Wikisource:Language domain requests/archive1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Warning: This page is no longer active! Please do not add any more language domain reqests here. Instead, add them to the current page: Language domain requests.


English: This page serves as a permanent monitor of interest in and attitudes towards the possibility of setting up language domains within Wikisource (,, etc.). This is in accordance with the decision by the Wikimedia board that language domains may proceed here at Wikisource when there is enough support for them. In order to serve as a clear, prominent and permanent monitor of current attitudes, this page will remain listed at the top of Scriptorium.

Français : Cette page sert d'indicateur permanent pour mesurer l'intérêt et l'engagement des contributeurs dans le cadre de l'éventuelle installation des domaines linguistiques dans Wikisource (, etc.). Ceci est conforme à la décision prise par le conseil de "Wikimedia foundation" d'autoriser un domaine linguistique dès que celui-ci aura obtenu assez de soutiens. Afin d'assurer sa visibilité, cette page d'indicateurs permanents servant à mesurer l'intérêt et l'engagement des contributeurs, devra rester affichée en tête de cette page de votes (traduction par Semnoz 14:04, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

Español: Esta página sirve como un indicador permanente de la actitud y posibilidades de instalar un dominio independiente para cada idioma (, etc.) Esto está de acuerdo con la decisión de Wikimedia de que autorizar dominios língüisticos debe proceder de aquí, de Wikisource. Para que esta página sirva como un indicador permanente y claro del interés de cada idioma esta página permanecerá enlazada al comienzo del Scriptorium.

Please translate the above text into your language!

Language Domain Requests ([edit]

ملاحظة: الرجاء عدم اضافة طلبلك لاي لغة حتى تعرف ان مساهمة الأعضاء والأفراد في تلك اللغة ستكون فاعلة.

Note: Do not list your request for any particular language unless you know that language well enough to contribute texts and participate in the project when it is set up.

Note : N'ajoutez aucune requête pour aucune autre langue, sauf si vous maîtrisez correctement cette langue afin de contribuer aux textes et de participer au projet lorsqu'elle sera installée (traduction par Semnoz 14:12, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)).

Hinweis: Fügen Sie nur dann Ihren Antrag für eine bestimmte Sprache hinzu, wenn Sie diese Sprache gut genug beherrschen um, wenn er erfüllt ist, Texte beisteuern und sich beteiligen können. (Übersetzt von Telcontar 01:40, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC))

Nota: no votes por un Wikisource en un idioma específico a menos que conozcas ese idioma suficientemente bien como para contribuir con textos y participar en el proyecto cuando este comience.

주의: 후보로 추천하고자 하는 언어를 (글을 입력하고 프로젝트에 참가할 정도의) 수준으로 다룰 수 있을 경우에만 해당 언어를 추천하십시오.

Please translate the above text into your language![edit][edit]

source for initial list[edit][edit][edit][edit][edit]

Already active![edit][edit][edit][edit]

  • ----
  • 15:19, 1 September 2005 (N)
  • 15:21 1, September 2005 (N)
  • 15:22, 1 September 2005 (N)
  • 15:23, 1 September 2005 (N)

Votes by Heavy Users (more than 50 edits)[edit]

In accordance with the decision by the Wikimedia board, the above requests for language domains may proceed when enough heavy users support granting rather than denying those requests. The following are the current votes from such heavy users (initially moved here from the vote at the Language Domain Proposal, but they may of course be updated and changed in any direction).

En accord avec la décision du conseil de la Fondation Wikimedia, les demandes de création de domaines linguistiques exprimées ci-dessus peuvent aboutir, dès lors qu'un nombre suffisant de contributeurs importants se prononcent pour plutôt que contre. Ci-après se trouve l'état courant des votes des principaux contributeurs. (Ces résultats ont initialement été copiés ici depuis la page du premier vote), mais ils peuvent être remis à jour et modifiés dans n'importe quel sens.)

위키미디어 이사회의 결정에 의하여 상기의 언어 서브도메인에 대한 요청은 위키프로젝트에 기여한바가 큰 (heavy user) 사용자들이 충분한 수로 참여하여 지지 할 경우에 정식으로 확인됩니다. 다음은 그러한 기여수가 많은 사용자들의 투표 실황입니다. (원래 언어 서브도메인 요청에 있던것을 옮긴것이지만 물론 계속 갱신 및 수정 될 수 있습니다.)

Please translate this text into your language!


