Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Oct 2004 - Feb 2005

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Moved Discussions / Verschobene Diskussionen / Discussions déplacées / verschoven besprekingen / 移动的讨论

The discussions on this page have been moved from the Scriptorium and are retained here for archival purposes. Please do not continue any discussion on this page. If you consider a moved topic to be still open please continue discussion on the Scriptorium, moving the existing comments if necessary.

Special:Booksources[edit]

The Special:Booksources page in Wikipedia(w:Special:Booksources) is much better than the one at Wikisource. How do I change this? JesseW 01:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The text can be changed at Wikisource:Book sources. Angela 21:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you Angela! JesseW 05:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Logo suggestion[edit]

See: Wikisource:Revising the "Sourceberg" logo

should be shown to people who are not familiar with the present logo. I am not sure it can easily be recognized as an iceberg (because an iceberg doesn't have a characteristic shape, and the perspective is unfamiliar) How about a logo that actually includes a source reference, somehow? Dbachmann 12:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wikisource and Commons[edit]

It seems to me that Wikisource is made obsolete by Commons - it serves with the same function as the commons, but in only one medium - text. Surely it would be productive for both projects, and Wikimedia, for Commons to annex Wikisource. This would allow the userbase of both projects to expand - though I am not typically a contributor of Wikisource now, if I could upload documents to Commons, I no doubt would. Similarly, 'source users may not bother uploading images now, but if they could do so within the same project - they may well. It is also beneficial to the non-contributing user - far easier to find all kinds of media in one project than over several. In my opinion, the broader the Wikimedia projects the better.--OldakQuill 13:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I disagree. This project is about texts, while the Commons is about other multimedia material. Further developments could be in the area of making it easier to produce translations and annotations. Other possibilities are in developing bibliographies, linking to the Wiktionaries, or perhaps even producing concordances in some cases. Most of our texts are public domain, and any illustrations or other multimedia material are only incidental to what we do.
Why should having documents in the Commons make any difference to your ability to upload them. You can already do that. I'm not concerned about the user base; it will naturally expand in its own time anyway. To me the Commons is intended to serve the other projects. If it has material in other media that we can use I don't mind linking to them if it can be easily done. Having broader projects is not necessarily better; more narrowly defined projects can be more easily focused. Eclecticology 15:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All of these suggested 'source featured may be fulfilled on Commons. Commons is not just a servant project, but also a standalone archival project. Focusing projects is not an issue - if users on Commons wish to only contribute to texts, they may do so. With a larger userbase there will be more of these specific users - as well as cross-users. --81.130.60.229 17:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The time is not yet right for merging the two projects. We need better filtering capabilities for Recent Changes, for example - quite a few people working on Wikisource will not care about Wikimedia Commons file uploads. Importantly, I would like to see the initiative for a merger to come from the Wikisource community, which I think it will.--Eloquence

My name is already in use[edit]

I suspect that my name is already in use by an older incarnation of myself -- lost or corrupted password. How to check whether it is indeed the case or not? Marc Girod

I have checked the page Special:Listusers and yes, User:Marc Girod has already been created. I tried the "mail me a new password" function at the login page for User:Marc Girod, but it appears that no e-mail is recorded for that user account, so I could not send you a new password, and I can do no further. You now have two options - you can try to contact a developer (perhaps at Non-development_tasks_for_developers, though I'm not 100% sure it's the right place) explaining your problem, a developer can probably help you, or you can create a new user account with a different name. If you had supplied an email adress, it would have been easier, as you could then have requested a new password to be sent to that adress. Nobody can see your email adress if you supplies it in your user preferences, and it is possible to disable emails from other users (this can also be set in your user preferences). Christian S 19:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspect I didn't create this account myself, but it was somehow imported from the Wikipedia base at an early stage. I did supply a mail address in my wikipedia account, but maybe not initially... I'll try your suggestion. Marc Girod temp 09:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Italian quotes[edit]

In Dante - Goettliche Komoedie:Hoelle 2.Gesang the Italian verse 15, written as

<li><<S'i' ho ben la parola tua intesa,>><br/>

rispuose del magnanimo quell'ombra;<br/>

<<l'anima tua è da viltade offesa;</li> </nowiki>

but gives this:

  • <<S'i' ho ben la parola tua intesa,>>
    rispuose del magnanimo quell'ombra;
    <<l'anima tua è da viltade offesa;

In other words, the entire quotation of the first line is treated as a strike-through instruction for the other two. It would be good if we could avoid this problem while respecting the standards for Italian punctuation. Eclecticology 02:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

First, I would question why anyone is using '<li>' instead of '#'. Secondly, the quotes can be accomplished using '&laquo;' and '&raquo;'. This produces: « and ». —Mike 05:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not just treated as a strikethrough for the other two lines, it's treated as one for the rest of the page. This was not noticed previously because HTML Tidy was active and was fixing the broken HTML as best it could. -- Cyrius 02:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Should author pages really belong to wikisource?[edit]

Discussion moved to Help talk:Author pages#Should author pages really belong to wikisource?

