comme dans l'édition Folio ; mais cette édition ne respecte pas les règles, écrivant "La passe" et "Les mauvais artisans" où il faudrait "La Passe" et "Les Mauvais Artisans". (Mais Segalen est peut-être un cas particulier : la présentation du texte des Stèles est inabituelle, déjà...) CTanguy 19:07, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)
OK. Il faudrait une source sûre pour Segalen. Il y a aussi un problème avec les Fables de La Fontaine. Yann 20:44, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Bot work / Travail pour bot[edit]

Il y aurait du travail pour un bot pour corriger l'orthographe, au moins en français :

  • espace avant ! ? ; :
  • remplacer - par –
  • ...

Yann 21:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

There is a lot of work for a bot, to correct spelling, at least in French. Yann 21:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • space before ! ? ; :
  • replace - by –
  • ...

Yann 21:48, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

"space before ! ? ; :" - This is only needed for French, as far ar i know -- CTanguy 00:31, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Yes. That's what I mean. Yann 10:59, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
ca semble asez facile à faire. mais peut etre qu'il vaut mieux attendre d'avoir un sous-domaine fr, de sorte que le bot ne modifie pas des pages non-francaises par erreur. ThomasV 21:08, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Copyright status of works by multiple authors[edit]

Does anyone know how copyright renewal works for works written pre-1930 by multiple authors? Some of Lovecraft's stuff was written with other people. Reseachers of renewal records have turned up no copyright renewals by Lovecraft and concluded that his works were PD. What about stuff that Lovecraft co-authored with other people? Does anyone know if this stuff is PD or not? Who is assigned the copyright in the case of multiple authorship? Is it shared? Is one party or the other responsible for renewal? CSN 02:23, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I can only give you two things, since I am not knowledgeable of this bit of copyright law. You can search the U.S. copyright site for information about that. Or, maybe Eclecticology will know, although if you want to ask him, you'll have to go over to his Wiktionary user page, as he hasn't come over to this project since April. Zhaladshar 12:31, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

According to United States copyright law, if the work was first published before 1923, it's in the public domain no matter who the authors were. If it was first published after 1922, it's probably not in the public domain - although there are exceptions. For instance, if a work was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1977, and it was first published without a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain. But you have to be sure it was first published without a copyright notice. If it was first published in the U.S. between 1923 and 1963 with a copyright notice, then it's in the public domain only if the copyright was not renewed. This is difficult to determine. Any of the authors could have renewed the copyright, so you'd have to check each one. And this takes a great deal of research to determine.

I have some handy information related to all aspects of copyright law at w:en:User:Quadell/copyright. Hope this helps. Quadell June 27, 2005 19:42 (UTC)

Wikimedia 1.5[edit]

Wikimedia 1.5 is now available.[4]

It looks like wikisource.org and he.wikisource.org were among the initial upgrades. (Check out, for instance, "show changes" in edit mode.) It would be nice to thank the developer who applied it, whom I assume was Brion.

Perhaps this means that in the near future we'll be able to proceed with languages. Dovi June 26, 2005 14:30 (UTC)

thank for pointing it out! I will try to know how soon we can proceed ThomasV June 26, 2005 16:03 (UTC)
Yes, Wikisource is updated to 1.5beta1 (see Special:Version). The language subdomains could be started... --Jofi June 26, 2005 17:34 (UTC)
The class "verse" (see MediaWiki:Monobook.css) doesn't work anymore with "pre". See above. I reported it to the developers. According to Brion, it should work with "white-space: pre;" and <div>, but it doesn't for me now. Bug or cache problem ? "<JeLuF> yannf: tidy is causing trouble apparently" Yann June 26, 2005 22:10 (UTC)
Seems that Special:Import is not yet up and running, see bug 606. This is the feature we have mainly been waiting for, so we probably have to wait with the subdomains untill this feature is working. Perhaps voting for this bug at bugzilla can speed up the process?
By the way, check out the improvements made to the watchlist, I really like it:)--Christian S June 27, 2005 18:24 (UTC)
I tried Special:Import at a local wiki and it did work, but without revision history and only one article at each request. --Jofi 2005-06-28 12:47:57 (UTC)
Version 1.5beta2 was released yesterday. from what I understood, Special:Import should work now. ThomasV 6 July 2005 11:44 (UTC)
Yeah, Bug-zilla just e-mailed me that it was completed. So, anyone know how long until we get our sub-domains? —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)
Although 1.5 has been deployed now, the stable version hasn't, which Erik has said could potentially affect the creation of new wikis. A non-beta version should be available in a few weeks.
Until then, it would be helpful to discuss a policy for which languages can be created. See Proposed policy for wikis in new languages which has not yet been agreed on, and Wikinews/Start a new edition which is the current policy used on Wikinews. I think the Wikinews policy would work best here. This basically says that at least 5 people who speak the language must support the project. Of those 5, at least 3 of them must have been editing for 3 months and made 200 edits to any Wikimedia project in that language. Perhaps someone could check which languages at Wikisource:Language domain requests meet these requirements?
I would also suggest that the admins here test the Import feature to make sure it works correctly, since it is not a common feature so hasn't had very much community testing yet. Angela 6 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
I'm not able to use the Special:Import feature yet. When I go to that page, I get this message: "No transwiki import sources have been defined and direct history uploads are disabled." —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)
I tried it too, and I get the same message when I go to Special:Import. --Christian S 6 July 2005 14:55 (UTC)
I just checked the bug at Bugzilla, and it appears that it has not yet been fixed, it's still in status "NEW", not "RESOLVED". --Christian S 6 July 2005 15:07 (UTC)
You're right. I wonder why I got that e-mail from bugzilla stating that it had been completed? —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 15:13 (UTC)
I think it's working, but not enabled for this wiki. I'll ask Brion about this when he's next on IRC. Angela 6 July 2005 16:00 (UTC)

In terms of criterion for setting up language wikis, also see Wikisource:Language domain requests/Rules for voting. It's not that different from the Proposed policy for wikis in new languages, but it takes two things into account:

  • A Wikisource language is not nearly as demanding as one for Wikinews, in terms of the need to continually update it by the day, hour, and minute.
  • Wikisource languages already have active users. Prominent example: The outstanding work that Marc has done with Latin texts. For Latin it might be hard to find five different people initially, but someone like Marc might really be all it takes to get it started.