  1. Dovi 11:23, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (>500 edits edits)
  2. 21:48, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC)(+2=MESZ) - (>450 edits) Please log in and take proper credit for all your work!
  3. Maio 05:14, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (251-500 edits)
  4. Xarax 09:20, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
  5. Kaiser Bob 18:23, 16 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
  6. ThomasV 11:13, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC) (>2500 edits)
  7. Zhaladshar 15:35, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC) (>4000 edits)
  8. Caton 21:32, 10 Feb 2005 + Marc (UTC) (>5000 edits)
  9. Jackobill 22:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC) (>100 edits)Reply[reply]


  1. Yann 09:36, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (501-1000 edits)
  2. Eclecticology 10:30, 14 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (>500 edits)
  3. Sj 04:11, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
  4. Shin-改 10:47, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (501-1000 edits)
  5. Kzhr 12:00, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (51-100 edits)
  6. kahusi - (Talk) 15:46, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (101-250 edits)
  7. Shizhao 18:23, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC) - (501-1000 edits)

Background and Sources[edit]

The following texts contain the background to the debate on Language Domains at Wikisource and its history until the current page was started:

  • The technical possibility of setting up language domains was announced in [[]].
  • The debate began at length on Talk:Main Page:Deutsch.
  • Most of the debate, and then the vote and its immediate aftermath, took place at the Language domain proposal. This page contains a huge wealth of information and opinion regarding Language Domains within Wikimedia in general.
  • The demand during the course of the vote for edit-counting may be found at Weighted_voting.
  • More discussion in the aftermath of the vote took place at A Challenge to Ec, and the debate's final appeal for goodwill and cooperation may be found at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Goodwill_and_Cooperation.

Further discussion:[edit]

Localized interface:[edit]

The early introduction of localized interfaces to WikiSource - it has not even been introduced yet on Wikipedia! - is a small and insufficient victory for language support at WikiSource, but a victory nonetheless. It at least lets monolingual users view an English-dominant project through French or German lenses... If not for the push for real multilingualism with language domains, even this minor step would not have been taken for a while yet. But much still remains that must and eventually will be changed (despite the insensitivity, and the utter refusal ever to yield to the needs and opinions of others, on the part of a few long-time Wikisource users).

Those who want true multilingualism on this text-based project must keep pressure up on the remaining issues - the real issues that are left untouched by the localized interface:

  • All coding on this project remains in English, regardless of the interface. The PHP codes cannot and will not be made available in any other language. The suggestion to translate them to German was viewed as a joke by all...
  • The mish-mash of many languages together makes it difficult or impossible to develope language subcommunities, which can serve both monolingual and multilingual users together. Not only do small languages desperately need a "space" of their own in order to get started, but even larger languages like German, French and Spanish can benefit greatly by having a domain within the project for themselves. The proof of this is in almost all of the Wikimedia projects with language domains, especially for smaller languages. Hebrew Wikisource is an outstanding example of this, and most of the people involved would never have helped start building it had it remained within the current "unified" (English-dominated) project. The present project simply cannot serve the needs of international users.
  • Even the "Localized Interface" does not work properly for all languages, so that the others will be left "on the sidelines" to the "unified" project at

The interface is a great new tool. But new policy is ever better than a new tool: Newer and fairer Wikimedia policy on language-domains have been put in place at the new Wikinews project [1] [2]. Wikisource needs to move towards applying them here as well! Dovi 11:14, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

No, I want ALL content (what ever the language) in ONE project. With the localized interface, I don't see why separate the project now, except for dividing the community. Yann 23:37, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Localized interface might be useful to a fraction of the people who log in. These are contributors. However, most users are just looking for some information, and they do not log in. For them it makes no difference whether the interface is localized or not. --ThomasV 12:22, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Yann, the interface is not language support (it was already taken into account during the debate). Look, you want everyone here. But when the German's actually ask to leave, for very good reasons, do you FORCE them to stay? Virtual division is done on all the text-based Wikimedia projects, and it only serves to bring very diverse people together in an overall environment that is comfortable to all. No one is "divided" on Wikipedia; actually, the multilingual cooperation there is beautiful. Forcing people to build a project where they don't have language support is much worse than any "division." It is the Iron Curtain ("you may not leave") versus the peaceful open borders of the EU. Dovi 00:06, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A constructive proposal[edit]