Biography lists[edit]

Discussion moved to Help talk:Author pages#Biography lists

中文古典诗词评注计划[edit]

对中国古典诗词进行评注,可以参看野望 (王绩)以及日文的酔花間。甚至可以扩大范围,变成中国古代文献评注计划,包括所有古代文言文的诗词曲赋,小说论著等等。遵守NPOV,融汇各家对某一篇文章的评注,比如野望 (王绩),可以添加各朝各代,古今中外对这首诗的评论、分析、注释、考证等。有人对此感兴趣吗?我们可以先讨论一下格式和写作方针的问题。--Shizhao 13:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

A Challenge to Ec[edit]

Discussion moved back to its original location on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#A Challenge to Ec

New logo?[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource talk:Logo#New logo?

Sheet music[edit]

Can somebody help with Adeste Fideles/Sheet ? Thanks in advance.

Vandalisme[edit]

Il y a eu plusieurs vandalismes sur la page principale et avec AF. Il faudrait vérifier la présentation de AF dans la page principale et savoir ce que signifie : "Dit is ook 'n demonstrasie van gemeenskapsekuriteit. (As jy "stront" aanvang, gaan iemand dit uitvee en regmaak. Probeer eerder iets sinvol skryf.)" Caton 13:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Je n'ai aucune idée ce que ça veut dire. Je l'ai demandé sur le "mailing list", et je l'enleverai s'il y a besoin. Malheureusement, les conneries se présentent trop souvent. J'ai protégé la page. Eclecticology 23:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On m'a repondu. En anglais: ""This is also a demonstration of community-security (If you start to write shit, someone will delete it and correct it). Rather try to write something meaningful." Ou en français: "Voici une demonstration de scurité communautaire. (Si on commence par écrire la merde, quelqu'un l'éffacera et la corrigera). Mieux d'écrire quelque chose de significatif." Eclecticology 13:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Theater formatting[edit]

It would be great to standardize the formatting of theater plays. I have defined this example for a play in verses. It took me quite some time, but I guess that now that it's done it will be much easier to recycle the same format for other plays. I have no way to know if it is properly displayed with Internet Explorer, though (but okay, nobody should use IE). I also have no idea if the same formatting conventions apply to English and French theater. --ThomasV 14:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It looks good to me. I'm no expert on formatting conventions for plays (English of French), but plays I have read follow a pattern similar to this. The only thing I dislike (which is purely a preference thing) is the numbering. It seems too cluttered to have the numbering on the left side of the text, since that is where the character names are, also. But, again, that's just personal preference. Everything else looks great. Zhaladshar 15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the original numbering was right-aligned in the cell (but still on the left of the text), so it did not show up at the same place as the character names. --ThomasV 15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just re-aligned the line numbers to the right --ThomasV 15:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It looks great, but just looking at the edit page shows that it's a lot of work. Can it be simplified? Is a single set of line numbers for the entire play typical French practice? Most English numbering re-starts the numbering again with each scene; that can be an advantage when we divide a play into several pages. It also prevents having an update in the early part of the play that puts the rest of the lines out of alignment. As to whether the numbers should be on the right or left of the text, I slightly prefer the right but can live with either. By all means carry on.
What would really be interesting would be if this could be adapted to something like what was done with the German/Italian text of some of the Divine Comedy. Eclecticology 22:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Deathday Scan Parties[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource talk:Scan parties

Election result formatting[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource talk:Election data

Logo selection procedure[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource talk:Logo#Logo selection procedure

Christmas project - need help to find links on wikisource[edit]

Hi, we are creating a Christmas related project that should make people aware of the co-operation between wikimedia projects. So I thought that it would be a good idea to insert also Christmas related links (poems, stories etc.) in any available language to the project. So if you know of any contents of Wikisource that is Christmas related, please let me know. I'll check back here during the next days - or just put a note on my talk-page. Thank you!!!! Ciao! -- SabineCretella 14:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Right now the only thing I can think of is A Christmas Carol by Charles Dickens. Zhaladshar 15:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here's a list of making of things Christmas-related as I find them/post them on Wikisource:

Thank you so much! I added these links here: http://it.wiktionary.org/wiki/Wikizionario:Buon_Natale hopefully this sub-project is going to be translated and transferred to many other wiktionaries. It is thought to be a project to show how interproject links can help to show all the potentials of wikimedia. -- SabineCretella 10:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Here are some Christmas carols I was able to find:
Great! Thank you! I added also these songs. It is very likely that I am going to add some carols/poems etc. I find that match with this theme. Hopefully I will find also things in other languages :-) -- SabineCretella 17:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please do! It wasn't until you asked for Christmas-related material that I noticed we just don't have much. So most of the non-carol works I've added myself, just so we could have something on here. Much more would be quite welcome! Zhaladshar 21:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestions for transcription and cleaning up wikiproject[edit]

I have a couple of rare New Zealand-orientated books that are in the public domain, and would like to put them on Wikisource for the sake of preservation. However, I attempted transcribing one by hand and because it was such a long and tedious process, I only made it to page 3! So how, exactly, do most people do it? A guide would be very handy.

By the way, is there a wikiproject dedicated to cleaning up texts for the sake of readibility? I'm not talking about modifying the actual content, just making sure paragraphs are put in place where appropriate, and that it is divided into parts and chapters for a table of contents. Sounds like a good idea to me at least, since some of them are in a pretty bad stat ein this respect.

Cheers.

The easiest and shortest method for me is to scan and OCR the text before copying it into the Wiki. Of course be sure to weed out all the OCR mistakes before saving it. —Mike 05:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that OCR is the fastest and easiest way, if the text is latinised. But the OCR program that I have tried so far gives useless results when I try to scan texts in gothic script. The errors were so many that it was in fact faster to transcribe the text by hand than to correct all the errors. And yes, the process is tedious, but presently I have no better solution for texts in gothic script.
There is currently no cleaning up project (as far as I know), but please do go ahead and start one. I find that work just as important as adding new texts, as poor formatting, justly or unjustly, implies that the work has not been done properly, and that the text may not be trustworthy (if the contributor didn't care about formatting, did he/she then care about proofreading?). A good start would be to create a page like Wikisource:Texts needing formatting or Wikisource:Texts needing cleanup listing the relevant texts there as you stumple upon them, perhaps with a short note about what needs to be done, thereby bringing to the communitys attention that these texts needs cleaning up. --Christian S 20:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Try voice recognition software - it may be easier/faster than typing' Chee(rs), Melb. Aust

US Patents[edit]

I'm often running into the need to cite US patents as sources for various pages on the English Wikipedia; however, for various older patents the US online patent database offers them only as a series of TIFF images. If I convert them to a friendlier format, such as PDF or PS, would Wikisource be an appropriate place to deposit a dozen or so patents? (I believe as actual documents, US patents are in the public domain). Matt Crypto 20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be no copyright problem with including patents. What we do about the titles we use should remain an open question until we have a few to work with. I don't know if everyone finds PDF to be a friendly format. I would be inclined to use plain text for the descriptions, and whatever other format we normally use for black and white drawings. Even there we will be able to review that after we have a few in the database. Eclecticology 12:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that plain text would be preferable, but I don't have the means to do OCR at present. Would PDF be an acceptable half-way house? To most, it's a friendlier format than a series of TIFFs. Matt Crypto 13:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyrights of TV interviews[edit]

Does anyone know how copyright laws cover transcriptions of TV broadcasts? I was going through Wikisource and I found this: A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy. It was aired March 9, 1954 on CBS. Is this eligible for copyright protection (I'm leaning to "yes," but I just want it clarified)? And if someone could just tell me what the copyright laws regarding television broadcasts in general are, that would be great. Zhaladshar 21:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

According to http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#hlc, the copyright term could last anywhere from 1982-2049, depending on whether the copyright was renewed. CBS would hold the copyright to the original motion picture production, as well as the transcript of that production. The original broadcast itself would not be copyrighted, http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ1.html#pub, because it was a free (and intangible) display of the motion picture. I hope this makes it clearer! The folks to contact about the copyright status would be CBS. Clifflandis 02:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Revisiting categorisation[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource:Categories#Revisiting categorisation

Wikimedia Quarto[edit]

The second edition of the newsletter is underway, with an eye to finalizing draft content by the 17th. Please add yourself to the list of contributors if you are interested in any aspect of its production; we need more people in every department!