Perhaps our experience here could be added to the experience gained at Wikinews in setting up a "Meta" language policy with general guidelines, but with some flexibility that takes into account the differences between different kinds of projects.Dovi 6 July 2005 16:14 (UTC)

If I'm not totally wrong, nothing important changed at Special:Import since beta1. So it won't fit our needs: Only one article can be transfered at each request and only the current revision will be transfered. There is a new feature (importDump) to import a whole dumb to another wiki, but that won't help us. So we still have to wait. --Jofi 2005-07-06 21:38:56 (UTC)

according to brion on irc yesterday (and as far as I could understand), those two problems are a matter of permissions, but the code works. ThomasV 6 July 2005 21:57 (UTC)
How do we get permission for it? —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 22:24 (UTC)
I can't see it in the code, but I'm not a developer and if Brion says so... --Jofi 2005-07-06 22:27:21 (UTC)
Apparently, the code still needs some work, especially logging. Brion said today that he will try to get that done soon if no one else does. Angela 7 July 2005 07:35 (UTC)
I agree with Dovi that starting a Wikisource subdomain is less demanding than it is for Wikinews. Once the subdomain has started, new users will join in eventually. The important thing is to have at least one dedicated user who will maintain the project over time, as many contributors are not "regulars" here, but active contributors at other Wikimedia projects who contribute a text once in a while (some have only contributed a single text here). I support his suggestion to use Wikisource:Language domain requests/Rules for voting as a set of rules for starting up language subdomains at wikisource. --Christian S 7 July 2005 08:35 (UTC)
I think these rules are ok. so I guess it is time now to agree on which subdomains should be requested. ThomasV 08:31, 10 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, if this procedure is agreed upon (and if someone doesn't agree, now is the time to speak up!), then let's simply start a list right here of languages that are ready. I am opening a subsection now. The initial list will just be from a superficial glance at Wikisource:Language domain requests (5 minutes of work). If your language is also ready but I haven't listed it here, then please don't get upset; just list it yourself! If anyone thinks I am mistaken, please fix it. I don't claim to have checked out all the details on all the requests. Remember that we are not starting languages that don't have a fairly strong consensus for beurocrat. So here is the "stub" list, which others can fill in to make it complete:

Languages ready for launch[edit]

  • ar.wikisource.org
  • da.wikisource.org
  • de.wikisource.org
  • el.wikisource.org (beurocrat candidate is wikipedia sysop)
  • en.wikisource.org
  • es.wikisource.org
  • fr.wikisource.org
  • gl.wikisource.org
  • it.wikisource.org
  • la.wikisource.org
  • nl.wikisource.org
  • pl.wikisource.org
  • pt.wikisource.org
  • ro.wikisource.org
  • ru.wikisource.org

(Discussion about la: before moved up)

  • la.wikisource.org (cannot be launched without bureaucrat, unless Marc is willing to be that person...)
    • To me, it doesn't make sense to have a separate domain for Latin texts, and other old languages. Who want to have a Latin interface ? I think these texts should be kept together with other old languages, like old Greek and Sanskrit. Yann 17:58, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
      • Well, there is of course the Latin Wikipedia, which is very nice... But remember that the interface, while important, is not the main reason for a request like this. More important are the creation of a clearly defined subcommunity working on Latin texts, plus the use of standard language links. It will be very important to be able to link directly to a Latin original (la:) from the translations of that text in the various subdomains.Dovi 03:49, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Rollback[edit]

Does anyone know if admin's rollback feature is currently disabled? I can't seem to use it right now. Zhaladshar June 27, 2005 16:12 (UTC)

I've just used it, it works fine for me. --Christian S June 27, 2005 17:54 (UTC)

This is weird. I still don't see it. Is it still in its normal spot? Zhaladshar June 27, 2005 19:34 (UTC)

I don't see it either, fwiw. Nor do I on Commons, where I'm an admin. Quadell June 27, 2005 19:42 (UTC)
I do now. I thing the bugs and fixes go by swiftly these days. Quadell June 28, 2005 01:45 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing the rollback feature when I compare edit histories. Where should I go to report this? Zhaladshar June 28, 2005 15:16 (UTC)
I just checked bugzilla, and this bug has already been reported. Zhaladshar June 28, 2005 15:36 (UTC)

Wikimedia Nederland i.o.[edit]

Everybody interested in new localized Wikimedia chapters is invited to join us at Wikimedia Nederland i.o.

Ik zou graag iedereen die geïnteresserd is in nieuwe afdelingen van Wikimedia op willen roepen een steentje bij te dragen. Kom naar Wikimedia Nederland i.o. en bekijk de details over geplande ontmoeting(en). Er is nog veel te doen en vele handen maken licht werk. Je bent van harte welkom! Patio July 1, 2005 07:28 (UTC)

Vandalisme[edit]

Suite aux vandalismes d'hier, je me demande s'il y a assez d'administrateurs à Wikisource. En tout cas, Wikisource est mal protégé contre ce genre d'attaques. Entre autres, des images érotiques ont été copiées, et sont restées un certain temps. Cela pourrait être pire, et il semble que des images plus violentes et plus nuisibles pourraient sans difficulté se retrouver ici, alors qu'il n'y a personne pour y remédier (le cas s'est déjà présenté sur Wikipédia). Pour ma part, c'est par hasard que j'ai vu ce qui se passait, car ces temps-ci (et pour les deux ou trois mois à venir), je ne peux m'occuper de surveiller les changements récents. Marc July 2, 2005 22:55 (UTC)

You're right. There are 19 admins here, but many of them aren't really active. It would be good to have so many admins, that at least one is always there. Perhaps all people who are active here for a longer time and did nothing "suspicious" should be invited to become admin. --Jofi 2005-07-02 23:22:24 (UTC)
I'm usually constantly on Wikisource (when I'm home), so I check the recent changes all the time. Unfortunately, it's summer, so I'm gone a lot, and I still have to sleep, so I can't constantly patrol Wikisource. I think it would be a good idea to have more admins on Wikisource who can help out with the vandalism. Of course, the person(s) should be active contributors (only about half of the current admins are active) and preferably long standing contributors, although the second one might be hard to come by since many contributors do not stick with Wikisource very long. If that's the case, then we should just use trustworthy active contributors. Zhaladshar July 2, 2005 23:53 (UTC)
I agree, more admins would be a good idea. Nobody can be here 24 hours a day. Preferably every language should be covered by at least one admin, who can pick out the cases when someone changes a single word to "hi" or "f***" or some other childish thing, as this kind of vandalism can be very hard to spot if you don't understand the language. This goal may not be easy to reach, though. As Zhaladshar points out, the major problem in getting more admins is to find people who stays with the project for a long time, but one month of regular editing is IMO about the lowest limit in order to be nominated for admin. This should also be sufficient to establish the trustworthyness of the contributor.
And now let me use the opportunity to thank Marc and Zhaladshar for their outstanding work in fighting vandalism, correcting errors and generally keeping the site in a good condition. --Christian S 3 July 2005 06:01 (UTC)