I guess there will not be localized subdomains anytime soon. Eclecticology is simply not interested in answering your comments. So I guess we should learn to live with it, and wait. In the meantime, there is a lot that we can do to make Wikisource better, even in the current setup. There are many things that are just plainly absurd, and that are consequences of not having languages subdomains. One important absurdity is the fact that most author pages are written in one single language, the author's native language. This has important drawbacks, such as:

  • Ancient greek authors have their page in ancient greek. For me it's still ok, since I studied greek in school. But I guess not everybody should be able to read greek in order to find an english translation of Author:Plato's works. In addition, I do not read chinese nor japanese, and there are now author pages in japanese that link only to english texts.
  • Author pages include a list of links to the wikipedia biography of an author, in many different languages, even though we do not have texts of these authors in these languages. It would be better to provide a list of links to localized versions of this author page, and to write localized versions only for those languages where a translation of the author's works is available.
  • The english author index is organized around english letters, which probably makes it difficult for a japanese reader to find a japanese author. Look at Template:Authors-K: how do you know 作者:孔子 is at letter K if you do not speak english? of course, a japanese will use the japanese index, so there is no point writing with japanese letters in the english index.

I propose to write translations of author pages, for every language where there we provide a translation of their work. I already did it for many ancient greek authors. see Auteur:Platon and Auteur:Franz Kafka for examples. This solves the above problems. It is also a small step toward language subdomains, which will facilitate the transition when it happens, because it will be easy to move move author pages to the directory that corresponds to their language subdomain, using shell commands.--ThomasV 13:13, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I see your points about the author pages, and I (for the most part) readily agree. I think the way we handle author pages on Wikisource is almost at the absurd. I would so much like to see author pages in (at first) the major languages like French, German, English, and so on, and see the author pages expand into small languages when this community has become much larger. The problem I see with the current author pages is that I think it fails to notice the pervasiveness of any given author. Yes, Franz Kafka might be German, but to many Americans he is also an author, and many Americans might be very interested in reading his works. Unfortunately, we have to know a few German words in order to be able to understand what it is we are looking at on his author page (of course, with German, it's not too hard, but ancient Greek, Japanese, Arabic, etc., is much harder). The same goes for someone who lives in Russia might be interested in an American author, but currently has to know a Latin-based alphabet to decipher the author page. Also, since we currently have Wikisource:Authors translated into various languages right now; there is no point in not having author pages for all of those languages. I think it will ultimately be more accomodating to new users/readers if they can access Plato's page in their native language.
In regards to the author pages themselves, though, I do not see what the problem is with having numerous links to that author's biography on Wikipedia. It does not take up exorbitant space, nor is it a hassle to add new languages to those pages, and it serves to show that the Wiki projects are linked together. The problem about only adding links to Wikipedia or only having author pages if we have translations available is the simple fact that we do not have translations for most of our author's works. Mostly due to the fact that a lot of translations are protected by copyright. Saying "No, you cannot have an author page in your language because we do not currently have a translated work (probably due to the fact that any translation will be protected by copyright laws for who knows how long)" seems to be a very harsh way of going about getting people to use Wikisource.
I propose that we make a few changes at Wikisource. They're not major, like adding subdomain, but would still require some work. I propose that we
  1. Start translating all the author pages into languages that we currently have for Wikisource:Authors (like Wikisource:Auteurs or Wikisource:Autoren) and keep all the Wikipedia language links on those pages, for the fact that a person might know two languages. Say a person is Arabic but resides in France. More than likely that person will know those two languages. More than likely he would want to read a Wikipedia biography of an author instead of a French. Wouldn't it be nice to offer him that choice, especially since we do not have an Arabic version of Wikisource:Authors? (Actually, I just noticed that ThomasV already proposed the same thing--so I guess this is just backing up his proposal.)
  2. I propse we begin to add links from our author pages (of all languages) to their respective pages on Wikiqoute. It's about time we began to add links to that project, since it is exploding with quotes from both the authors and the works we offer here. After all, Wikipedia offers links to Wikiquote, and I think we should, too. Of course, this would only work if we had numerous languages of every author page, because there would just be too many links to Wikiquote (the Wikiquote template takes up a good deal of space--or we could use simple text links which would allow for us to use many languages all at once on an author page).
  3. I propose we do the same for each work we have here on Wikisource, too. Link it over to Wikiquote--after all, that's no one wants to read a work if all they are looking for is a quote. Zhaladshar 14:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we could also have author pages written in languages in which we do not provide their works. My proposal actually meant that we should provide author pages at least in the languages were we provide translations, but I did not intend to restrict it in any way. So I fully agree with you on that.
Concerning the Wikipedia links, I do find that they take a lot of real estate, but of course that depends on the resolution of your screen. Another point is that many users are simply scared when they see some foreign language. Consider the case of a user who only reads french, and who has made the effort of going through the main page, of looking for 'bienvenue', and of clicking on it. Once he has done that, he will believe that he entered Wikisource through the "right door", and that he deserves not to be annoyed anymore by other languages. Trust me on that, this is how most people react. In addition, it only takes one more click (in wikipedia) to somebody who wants to read a biography in another language. Finally, the list of available languages for a biography in Wikipedia is something that tends to changes over time, so when we provide such a list it eventually gets out of date. I think that we should rather provide the list of localized versions of an author page, because (1) we know when we add a new language, so there are more chances to keep the list up to date, and (2) because it is more consistent with the role of wikisource: we do not provide biographies, but works.
I agree with you on the wikiquote links, at least for author pages. For a given author, it is relatively straighforward to provide a link to his wikiquote page, just as we provide the biography link. Ideally, all of the 3 author pages (wikipedia, wikisource, wikiquote) for a given author could be linked together. --ThomasV 16:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that we could also have author pages written in languages in which we do not provide their works. My proposal actually meant that we should provide author pages at least in the languages were we provide translations... Thank you for clarifying. I didn't pick that up when I first read your comments (although I might have just missed it when I read over your initial post).
Once he has done that, he will believe that he entered Wikisource through the "right door", and that he deserves not to be annoyed anymore by other languages. Trust me on that, this is how most people react. Since I do not know myself that people react that way (indeed, I really don't care if I see a hundred different languages on a page, even though I went through the "right door") I'll take your word for it. I guess I would have to agree with you about the Wikipedia links. It is only a click away on Wikipedia to get to another translation of a page, and, let me tell you, keeping the biographical sections of every author on Wikisource is the most cumbersome process anyone could do. I will not be able to keep it up very much longer if the number of authors we're adding increases—which, of course, it will. We will soon have to come to a new method of dealing with author pages, or we will suffer having very out of date information on them.
I am curious, though: from what it sounds like, you are not supportive of adding Wikiquote links to the actual works themselves. I think this would be great (of course, we'd develop a pleasant-looking template to do so), as it would take up more space to add such links on an author's main page. I was even thinking we could use the same template to point users to other translations of the work (in case they went to the work directly instead of through the author's page), that way it is right there for them to click on. Ideally, when we accumulate more and more translations of various works, this would work better. Zhaladshar 17:32, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
well, concerning the actual works themselves, I did not say that I disagree with it :-). However, it is quite straighforward to do it for author pages, while for works it might be a bit more difficult to do it in a way that does not confuse the reader; for the moment, the pages that contain a work do not have a 'meta' section where information can be added in such a way that it is not mistaken for the work itself. of course, that does not mean it is not possible... I agree a template might be right the way to do it.--ThomasV 18:11, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi folks! I just read through all the comments about author pages. It really is a constructive proposal for the time being, and I hope people go ahead with it. It basically means that (just like in a subdomain) people write indexes in their own language to things in a variety of languages. Go for it! In fact, it is something that should have been done long ago.