  http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/WQ/Team

We seek someone who would like to write on Wikisource. A brief update is needed. Let others know how Wikisource has been going recently (Subdomain poll, new logo poll, resources, number of admins and so on).If you have an interet, please give a look on m:WQ/2/Todo. Thanks. --Aphaia 01:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Help needed to write Extension[edit]

In Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain requests, we seem to have reached an agreement on the idea of localizing author pages. However, it will be necessary to maintain a comprehensive list of all the localized pages referring to the same author, or of all the translations of a given text. In order to automate this process, I started to work on a wikimedia extension. This extension is now in CVS, and I hope we will be able to use it after the next release.

Part of job of this extension consists in translating lists of adjectives such as 'french', 'english', 'german' in different languages. The goal is to be able to automatically generate arrays such as: 'Diese Seite auf englisch | deutsch | spanisch' or 'This text in Italian | French | English'.

I completed the table for 8 languages: french, german, english, italian, spanish, portuguese, polish, danish (with the help of ChristianS). Anyone who feels like adding new languages to the table is welcome to do so. Russian, Greek or Chinese are not within my grasp. --ThomasV 13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More on author pages[edit]

Discussion moved to Help talk:Author pages#More on author pages

Wikipedia links[edit]

This is something that I've seen used to good effect on Wikinews, and I believe it could be particularly useful in some aspects here. I'm trying to use the UN Security Council Resolutions as a means of really building Wikisource up as a resource for documents in this area, but as part of this, I'd like to be able to link references to people and organisations to their respective Wikipedia articles. It'd be an encouragement for work to actually be done on those articles (which are often need cleanup or creation), and I think it'd improve the quality of the resource, by making background information accessible with a click. Any thoughts? Ambivalenthysteria 09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. The problem, as usual, is the amount of work involved. I don't think that there would be any significant opposition to doing this, either with direct links or with footnotes. I do occasionally make such links, but I will be the first to admit that his own efforts are scarcely more than haphazard. Eclecticology 19:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

About "CJK Compatibility Ideographs"[edit]

I'm in trouble. Why does MediaWiki1.4b3 change CJK Compatibility Ideographs to CJK Unified Ideographs? see 狩獵免許稅徵收ニ關スル法律. 免 changed into 免. --Shin-改 04:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This question goes well beyond my abilities, so I've posted it to the Wikitech mailing list. Eclecticology 08:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you.--Shin-改 09:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Brion replied as follows on the mailing list. I can't say that I understand it. If you need further explanation, I suggest that you e-mail him directly. Eclecticology 20:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"MediaWiki normalizes input to Unicode Normalization Form C (canonical composition). Please feel free to double-check that it's working correctly (the normalization library is under includes/normal). -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
um...Thanks Ecleticology. I will e-mail him.--Shin-改 05:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Attribution / coyprights / correcting texts??[edit]

Hi all; I followed a link into Wikisource whilst working on Wikipedia. I ended up with a few questions.

A) how do you track source copyright? I don't see any clear notice on the original.

B) how do you track attribution? I don't see a clear author on the original text.

The text I was looking at was Sportpalast Speech and I found an important chunk missing. I've left an explanation of the problem on the talk page. As I explain there, I'm not sure how to go about the correction. Mozzerati 14:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi, Mozzerati. Here are some answers to your questions. In terms of tracking copyright of the original texts, that really isn't done here. Of course, for most of the texts added, it is clear that the works are in the public domain, so it is not nearly essential to note the source's copyright status (although it still might be beneficial to do so). But for many other works that are added, the question of copyright comes up quite regularly. The things that concern me the most are translations of texts--the Sportpalast Speech being one of them. Surely Goebbels delivered the speech in German and what we have is a translation. Either way, copyright protection might apply to the work. It really would be nice for copyright tags to be added to works on this site, but it currently does not happen.
In terms of attribution, texts (virtually all) have a link back to the author's page, making it quite clear who wrote the work. I'm not sure what you mean by no clear author noted on the original text; if you look at the meta section (the italicized portion) of the text, it clearly says Goebbels is the author. Of course, generally we have a link at the top of the page that says "<Author:AuthorName"--this is our general standard.
About correcting the speech, I would not do anything until its copyright status can be established. If it is a violation (which I believe it is), then correcting the text would be pointless as it would be deleted. Zhaladshar 01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Author Pages Revisit[edit]

Discussion moved to Help talk:Author pages#Author Pages Revisit

Images[edit]