May I also suggest that we implement what is, as far as I understand, a long accepted idea at Wikisource, but one that has not been implemented very much, namely: protecting pages that have been proofread and are generally accepted as being "finished." Most of the texts here are not meant to change and evolve forever. Dovi July 3, 2005 06:09 (UTC)

Yes, I think this is neccessary. But at MediaWiki:Protectedtext there should be a note added, that anybody can report typos at the discussion page of the article. Even proofreaded pages may contain errors. --Jofi 2005-07-03 10:43:15 (UTC)
I agree. We should also write an official policy on page protection, including a clear definition on what is required to get a page ready for protection as "finished". Also, we could start Wikisource:Proposed protections as an analogue to proposed deletions, where users can request protection of finished texts. --Christian S 3 July 2005 11:10 (UTC)
Thanks for the complement, Christian! I think protecting pages is a fabulous idea. When I get some free time around here (with the holiday coming up and a vacation, I'm quite busy at the moment), I'll start drafting a proposal for page protections--unless someone else beats me to it, of course... --Zhaladshar 3 July 2005 12:52 (UTC)
I am sorry that I have been less active these days (really no time). please add requests for sysop rights on Wikisource:Administrators.
I definitely support page protection. In my opinion page protection should be linked to the 4 symbols that Marc put in place - I guess text with 100%, and maybe even 75%, could be protected. ThomasV 4 July 2005 09:31 (UTC)
Linking page protection to the progress symbols is fine with me. The use of these has been described at Wikisource:Text quality. I think that we should allow protection of pages in the 75% state, at least if it is put into that state by a trustworthy user, as it may be difficult to reach the 100% level (requires proofreading by more than one user) in cases where the source is not easily available. I believe to remember that this was more or less the consensus in the original discussion. --Christian S 4 July 2005 17:51 (UTC)
I agree with protection page. --LadyInGrey 5 July 2005 20:33 (UTC)

Hi, all. I've just written up a draft of a possible protection policy proposal. Please work on/revamp/edit/remove as seen fit! —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 19:11 (UTC)

I think it's great. Thanks for writing it up!
Suggestion: There should be some sort of clear and easy-to-use notice or mechanism so that a user can request a page to be "unfrozen" in order to make legitimate improvements. Any ideas? Dovi 6 July 2005 20:23 (UTC)

We can put something in there. Although, I was just thinking that suggestions be made at the talk page. But, please, put it in! I'm too tired to work with it tonight (and I probably won't have much time until I get back from vacation on the 17th--these writing projects take me some time), but I can work on it later if no one adds it themselves. Besides, I'm hoping someone comes along and seriously helps me edit it... —Zhaladshar (Talk) 7 July 2005 02:51 (UTC)

Wikisource Task List[edit]

Would it be possible to begin Is there any interest in beginning a Wikisource task list like the list on Wikipedia's Community Portal? Or does such a thing already exist? CSN 3 July 2005 22:49 (UTC)

Yes, great idea ! I have my own list here and I am willing to share it. ;oD And Wikisource:Community Portal is almost empty, so go ahead. Yann 4 July 2005 17:28 (UTC)
I think this is a great idea, as well. I've got numerous lists around here which I would be much more than happy to contribute! Category:Clean up, Pages needing much work, and I know I've got a few more. Zhaladshar 4 July 2005 18:22 (UTC)
I copied the task list from pedia and added some basic stuff. Please add to and shape into a source appropriate list. CSN 4 July 2005 18:30 (UTC)

Guidelines for all the places to add author info[edit]

(moved from Talk:Modern Poetry:Authors)

Is there a comprehensive list somewhere of where to add a new author, poem, work, or whatever when creating a new page in source? For example, I just added a couple new poems by Clark Ashton Smith. Should I be making links on Modern Poetry:Titles, Modern Poetry:Authors, and Wikisource:Authors-S? Are there any other places? Are there any guidelines? CSN 3 July 2005 23:11 (UTC)

Please, please, please do not bother with Modern Poetry:Titles and Modern Poetry:Authors :) . The former would get far too large with the sheer number of poetry titles we have here, that it is completely impractical. Categories would be better. The second--well, I still don't like the second page (and it is horribly out of date)--but you can add the names of poets to the page. My only concern, though, is that some people are novelists but write a couple poems (but does that really make them a poet?), and some are poets who write a novel, that where to put the author might become a bit difficult to determine. Zhaladshar 3 July 2005 23:20 (UTC)
I agree that pages of lists are difficult to maintain. The unstructured nature of Mediawiki is a real drawback here. There is no easy way to do breadcrumbs or any type of burrowing without pages like Authors-X. Maybe if we decided on a set of guidelines and posted them front and center on the community portal page, it would be easier to post new works and to browse for new works/authors. Alot of the other wiki packages out there include the idea of a parent page that allows for things like breadcrumbing to be done automatically. In this case, it's a shame that Mediawiki doesn't have something like this as well.... It looks like some people have tried to solve this problem by creating Catergory pages for author letter (ie Category:Es:Autores-B and Category:Fr:Auteurs-M) but without a consistant policy that is easy to find, there is no obvious way to solve this problem. I would say we either create new Catergory pages corresponding to Authors-Letter, require that the lists of Authors-Letter pages be maintained, or possibly write some sort of plugin or extension that automatically grabs the first letter of the last name of author pages and does something fun and exciting with it. One way or another, what we really need is clear guidelines agreed to by the community and maintained. CSN 4 July 2005 00:04 (UTC)
I agree that categories should be used (although for such broad topics like "Modern Poetry" that still might not be a good solution; there are way too many works of Modern Poetry written that the category could never be adequately searched). For author pages, however, I don't think categories will work. With the "Author:" prefix, when we list the page in the category, every page will have "Author:" affixed to the name, and that seems to just be cumbersome. A list will probably still be good for author pages, unless we came up with a new naming convention for them. Then categories would work fine. Zhaladshar 4 July 2005 12:21 (UTC)

Given the current softawre, I believe categories are the most efficient way to create up-to-date lists of authors. Of course the software could be improved, but that might take time... I also think that the "Auteur" prefix in author pages should be removed once we have language subdomains. ThomasV 5 July 2005 08:54 (UTC)

I think an advantage the "Author:" prefix has is that it's a nice disambiguator. Some authors write books about people where the title is the subject's name, so having Charles Dickens and Author:Charles Dickens allows people an easy step to get to where they want to go. Of course, a disambig page wouldn't hurt, and I'm not sure how many users actually know about using the pseudo namespace "Author:" when they search for author names. Zhaladshar 5 July 2005 12:14 (UTC)

Yes, but there are other ways to perform disambiguation. if there are several books with the same title, we currently append the author's name to the title, maybe that single rule is sufficient? As you point out, the "author" prefix is makes searches difficult for users who are not familiar with wikisource. In addition, it gives author pages a lower score when they are visited by search engines. Finally, other wikimedia projects do not use such a prefix. ThomasV 5 July 2005 12:34 (UTC)