As far as subdomains happening or not in the short term, that simply depends on people's will. If a few more heavy contributors are willing to defy the local dictator and sign on "support" above, it most certainly will happen. Quickly too. It is as simple as that. To "learn to live with it" is exactly what Ec wants - he thinks he can and will have his way about anything important to him if he is obstinate enough for long enough. For the past year he has been absolutely right about this (and that is yet another thing that needs to be changed at Wikisource). But I fully agree that in the meantime, making contructive improvements like localized author pages is an absolutely fantasic idea. Do it! Dovi 18:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hi guys. I am currently experimenting with Auteur:Karl Marx in 4 different languages. I chose this author because we have works by him in so many language, please do not think there was another reason. It would be great if you could give me your feedback on the way I formatted it. Do not hesitate to edit these pages too, if you feel you can improve things. I chose not to link directly to all the different translations of a works in the author page, so that lists do not need to be updated everytime a work is added, but I am not sure if this is the best option. I guess in some case we would still need a link to the original version of a work. --ThomasV 18:43, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I looked at the Auteur:Karl Marx and have a few comments on it. The first is just a stylistic thing. I don't think it is very...pleasing, for lack of a better the eye. But this is just because I have grown used to the way the current biographical sections are set up, and will probably change given time. But I do think there should be some improvements done in that regard (maybe increase the size or something--I'll experiment with it later, unless you beat me to it). Also, it would probably be best to put the language links--the "Oeuvres en français | allemand | anglais | espagnol" in the language of what the link goes to. Like instead of "allemand" do "Deutsch" and instead of "anglais" do "English." This is how it is on numerous internet sites where a single page is translated into different languages. And it would be best probably to link back to the Wikisource:Authors/Auteurs/Autoren page, also. It's just a minor change, but I dislike pages that don't link back to their source ones. Zhaladshar 19:21, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just made a couple changes to Auteur:Karl Marx. What do you think? They're nothing major. But I would like to get the new/revised layout of the author pages down, because I want to start making all of them into numerous languages. Zhaladshar 19:28, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree it could be helpful to propose links like "deutsch" instead of "allemand", although the reader of this page is expected to read french. Concerning the backlink to 'Auteurs-M', I do not like it, because I try to promote automated indexing (at least for french pages; there is no up-to-date automated index in other languages). Automated indexing has one important advantages over manual indexing: it keeps lists up-to-date. Concerning the graphical appearance, I agree it could be improved. maybe 'Oeuvres' would need to be displayed in a larger font --ThomasV 20:00, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
note that it might be worth waiting for more comments before you start making all of them :-) --ThomasV 20:07, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I wonder if there is a syntax to show the wikiquote link as an internal link, just like the wikipedia biography link.--ThomasV 20:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm not exactly an enemy to automated indexing, but I do think that we need to continue to have the Wikisource:Authors and other variants because the categories would be way too large after time and hundreds more authors have been changed. Meaning, it would be preferential to have a link back to Wikisource:Authors-M and such. I refrain from accessing categories to find anything, because I dislike the layout, and don't like the fact that they can get so cluttered. About the "Oevres" links being in the language of the author page to which they link, I still think that would the best idea. While it can be said that a person accessing the French version of Karl Marx's author page should know French, there, one, would be no reason to access any other translation of his pages since he would not need them, or two, if outside sites link to a certain language of an author's page, but the person would rather read a different language (maybe he only knows one language), it would be more welcoming to have those links in his own tongue.