Bonjour,

Il semble que les images ne s'affichent plus ? (cf.La géométrie, par exemple). Caton 10:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Je confirme... --ThomasV 13:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I don't know French, but I would imagine Caton is asking the same thing I am: what's with all the images not working on Wikisource all of a sudden? I know that the images are still here on the server, but for some reason the links aren't working. Zhaladshar 01:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Oui, je ne sais à qui l'on doit s'adresser. Caton 09:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

je ne savais meme pas que ws: avait des propres images... Il serait peut-etre mieux de place les illustrations sur commons, et de les lier de la? I just wanted to upload some illustrations and I don't know how to do it now. If nobody knows what's going on, maybe we should inquire on meta somewhere? 130.60.142.62 15:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Catseye-big.jpg
En effet, les images de Wikicommons fonctionnent :

Caton 08:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)

J'aimerais bien revoir ces images, un jour... Caton 22:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could the person who caused images to disappear at least signal her(him)self? At this point we do not even know it it is a mistake, a dysfunction of the system, or something deliberately decided by some admin... I understand somebody might have decided that images should be in wikicommons instead of wikisource for organizational reasons, but if it is the case it would be good to notify us. Many books here contain images or figures, and I find it very sad that these images are gone. I am willing to believe it is a bug, since nobody claimed having done it. but it would be great to really know... --ThomasV 07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This happened before, last August. I raised the issue on the Wikitech mailing list, and received the following reply from Brion: "Should be fixed now. The symlinks were one subdirectory off, and files were being put in the wrong place." Eclecticology 23:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Grec ancien[edit]

Des pages en Grec ancien ont disparu. Caton 09:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)

lesquelles? L'Iliade est toujours la. 130.60.142.62 15:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Par exemple Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους, qui donne bien un lien bleu dans la page Auteur:Platon, mais sans texte. Caton 15:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
De même : Περὶ φύσεως (Παρμενίδης), Ἀποσπάσματα, Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια. Caton 15:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
En fait, j'ai l'impression que des accents ont été modifiés, ou qu'il y a un problème à ce niveau. Caton 15:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
quoi? Ce texte n'existe pas, tout court. Nous avons Apologie de Socrate, mais point de Aπολογία Σωκράτους.
J'ai moi-même placé ce texte ici. Caton 22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ok, je crois alors que tu aies un problem avec le codepage unicode 'grec polytonique', voir en haut, tu as mis un '?' au lieu de "sp. lenis+Alpha". Il faudrait chercher la liste de tes contributions pour retrouver le texte... 62.202.241.89 09:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
voir, par example, Ἐγχειρίδιον. Il faut bouger cette page. Les titres Επιστολή προς Μενοικέα, Κύριαι Δόξαι sont correctes, mais les textes sont foutus (plein de '?') (tous les commentaires anonymes qui précèdent sont les miens) Dbachmann 09:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) edit: oublie, ces pages sont tout-a-fait bonnes. 130.60.142.62

External links on wikisource[edit]

Hi I am in contact with liberliber.it an Italian project, similar to the Guthenberg project. They offer the texts for download while here on wikisource these texts would be online. LiberLiber-downloads of course are for free (they publish non copyrighted works from Italian authors and translations of works from international authors). Would there be a problem to add a link to liberliber.it (direct link to the download page) at the end of a page telling people that a pdf or rtf or txt-version is online there for download? I feel this could be a great co-operation as it would complement both projects. Thank you for telling me if links are possible or not. -- SabineCretella 13:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I think it is possible ; sometimes, I add links to a website (as Le Prince for exemple). (sorry if my english is bad) Caton 13:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with this. Eclecticology 18:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Go right ahead. I've never heard of the site (although I don't go looking for Italian works, either :-) ), but it would be great if we could help complement that site and vice versa. Zhaladshar 19:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Languages and Subdomains[edit]

Discussion moved to Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#Languages and Subdomains

The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli[edit]

I would like to work on The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Is is public domain? Or has some crazy person bought the rights to it. (published 1513, translated to english 1910) --Munchkinguy 16:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

1910 is public domain --ThomasV 17:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

lyricswiki[edit]