I'm willing to remove the prefix; I do want to wait until the sub domains are created, though, to reduce the number of pages that must be moved in the English Wikisource. Zhaladshar 5 July 2005 12:56 (UTC)

I think the prefix is useful to differantiate pages for authors and for works. Yann 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)

It very much is. If we can keep it, and draft up a "Search How-to" document explaining the "Author:" prefix, that would be great. It's kind of like all the different search features Google has when you search. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 7 July 2005 23:46 (UTC)

I agree with ThomasV. When a user comes to this site looking for an author, the first thing they try is the name of the author. The very few cases where there is an author whose name also happens to be the name of a work are trivial compared to the unnecessary complication of adding an extra word to a page title. Even in the occassional situation mentioned above, someone looking for the author Author:Charles Dickens is at most going to have to look through two links whereas someone who comes to this site and types H. P. Lovecraft (or any authors name) into the address bar is going to get an empty page or possibly some random work about that author. Users looking for authors in other languages are going to have to know the authors name and the word in that language for author to find a useful page. CSN 8 July 2005 01:57 (UTC)

1911 Wikipedia[edit]

I'm trying to help find the proper home for a new project proposal. I think it belongs here in Wikisource rather than where it currently is at. This is a really neat project, and I'd like some input here from the more regular Wikisource users as I'm not usually apt to hang arround here.

m:User:Gary123 proposed a new project, 1911 Wikipedia on the Proposals for New Projects page at Meta. At the moment, he has started a demo project at Wikibooks called 1911 Wikipedia.

The general gist of the project is to imagine if a "time machine" were to occur and Wikipedia were written by members of the Encyclopedia Britannica editorial board of 1911. Essentially this is to collect all of the articles from the 1911 Encyclopedia and present them as-is, if they had been Wikipedia articles. The only editing suggested is not to "update" to current knowledge, but instead simply proofread them and leave them as is from the 1911 edition.

Source material will come from several places, although a good seed would be from Project Gutenberg, as it winds through Distributed.net

IMHO, and this is not a part of the original proposal but a good idea, cross links between Wikipedia and these original 1911 sources could be added as well.

I think this is a good sub-project for Wikisource, although a huge one as well. As it is right now, it is on Wikibooks, and is on a vote-for-deletion. The point here is to try and move the effort to here on Wikisource rather than scattered among the other Wikimedia projects. There are some supporters on Wikibooks as well that might come over, so this is not a trivial offer. It will require some organization beyond general support here at Wikisource, but I think that leadership can come from already interested participants.

I also noticed that there already is a Encyclopædia Britannica page here at Wikisource, and perhaps we need to move off from that page? Any other suggestions? Robert Horning 5 July 2005 06:50 (UTC)

Although there is a certain amount of legitimate overlap between Wikisource and Wikibooks, it seems to me that this project is clearly in Wikisource territory. I would venture a guess that most people here at Wikisource would agree, especially if all it really involves is presenting the original published version, even if there is some minor proofreading (are there really so many errors in the published version?).
Also see Wikisource:Wikisource and Wikibooks. Dovi 5 July 2005 08:11 (UTC)
Yes, it would fit in here. As it is a previously published source, it is within the things that we include, as long as it is true to the original and not rewritten (correcting printing errors is of course acceptable). I see no problem in making in-text wikilinks to crosslink the articles in EB, as well as a link to the corresponding Wikipeda articles at the top or bottom of each article. --Christian S 5 July 2005 08:42 (UTC)
I would love to work on this project! Let's get it of 'Books and put it here (it does fall under our objectives a little more than it does on Wikibooks). Besides, there's nothing like having a twenty-year-long project to do, yes? :) Zhaladshar 5 July 2005 12:18 (UTC)
The proofreading issues is mainly due to OCR errors done when it was scanned in by Project Gutenberg. This produced a bunch of errors, which is in the process of trying to be corrected. Project Gutenberg is trying to fix them, as they consider historical accuracy to be a major goal of their project. In many cases all that would need to be accomplished is to update the new proofread articles as they appear in PG. Another huge issue (that PG isn't dealing with at all) is scanning in images and pictures from the Encyclopedia. Incorporating those images within Wikisource would be trivial in comparison to actually getting the images in the first place. As with the textual content, the images would also be in Public Domain, so of use here with Wikisource as well. Robert Horning 5 July 2005 17:41 (UTC)

FYI there is also Dictionnaires for French documents. There are no French dictionaries in the public domain, publicly and easily accessible, so there are a lot of potentiel interesting works. The first one included here will certainly be the 1932 edition of the French Academy dictionary. There is however an issue with the French Academy which still claim copyright over all their dictionaries up to Richelieu in the 17th century because they are "immortels". These guys don't even know that there is a copyright law. Yann 5 July 2005 20:59 (UTC)

I've started a page at W1911. I've chosen this name to keep it simple when typing links to new articles. I'd like some technical assistance before I get too deep into this in regards to how "sub articles" should be referenced and named, as well as some suggestions for organization on the main page. If the name "W1911" seems too harsh, perhaps go back to 1911 Wikipedia? There is a strong reason to try and avoid the term Encyclopædia Britannica, as it is a registered trademark for a current company, and references to that company should be avoided if possible. Particularly because this is a project that is not formally endorsed by them, but rather something we are doing ourselves with public domain material that their company produced in the past. Project Gutenberg call it their "Gutenberg Encyclopedia" because of that very reason, and I think it is a sound policy that should be continued here at Wikisource. If possible, I would like to nail this down, and then provide a link from Wikibooks over to here for awhile to move people over to this project. Robert Horning 5 July 2005 21:24 (UTC)

I understand your reason but I think we should not use the name of Wikipedia for this project. I am not sure about the trademark, but using only the initials like EB1911 seems Ok for me. Other possibilities are WS1911 or Wikisource Encyclopedia 1911. Yann 5 July 2005 21:53 (UTC)
The use of the term Wikipedia, while a registered trademark, is not really a problem, (I don't think?) as this is also a Wikimedia project. Still, I understand the direction you are suggesting for an alternative name. There are some other people involved, and I'm not even the original person who proposed the project, so I'm not sure what would be acceptable to that initial core development group. Robert Horning 6 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)
I propose not to use Wikipedia because of trademark issue, but if this project is going to have a complete copy of EB1911, it will be a complete encyclopedia itself, should not be confused with Wikipedia, which is also an encyclopedia. Yann 6 July 2005 21:04 (UTC)