I went hunting and I just stumbled onto this cool site: www.lyricswiki.org it is just what the name says it is: a collection of lyrics. And we cannot have those lyrics here because, of course, it is a massive copyright infringement. however, they claim what they are doing is fair use, because it does not harm the artists who are selling those songs. I will be interested in following the evolution of this... are they going to get shut down? maybe I'll propose them to add a french subdomain, because for the moment they seem to only have texts in English. I also thought we could link to their site, but I did not find a "lyrics" section in the English wikisource. --ThomasV 07:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Their disclaimer page does ask people not to add copyright material. The fair use status is highly debatable, but if they are willing to accept that risk any problem is their own. An individual who wants to contribute to their site needs to be aware that at some point the whole site will be put off-line and his work will be lost. One significant lyric site is at http://ntl.matrix.com.br/pfilho/summer.html What helps to keep them alive is the fact that they are based in Brazil. The site at http://tinpan.fortunecity.com/blondie/313/ also has links to other site. There have been efforts to shut these down.
I don't object to linking to these sites as long as our users are told what the situation is. I'll look to see what might be a good place for such a link. Eclecticology 00:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

New language[edit]

I wanted to add a link to Asturian in the Main Page (ISO CODE "Ast"), but the main page is locked. The link is this: Antoxana:Asturianu

And the text the next:

Bienveníu a Wikisource. Esti sitiu ye un depósitu de testos orixinales escritos en cualesquier idioma y que seyan de dominiu públicu o tean espublizaos baxo la llicencia GFDL. Esti sitiu forma parte de la fundación Wikimedia y ye un proyeutu hermanu multillingüe del proyeutu Wikipedia pa crear una enciclopedia de conteníu llibre completa y exauta.

Thanks. Llull 22:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lista Wildsteina[edit]

The material on this list appears to be a list of alleged collaborators with the former regime in Poland. We have no business dealing in this kind of disgusting practice. Unless someone can find a convincing reason to keep it, I propose to begin deleting it all tomorrow. Eclecticology 08:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'm not too sure what these pages contain. It's a list of some sort, but I don't know what kind of information it is conveying. I agree that if it is that bad of material then it should go--the quicker the better--but before it is deleted, could someone tell me why we would be getting rid of it? Zhaladshar 14:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I just read the talk page for Lista Wildsteina, so now I know why it's on the docket for deletion. I would agree with Ec that this is not something we should keep on Wikisource at all. It should be deleted as soon as possible. Zhaladshar 14:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Moved from now deleted Article talk page[edit]

Hi! I'm a Polish Wikipedia user. I have a big favor to ask you. Please remove all Lista Wildsteina subarticles (the ones I marked "remove!") - they are now empty - before they contained either one name or test edits by unregistered users. "Lista Wildsteina" is a hot subject in Poland these days - it's a list of people who used to collaborate with former secret service agencies or were their victims, that's why it provokes various unwanted reactions - it can't be exactly stated who was a secret agent and who was a victim. After it is published here, possibly by Ausir - a registered user - you should put a protection log on all its parts so that people won't modify it. Consider it, please. With regards, Selena von Eichendorf 12:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The above description leaves me very concerned about whether we should have this kind of material at all. My first impression is that it is a list of people who are alleged to have participated in certain kinds of wrongdoing. In the absence of further evidence I would consider this material a defamatory and libellous attack on the people listed. It is effectively a long series of personal attacks, and contrary to Wikimedia policy on that basis. The Wikimedia should have no role in the spreading of this kind of thing. I cannot comment at this time about what implications the material might carry under United States law.
Secondarily, there is no indication about who produced this list, and whether the author has released the material under GFDL. Eclecticology 07:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Personally, I agree with you. The list is causing lots of confusion, can't be verified in terms of who was actually a victim, and who collaborated with the secret services. However, the list is circulating in altered forms over the net and if it was published here, provided that it's not modified by unregistered IPs, it might serve as a reliable resource. But - it's up to you to decide. I'm a Polish Wikipedia sysop and I understand why you're hesitating, and I won't be surprised if you decide to delete the list from Wikisources. Maybe the best idea is to discuss the matter with Ausir, who just requested for Wikisource adminship and is "in charge" of loading the list here. On Polish Wikipedia we can't reach the agreement whether it's good or bad to have external links to the list or to load it on Wikisource. Anyway, the problem is that it should have been revealed long ago by the authorities, as it was eg. in Czech Republic... Sorry for the fuss. Bye, Selena von Eichendorf 09:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After the whole debate, I think maybe we should delete it after all (at least for now). Ausir 10:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

10,000[edit]

The article 北海道舊土人保護法 by User:Shin-改 to-day brought our total count to 10,000 pages. Eclecticology 21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Organization of Wikisource[edit]