If the page title corresponds to the title of a book which is in the public domain, isn't that fair use? I don't know much about trademarks but if the book used the title Encyclopædia Britannica, wouldn't including the title of the book with the book be legal? If you were to reprint the book and sell it, you could surely include the title. Same goes for the preface which Gutenburg is apparently leaving off of their version. As long as we use the exact title "Encyclopædia Britannica, Volume 1, 1911" or whatever, how can the Encyclopædia Britannica people complain? Besides, googlers are going to miss the page all toegther if we remove all references to Encyclopædia Britannica. CSN 5 July 2005 23:15 (UTC)

The problem with "Fair Use" is that it is not universal throughout most of the world on how it applies. For instance, Wikicommons doesn't even allow fair-use material to be posted, and that is a good way to get something deleted. Wikipedia on the other hand allows fair use (and least on en.wikipedia), so that is a point to note that the policy is not completely consistant across Wikimedia projects. I've had to post some content specific to Wikipedia as a result (mainly corporate logos and word marks) that otherwise I would have put on Wikicommons (indeed did put on Wikicommons until I bumped into the policy). I'm trying to avoid a possible conflict for the Wikimedia Foundation well ahead of time, particularly because in this case Encyclopædia Britannica has already sent legal bulldogs to a similar sort of project that we could expect here at Wikisource. If we can avoid problems from the start, together with discussion logs like this, it can be demonstrated that we want to protect the rights of Encyclopædia Britannica to keep their trademark and try not to imply any endorsement from them about these pages. We can either assume fair use privileges (with resulting legal issues in the future), or we can try and avoid those problems and refrain from even using registered legal trademarks. This issue has wider implications for Wikisource than just this project as well. Robert Horning 6 July 2005 11:06 (UTC)

You might want to take a look at Collier's New Encyclopedia as a possible format. However, I realize that you will be including many more articles than I ever intended to add from Collier's. To disambiguate between articles you may want to append "(EB1911)" to the title in some cases. As far as existing trade marks, you might want to try something like what I have been doing with the National Geographic Magazine articles. If you look at one of the individual articles you will see the only normal mention of NGM is made at the end in the source document section. As long as we aren't publishing under a protected trademark, I don't think anyone is going to protest too loudly. One last thought, if you want to upload images, please put them in the Commons. (I started that with Collier's though it is a lower priority item for me.) —Mike 6 July 2005 00:30 (UTC)

I come from a background at Wikibooks where there is a tradition of avoiding ambiguity by specifically naming book modules as sub-parts of the main module page. I.E. Cool_Book/Something instead of Something(Cool_Book). To be honest, I don't know which is a better way of dealing with it, although Wikibooks does offer some software integration where sub-modules automatically refer back to the parent module, including the talk pages. That apparently is not incorporated into Wikisource at the moment. BTW, thanks for the references. Robert Horning 6 July 2005 11:37 (UTC)
I'm not sure it really matters, as long as it is consistent across the entire project ("project" being the entire EB). I prefer to have Something (Cool Book) instead of Cool Book/Something because the latter creates a sub-page, which already has a function here at Wikisource. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 12:22 (UTC)
What is the function of sub-pages? I was using sub-pages for chapters of books because if source ever installs an auto-breadcrumbing extension like they use over on meta, it could use delineators like / or : to create the breadcrumbs. Is there some other purpose that they are intended for? CSN 6 July 2005 23:42 (UTC)
Alright, I guess there's no "real" function. I've always used them to be pages which contained numerous links to related works (like a long list of poems or presidential radio addresses). I know a long time ago, Eclecticology wrote something up in one of our documents on a proposal to name pages. But, I guess it really isn't so bad as long as it's all consistent with any given project. I'm just a person who likes complete standardization. :) —Zhaladshar (Talk) 7 July 2005 00:21 (UTC)
Oh okay. Yeah I agree about the standardization. CSN 7 July 2005 01:03 (UTC)
Perhaps you are referring to Wikisource:Title formats? —Mike 7 July 2005 08:00 (UTC)
Yeah, thanks, Mike! That's exactly what I am referring to. You know, I think we need to find a way to make our documentation a little more noticeable to people. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 7 July 2005 14:32 (UTC)

I love the idea of this project, and so would like to offer some advice. I started putting the diary of Samuel Pepys (User:GregRobson/pepys) online before my exams kicked in (I shall be resuming today!), and found the best way to start is to put a few example entries online first (in this case a couple of month's worth) and then tweaked the navigation/layout and created templates that would assist. You may also find the best way to start is to get say, 10 entries listed and then sort out how the "tables of contents" for each chunk should be done. When I have finished the diaries I shall be happy to help out! GregRobson 7 July 2005 14:36 (UTC)

In my effort to improve the community portal I have set up a WikiProject for it here at Wikisource: Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica GregRobson 9 July 2005 12:55 (UTC)

recentchanges text[edit]

I find the links and messages provided in MediaWiki:Recentchangestext rather useless, and they eat a lot of real estate on my screen. Would somebody object if I blank this text? or, if it is useful to some, could we at least remove part of it ? ThomasV 5 July 2005 07:39 (UTC)

I like having links to FAQ, Scriptorium, policies and similar pages at the top of RC, but I don't mind if you remove the rest, eg. the links to Wikipedia RC's. --Christian S 5 July 2005 08:28 (UTC)

all right, let us keep the third line. but I guess you mean a link to the Wikisource faq: for the moment, the faq link, as most of these links, points to wikipedia. ThomasV 5 July 2005 08:47 (UTC)

Je m'en sers pour certains liens (wikipédia fr, scriptorium par exemple). S'il y avait une version pour l'interface française, on pourrait ne garder que les deuxième et troisième lignes. Marc 5 July 2005 09:23 (UTC)
Yes, they should point to the wikisource faq, help contents, etc., and only to wikipedia in case we haven't got a similar local page yet. --Christian S 5 July 2005 11:39 (UTC)

I do like the Recentchangestext, but it is in need of some work. When we go over to the sub-domain, I'm cleaning that one up quite a bit. But I do agree: we should have the links on the Recentchangestext point to Wikisource and not Wikipedia. When I get a couple hours of free time all in one go, I'll work on those. Zhaladshar 5 July 2005 12:20 (UTC)

I removed (commented) links to WP RC. That's already two lines less. Yann 5 July 2005 17:03 (UTC)

I further reduced it, trying to keep only what has been said useful ThomasV 8 July 2005 09:34 (UTC)

Illustrations[edit]

Should illustrations be uploaded to wikisource or to commons and be linked from there? I think that some of the illustrations in Båtseglareordbok (the illustrations are not uploaded yet) might be used in other projects. /EnDumEn 6 July 2005 13:03 (UTC)

That's always a difficult question to answer. Wikicommons was created to be used by all of the projects to store and link to images. But my feelings on the matter are that if they are specific to a piece of work, then they should be uploaded here, where we have more control over the editing of such images. I see Commons as something to be used for "general" images (e.g. images of planets, authors, etc.--not images used in a work itself). So I would say to upload them here. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 6 July 2005 13:17 (UTC)
If they are freely licensed, please upload them to Commons so they can be used for all projects. This will also make splitting Wikisource into separate subdomains much easier. Angela 6 July 2005 13:18 (UTC)
Thanks to both of you for the answers. I think I will upload the images to commons. /EnDumEn 6 July 2005 14:31 (UTC)


Links between projects and languages[edit]

Another problem that must be taken care of before languages can be launched is the configuration of links between lanaguages and projects.

We already discussed this thoroughly here, and we reached a consensus among ourselves, but we never got feedback from developers as to whether what we are proposing can be actually be done. This especially means:

  • Our proposal of "s:" for links to the multi-language wikisource.org domain (without a language prefix), and to each of the languages: ("s:en", "s:de", etc).
  • Our proposal for "hard links" based on the letter "s" to texts in each language ("ens:", "frs:", :des:", etc). I.e. the way ":wikisource:" works now from other projects.

At Angela's suggestion, I have reported this at Bugzilla (BUG #2738). Everyone is encouraged to fix up and add to what I wrote there, and of course to "vote" for the bug! Dovi 7 July 2005 11:40 (UTC)

What are "hard" links for ? Yann 7 July 2005 17:56 (UTC)
"Hard" links are a way to link, for example, from the English Wikipedia to an original French text on fr.wikisource. Using regular links this is problematic: "s:en" will send you to the nonexistent "en" article at wikisource.org, and "en:s" will send you to the "s" article at English Wikipedia.Dovi 7 July 2005 18:07 (UTC)
Maybe you aren't using the links correctly. If you are on the English Wikipedia page for Lion you can enter a link [[wiktionary:fr:lion]] to go to the French Wiktionary page for lion. And on the French page you can also enter a link [[w:en:Lion]] to go the opposite direction. —Mike 8 July 2005 02:34 (UTC)
It doesn't work like that to and from all projects. See m:Help:Interwiki linking

Two bugs(?)[edit]

This line: <td align="left" valign="top" style="background: #ff01de <!-- SZÜRKÉS CELLA -->; padding: 8px"> actually sets that whole section to that hideous purple color. I think the error is actually with Firefox for not showing it. The problem is with the comment after the background color. If you remove that Firefox parses it okay. I don't know if you are supposed to be able to include comments in CSS like that or not, so it might be an error with IE but one way or another, the purple color is in the text. Hope that helps. CSN 9 July 2005 13:13 (UTC)
Thanks. Gubb 9 July 2005 13:19 (UTC)
  • Internet Explorer loads Wikisource pages false. The toolbox on the top of the pages goes behind the logo, and links on the toolbox don't work. see here.

New clean up templates[edit]

I copied the clean up template from Wikipedia over to Wikisource, and created two variations that can be used on pages that are currently being worked on (examples below). We may want to modify the wording a little more. Also I'm not familiar whether we have any documents describing how to clean up or format pages here. Should we link to Wikipedia's documents or just delete those links? The third template is designed to be used with any WikiProject and will add the article into a separate project category for tracking. —Mike 23:02, 9 July 2005 (UTC)

Pages needing cleanup {{Cleanup}}:

Pages currently being worked on, to avoid inquiries as to the quality of the articles {{Cleaning}}:

Pages belonging to a WikiProject {{WikiProject cleaning|1911 Encyclopedia}}:


err, is this really needed? we already have a set of templates for text quality: Wikisource:Text quality, and we are in the process of defining a policy that goes for these texts. also, please do not add the scriptorium to these categories. ThomasV 08:20, 10 July 2005 (UTC)

Copied source of templates to this page to avoid Scriptorium being included in categories. CSN 00:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism[edit]

The War of the Worlds by 81.214.175.147 - There has been a bunch of vandalism on this page. Is it ready for protection? CSN 00:14, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How to fix the <pre> formatted verse[edit]

If you want to fix the MediaWiki CSS so that you can tag text as verse, change the CSS so that it looks like this:

.verse pre {
  background-color: #ffffff;
  font-family:sans-serif;
  line-height: 150%;
  border: 0px;
  padding-left: 2em;
  margin: 0;
  white-space: pre;
}

Then you can tag verse using these tags:

<nowiki>
<div class="verse">
<pre>
...verse...

</nowiki>

In some cases you won't need to explicitly give the <pre> tags, especially if the lines have one or more leading spaces. The explicit <pre> just removes the possibility that the software may not correctly format it. —Mike 01:34, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Ok, done. It works. Thanks Mike. Yann 19:25, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm trying to get this working on En-Dor and the italics still don't seem to be working. I tried both the tick marks and <i>. Am I doing something wrong? CSN 23:08, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

For some reason in <pre> tags, text formatting (italics, bold, etc.) doesn't work. That's why I only try to use those tags for verse that doesn't have any special formatting. It'd be nice if we could get that fixed in the MediaWiki system, though. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:05, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
I think the problem does lie in the software. If you add an <i> tag and then view the source from your browser, you can see that the code in the document is &lt;i&gt;. I think that the software is designed to convert any tags within the <pre> tags. —Mike 02:18, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
Well, that what <pre> tags are made for, and why I always thought that this is dirty hack. We need a proper solution where wiki syntax works inside the <verse> tags. Yann 20:14, 18 July 2005 (UTC)
<pre> tags are made for the preservation of white space (extra spaces, line breaks, etc.); they shouldn't be for the elimination of all valid formatting within them. —Mike 17:04, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

There are already texts with <pre class="verse"> ; now theses do not work anymore CTanguy 21:33, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

Any text with <pre class="verse"> need to be changed to <div class="verse"> in order to work. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 10:17, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I think it needs to be <div class="verse"><pre> since the CSS line is .verse pre { }. CSN 22:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)


Will there be a robot for this change ? I think there many of these.
I think it will not cost anything change ".verse pre {" to ".verse pre, pre.verse {", just for backward compatibility
CTanguy 19:58, 27 July 2005 (UTC)


Also, I think even without the formatting problem, there is some type of spacing issue. See A Prisoner in Fairyland/Chapter 31 - the first three... stanzas(?) have like three lines of space between them but they should only have one. There are similar problems with large spaces between verse and non-verse like in A Prisoner in Fairyland/Chapter 23 CSN 22:02, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Important note: As CSN's examples show, the tags need to appear the same as shown in my original message (in other words, the <div> and <pre> need to be on separate lines). This is because the software really doesn't handle <pre> tags the way it should. —Mike 00:20, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Remove Tables and Lists from Wikisource[edit]