I find Wikisource very hard to navigate. For example, in the Texts link at the front of the English main page, I expected to be taken to a list that included the Charter of the United Nations. I'm not sure how to get there from the Texts link. Anomaly 16:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it might be hard to navigate the Wikisource:Texts page. One of us should probably reorganize that section of the site. To find the UN Charter, try Wikisource:Historical documents. It would contain a list of documents relating to the UN Charter and such. I'm not too sure what exactly you are looking for, but that might be a place to start. Zhaladshar 17:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The Wikisource:Texts page was put there a full year ago without so much as a single amendment since. I haven't yet traced the links from it, but my guess is that they are hopelessly out of date. Other techniques have since been developed for finding things, but saying that doesn't help newbies very much. Unless I discover something startlingly usefull in the links, I'm inclined to eliminate this path. Eclecticology 20:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That probably isn't a bad idea. Wikisource:Fiction, Wikisource:Texts, Wikisource:Non-Fiction, and Wikisource:Poetry are horribly out of date. And with the number of texts/poetry/etc. we have and at the rate we are getting more, updating these pages will take a very long time. Not to mention keeping them up to date; it will be even worse than trying to keep the author pages current. Usually Wikisource:Authors or Wikisource:Historical documents work well, or the search function, if a person is trying to find a particular work. But we don't really have a decent method to allow users to actually browse documents on the site (I'm specifically referring to literary works like poetry or novels). As great as it would be to have something like that, we just could not keep everything up to date on these pages. Maybe eliminating those paths would help keep confusion down for new users since they would no longer be able to use an out of date page but will instead be browsing the author lists. Zhaladshar 21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Is it possible to switch the positions of the "Index" and the "New texts" boxes? Also, instead of keeping these index pages up to date, it would make sense to have the equivalent of Categories in Wikipedia. Anomaly 07:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm indifferent about the order of these two. If we are to keep the "New texts" sect ion it would be nice if someone were to take on the task of maintaining it. Much of what is there now has been new for far too long. Before we do any switch though, let's wait until these indexes have been cleaned up so we can see what's left. Eclecticology 10:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good. I've started disassembling the Wikisource:Texts part of it while being careful to clear up cross-links, and avoiding turning articles into orphans. The best hope of maintaining subject listings may be through a thoughtful use of the category system. Eclecticology 00:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Lectures audio de livres en creative commons: servez-vous![edit]

Bonjour,

C'est la première fois que je poste un message ici, j'avais déjà écrit sur wikipédia et on m'a indiqué que wikisource serait plus approprié, j'espère que c'est bien le lieu pour ce type d'annonce. J'ai ouvert il y a peu le site http://incipitblog.free.fr (audioblog de lectures à voix haute) sur lequel nous avons commencé l'adaptation du livre de Florent Latrive "Du bon usage de la piraterie". Nous avons comme ambition de poursuivre la lecture d'oeuvres librement adaptables car sous license appropriée ou car issues du domaine public (les siècles passés étant une source inépuisable de chef-d'oeuvres libres de droits!). Je voulais en faire part à wikisource en proposant à tous de réutiliser autant que vous le souhaitez les lectures qui seront publiées sur IncipitBlog et d'autre part aussi car très souvent quand nous lisons un auteur nous faisons un lien direct vers l'article wikipédia correspondant, et que désormais nous lierons également vers wikisource qui sera une formidable source d'idées de lectures!

Cordialement, à bientôt! Liseur

C'est une idée assez interesante, surtout comme service aux aveugles. Ça prendrait tout simplement des gens qui veulent s'en occuper. Ailleurs, il y a déjà eu des discussion apropos d'un Wikipédia en signes pour les sourd-muets. Eclecticology 21:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Google et le défi de l’indexation[edit]

un article intéressant pour ceux qui contribuent à wikisource: http://www.internetactu.net/index.php?p=5810 --ThomasV 21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource pourrait donc avoir un rôle à jouer dans la diffusion de textes français ? Caton 22:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)

je pense que oui... si le projet se développe, il pourrait devenir une ressource majeure. actuellement, quand on tape un mot en francais dans Google, l'entrée sur fr.wikipedia apparaît en bonne place. C'est dû au fait que les scores de Google sont calculés en fonction du nombre de liens hypertexte qui pointent vers une page, et du texte placé dans ces liens. Wikisource pourrait aussi devenir une référence, puisque les robots comme Google y ont accès (par opposition à Gallica)--ThomasV 17:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Je posais cette question parce que je n'ai pas bien compris tous les enjeux exprimés dans cet article. Je me demandais si l'on pouvait sérieusement envisager de faire de Wikisource une ressource de premier ordre, ce qui est mon but, surtout en philosophie. Mais s'il y a des projets tel que celui de google, je me demandais si Wikisource ne risquait pas de devenir inutile. Caton 18:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
le propos de l'article est d'inviter Gallica à ouvrir ses contenus aux moteurs de recherche, afin qu'ils aient plus d'impact. Je ne pense pas que le projet de Google risque de rendre Wikisource inutile, car le travail d'organisation, de liens et de découpage fait ici ne pourra pas être automatisé.
A mon avis, il est possible de faire de Wikisource une ressource de premier ordre. J'y crois beaucoup plus que dans le cas de Wikipedia, car la qualité des articles sur Wikipedia dépend des contributeurs. Au contraire, il est possible sur Wikisource d'être 'objectif' dans la mesure où on ne cherche qu'à être fidèle au travail d'un auteur. C'est une différence importante, et je pense qu'il sera peut-être possible un jour de certifier les pages de wikisource comme étant "terminées et relues", et de les protéger du vandalisme.--ThomasV 18:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
J'ai l'impression que Jeanneney se plaint trop. Donné sa position avec la BNF ça ne me suprend pas que son article dans Le Monde ne considère pas la possibilité que Gallica aurait mal-choisi le format pdf. Ce que propose Google est un peu ambitieu, et je trouve difficile à croire qu'ils pourraient l'accomplir sans ignorer la correction des épreuves. Le projet de Google n'est pas le seul de son genre. Internet Archive s'est aussi trouvé des grands partenaires. (Voir http://www.libraryjournal.com/article/CA491156?display=NewsNews&industry=News&industryid=1986&verticalid=151 )
Wikisource peut toujours avoir un rôle dans ce millieu. Je suis d'accord qu'il faut devenir "une ressource de premier ordre" où il y a beaucoup plus que des sélections choisies au hazard. Ce genre de contributions sera bien entendu toujours là, et il ne faut pas empecher les gens qui le font. Mais il faut aussi considérer faire des collections de tous de textes d'un auteur, ou faire des liens-wiki entre un texte et ceux cités par l'auteur. Eclecticology 22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Need help with a speech[edit]

Seeing that we have political speeches at Wikisource, I was thinking of adding a speech Jello Biafra gave to the Green Party in 2000 when he attempted to run for their candidate. However, I'm not sure whether or not his speech counts as being public domain. I'm sure he wouldn't be bothered by it being shared online (given his positive opinion towards sharing information), but I'd like a second opinion first. Everything2 has a copy of it at this link, so it might be ok, but I want to know if Wikisource is willing to accept it. If you can, please get back to me at my Wikipedia talk page, since I am at Wikipedia more often than Wikisource. -- LGagnon 08:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

General information and help system - RFE[edit]

I've some trouble when searching 1) what wikisource is. Yea, I was searching, around 30mins. But still no idea 2) what exactly is desired, 3) what shall not be on wikisource, 4) what's the relation to project gutenberg, etexts.org, wikibooks, ebook scene etc pp, 5) how to organize/split longer texts like (lyrical) books or charters. That's all I'd like to learn at the moment ;)

  1. IMHO there shall be some very brief info like at [1] and some longer like "About Wikibooks" at [2]. Moreover, the help shall not only refer to editing text but some stuff like scanning, OCR, how to insert texts including all indices etc.
  2. I guess everything what's neither a teaching book (-> wikibooks) nor an enceclopedia article (-> wikipedia). So lyrics, novels, charters, lists, FAQs, manuals,... are left. Do we want all that?
  3. Manuals may not be that interesting.
  4. We shall cooperate with them (have direct access to their databases) or copy those texts if license allows it. Why? Because some of them might lose the sponsor and thus become unavailable. Because their formatting is sometimes very nasty (only 60 lines per page - try to print/download this!) In case anyone is inside the ebook scene please inform them of this project - power points are simple linking, big audience + review mates, enough webspace, long term availability, hard facts reputation possible (how many scans and the like) and avoiding redundant scans.
  5. Any best practices from wikibooks which work for other tings than books as well?

--80.140.106.164 00:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)


Admin request[edit]

User:Ausir has requested adminiship. Please comment at Wikisource:Administrator. Eclecticology 19:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

on what exactly shall we comment?--ThomasV 21:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
on whether you support or oppose this person's becoming an admin. Eclecticology 20:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)