I propose that we amend Wikisource:What is Wikisource?#What do we include? to remove numbers 4 and 5. Lists and tables are not published works and do not belong on Wikisource. If they can be attributed to one source or author, they should be allowed on the appropriate page just like any other published work. Otherwise they should be moved to Wikipedia or archived somewhere else until a proper place is found for them. CSN 23:41, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Because most of the lists and tables probably were from other sources, this just indicates contributors need to spend a little more time documenting their sources. —Mike 00:24, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't think its that simple. Alot of the lists being transwiki'd to wikisource are just random lists. Take for example the two most recent additions, List of dead in Bolivian Gas War and List of "Shit happens" jokes. If we accept stuff like that are we going to have to start accepting w:Wikipedia:List of lists etc? I was initially joking about that "damn you number 4" thing but after thinking about it for a while why should this stuff be on source and not pedia? CSN 00:35, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
I don't necessarily have a problem with lists, but I generally view Wikisource as being an archive of material which originated outside of WikiMedia and was formally published, broadcast or transcribed. A list like List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm would probably be more appropriate on Wikipedia just because it was compiled from multiple sources. I would however expect to see those sources on Wikisource. The List of "Shit happens" jokes is something that could have been made up and should probably be deleted. With my previous comment I had in mind things like the number Pi, prime numbers, genetic code tables, election data, etc. —Mike 06:10, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Except that a list exactly like the Great Lakes list was VFDd from Wikipedia, so it's not going to get back on there, and similar lists are going to be VFDd.
I agree with tanking the lists. They are pointless and most are compilations and not sources themselves or published in source texts. They do not fit under what 'Source is. The tables, though, I think we should keep--at least until a new project is created for them. A lot of tables we have are election data, which are important and should be kept on Wikimedia servers. But as of right now, the only place that remotely fits to store these tables is Wikisource. Other tables should be evaluated according to their content (such as, are they math tables?) and keeping them should be evaluated according to that. But I don't think we should rule out not taking tables. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:44, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
Way to clump unsourced crap lists with completely sourced lists like List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm. Brilliant reasoning there. -- 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm passing no judgment on the quality of any list on Wikisource; I'm passing judgment on the appropriateness of them being on Wikisource. The "crap lists," like the Great Lakes storm list, are not source texts, or are compilations from numerous sources; neither of which fit here on Wikisource. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
How does the Great Lakes list qualify as a "crap list"? I put more work into making that list than I did into creating my 3 featured articles, and definitely more work than most have ever put into 5 featured articles.

After looking at this debate, it looks like commons will accept lists. CSN 02:43, 20 July 2005 (UTC)-- 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

A VFD on Wikipedia has no bearing on Commons. Just because WP folks think it should be on Commons doesn't mean Commons folks will think it should be there. Also, it being allowed on Commons doesn't imply that it shouldn't be here. -- 00:37, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
That makes no sense. This is a family of projects. It has to go on one of the projects and if Wikipedia doesn't want lists, we have to decide if they should be here or on Commons. By your own argument, it makes sense to have them on Commons:
According to their site they do: The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. --brian0918&#153; 17:29, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC).
It does not make sense to have lists on Wikisource which is a collection of original source texts. Lists and tables were never published and therefore don't belong here. If they were published, then those individual works should be here and not some compliation. It made sense to have tables and such here as long as there was no other place for them but since Commons is a place for media used in Wikimedia projects and since the lists and tables we are discussing are media used in Wikimedia projects they should be there CSN 00:49, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
You can't argue that because people on WP said that it should be on Commons, that it shouldn't be on here. If you could make an argument like that, you could ban people on WP who have been banned on other language wikis, but it doesn't work like that. See the WP RFC on "Haham hanuka". Once again, thanks for your valuable contributions to the free distribution of information. -- 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I was working out of the kindness of my heart to help find a place for these lists. I don't think they belong on Source and when someone raised the idea of them being on Commons, I thought that might be a good avenue to explore. If we couldn't listen to any of the suggestions of people from Wikipedia, this would be a totally isolated community. CSN 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that the only thing you're going to accomplish is that these victims lists are going to be deleted from everywhere. They were already VFDd from WP, now you want to get rid of them here, pushing them off onto Commons. It's entirely possible Commons will do the same. Where will they go then? I doubt you or anyone else here is going to notice the Commons VFD and voice the same support for keeping them there as you are voicing for deleting them from here. -- 00:41, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't know why Wikipedia removed those lists, as they have so many others. A list which is put together from many sources seems to fit the Wikipedia vision (after all, the entire encyclopedia is built from many sources) better than it does here, which collect published sources themselves. These projects are not all inclusive; each have their own vision. We've seemingly found some things which do not fit any current Wikimedia vision. Maybe a new project needs to be proposed that will collect lists like these. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:59, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

It's looking more and more like we need an almanac-like Wikimedia project. - dcljr 03:40, 21 July 2005 (UTC)
That's not going to happen. Just stick with Commons as a last resort, since it says it'll take text, but I still don't want to delete from here unless there is a consensus that it should be moved to Commons. -- 02:41, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I still don't understand why this is an issue. There have been lists on Commons for a while now and it is directly compatible with their mission. They were stood up to host media for other projects and that's just what a list is. On the other hand, lists are not compatible with Source which was intended to host original texts, not compilations. Man I am getting tired of making the same argument over and over. Okay, I've said my piece, someone else can talk now. CSN 02:53, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Look, are the victims lists etc. really harming Wikisource here? Wikipedia is a very "public" thing and there is a strong aversion to having long lists of otherwise non-notable people as encyclopedia articles. As of now, Commons has not actually accepted any text yet, and until it establishes a policy on that, what's wrong with allowing a place for this carefully researched material? Even if it does not strictly fit within the definition of Wiki"source", this project is the place that is used to handling long texts and should be a friendly "parking" spot at least for this useful data?--Pharos 16:35, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

I didn't even notice, but the Proposed deletion of List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm had a consensus of keep back on June 22, decided by Zhaladshar, after being on the VFD page for 4 months. This should set the precedent necessary to keep such lists on Wikisource. -- 03:14, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Angela on that there is no place for this list among Wikimedia project. A list of not notable persons doesn't belong to our scope. That is why once 9.11 wiki created and they were removed from Wikipedia. --Aphaia 03:43, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
So you're saying we should ignore the precedence of the other VFD, which said to keep?? You do realize that the 9/11 memorial list of victims is still on wikipedia.org, so it is part of Wikimedia. -- 04:00, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
First of all, half the people that voted to keep that list were people that came over from Wikipedia because they didn't want the list themselves but didn't want it to disappear. While I respect their opinion, they are not speaking in the interest of the Wikisource community, they are speaking for Wikipedia. Secondly, there was no consensus to keep that list. Zhaladshar was adding to the conversation, not cutting it off. One person doesn't determine a consensus either. Also, it doesn't matter how many times the issue is reraised. If someone thought thirty years from now that these lists should be deleted, they would have the right to reraise that issue. Wikisource is a living collection and there is no rule or guideline that can't be reshaped by the community. Also, this discussion isn't about one list but the mission of this project and whether or not lists and tables should be kept on Source. CSN 04:44, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
Actually, if you look at the history of the list, Zhaladshar removed the VFD notice with the edit summary saying that the consensus was to keep. If you think the people who voted weren't representing the Wikisource community, where was the Wikisource community when the vote was still open? -- 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
here my 2 cents... One important feature of 99% of the material on Wikisource is, that it has been published before. This is important, because it is kind of like a quality label. There might be mistakes, OCR errors, etc., but at least there is an objective way to fix them: we just need to lookup the reference edition. that means, there is no need for an edit war, if we do not agree on the content of an article. The content of a page might be accurate or not,but at least there is a way to check it. the only source of disagreement that remains is formatting, and this is usually settled easily.
this objectiveness is a strength of wikisource. It allows us to claim that our contributions are of quality, or at least that they tend to be so. And objectiveness is just what most of these Tables and Lists lack. when is a list like Definitions of capitalism finished? if somebody claims that there is a name missing in the lists of victims of a disaster, and decides to edit the page, how are we going to know he is right? (the authority who issued the list in the first place might not agree with that person). btw, the same holds for source code (yeah, I know this is offtopic): when is a program correctly commented? This is why I believe these lists are "harming" wikisource; their quality cannot be evaluated in the same way as other texts, and this is having an impact on the overall image of the project.
Nobody here is against dissemination of knowledge. but I'd like people to think of Wikisource as of something reliable. (please do not misunderstand me: I do believe that wikipedia is a fairly reliable source of information, and I use it a lot. however, the idea of an encyclopedia that anyone can edit is very, very far from having being accepted by the general public). I'd like people to be able to lookup some text in wikisource, and to be comfident that this text will not have changed on the next day, because somebody found a way to improve it. I'd like theachers to distribute the URL of a text on wikisource to their students, and they will do so only if they know the text will be the same on the next day.
so, to make it short, I believe that the 1% of texts that do not have a reference edition are "harming" the other 99%.
ThomasV 06:24, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
With respect to the List of victims of the 1913 Great Lakes storm, every person on the list is thoroughly sourced, and I've specified in the comment at the top of that page that users who want to add new people to the list need to specifically source the name in the same fashion. In this way, the list is no different from other things on Wikisource which are just as, or less, thoroughly sourced. -- 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
That's all great but it is still not a published work. Again, if you had each individual public domain article, they would belong on wikisource. A user produced compilation does not. CSN 22:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)
If you feel that the lists are not as reliable as source texts, by all means put a disclaimer template at the top of the 1% saying "This previously unpublished list was compiled from a number of sources, and may not be as reliable as Wikisource's source texts." or somesuch thing. The template could even come with a category and everything will be ready to move once a friendlier Wikimedia project is found.--Pharos 08:27, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
This is a good idea. Rather than try to claim that "one text from one cited source" is more appropriate than "a compilation of texts from many cited sources", we can just place a notice at the top and let the reader decide. -- 16:25, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Admin block request[edit]

Hi! Would an admin please block the person vandalizing Shulchan Aruch? Thanks. It would be good to watch the page too, it is beginning to look like a popular target.Dovi 06:30, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

I have blocked the IP adress for 6 months, and the page is now on my watchlist. --Christian S 06:36, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Preferences problem[edit]

On the Special:Preferences page in English, the Skin section is currently labeled Felület (skin). That ain't English. Also, there's an option I've never seen before called "Chick". What's that about? - dcljr 01:29, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure. I would hazard a guess that it's something screwy on the developer end. They're probably working with the system and this glitch/bug (if that's really what it is) has shown up. Don't worry; it'll probably go away in a day or two. If it doesn't, you might want to report it at bugzilla. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:26, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Project Gutenberg[edit]

What is the difference in goals between this and Project Gutenberg? Aren't you just wasting your time making another copy of the same sources? - Omegatron 20:44, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Please see meta:Wikisource for answers to those questions. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

sa.wikipedia.org import[edit]

I'm about to import 750 pages from [5]. The pages will be carried over with the same names. -- Tim Starling 23:40, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks very much, Tim. Yann 09:57, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Changing username[edit]

MetaWikimedia has a page on changing username. Is that something that can be done on Wikisource as well? --Iain 18:29, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Language Conversion[edit]

A couple of things regarding this.

Since it was never posted here at Scriptorium, I don't know if the Wikisource public is aware that the request for features for links between projects (wikisource languages and links to other projects) was reported at bugzilla.

Everyone at Wikisource is invited to vote for the bug at that link.

Besides that, the readiness of various specific languages was already discussed above on Scriptorium. That means that everything is pretty much ready besides waiting for the import/export feature. If anyone has any info or updates on that it would be great.Dovi 11:15, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

hi Dovi.
I believe things are now ready. Tim Starling imported 750 pages yesterday, using the special:import feature.
He said it has to be done manually, by some developer; there is no way we can use the web interface for the moment.
ThomasV 11:54, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
So does that mean that we ourselves cannot do it? That's fine; if we run the bot once more, we can have the list of articles organized by language for him to import. —Zhaladshar (Talk) 11:57, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
yes, I guess we can do that. however,Tim is not on IRC at the moment. but there are still a few issues with the bot. one problem is that results are not very accurate, they have to be checked manually. I have been trying to improve the bot, but had no time for it recently. another issue is that special:import does not automatically import talk pages, so the bot will have to detect their existence somehow. Finally, the list of pages in English is too long, the bot has difficulties to upload it. (and I cannot download the page either). ThomasV 12:03, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
Dovi: is bug 2738 something that must be resolved before creation of subdomains, or is it possible to create them already? ThomasV 12:06, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Angela explained to me that "bugs" at Bugzilla are not just bugs in the codes but also feature requests, like this one. In other words, nothing is "broken" here. All we need is for the feature request to be taken into account when the language domains are actually set up.

The best thing possible would be, especially if you are in contact with Tim anyways, for him to give his OK about taking the "bug" (i.e. the feature request) into account when setting up the domains (if he is the person who is going to do it). The "bug" is explained very clearly, by the way, at the end of Angela's talk page.Dovi 12:46, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource:Scripts[edit]

I am calling for people to contribute to our scripts collection (only 2 or 3 unique people have contributed to it). --Member 06:29, 29 July 2005 (UTC)