Oh yes, I fully plan on waiting for more comments (I don't want to get slap happy with anything because there will likely be many plans and much changes before we get anywhere). I will refrain from starting to make any of the author pages until more people get in on this. I just hope more people start coming into this conversation. It would be good for more ideas.

In terms of syntax to Wikiquote, there is one. If you are just linking to the English sub-domain, do [[wikiquote:Karl Marx]]. For links to other sub-domains, do [[wikiquote:fr:Karl Marx]], [[wikiquote:de:Karl Marx]], etc. Zhaladshar 20:26, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

yeah, Caton just showed me the syntax. btw, I could not refrain and partially went ahead on Aristotle. :-) the nice thing about him is that he has a hungarian author page. Concerning the 'oeuvres' links, one drawback of having them in various languages is that it breaks the syntax. --ThomasV 20:37, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Could you please elaborate on how it breaks the syntax? I'm not being ornery or anything, but I am not sure of what you mean. Do you mean that since the entire page is in French, that using words of other languages disrupts the continuity of French on that page? Zhaladshar 20:49, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
oh, I just mean that if I write 'Works in English | French | German' it is still parsable as an english sentence, because 'Works in' applies to all the terms that follow. In contrast, if you write 'Works in English | Français | Deutsch' it is a bit less readable, not to mention what will happen when japanese and chinese come into play... so maybe you should translate 'Works in' as well... which would make the page even more international. True, it also disrupts the continuity of the page (remember users being scared). Concerning the indexing, although I personally prefer the layout in categories, I do not strongly oppose to having a backlink. One minor issue is that categories are displayed at the bottom of the page, while the backlink is at the top. --ThomasV 21:03, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're right. By having "Works in" in one language and then having words in another would break the continuity a bit. It might be probable to translate "Works in" into various languages, but this could become ugly if too many languages are added. Just imagine we have "Works in [various language]" translated into German, French, English, Dutch, Greek, Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese, etc. It would be nightmare! I think (for the time being--maybe people who have not been a part of this coversation has a good suggestion) that we should just leave it all in one language: that of the language in which the author's page is written. I think I'm going to experiment with templates and come up with a way of linking various translations of the same work together (or, at least what I was talking about so we have something to work with from there). Zhaladshar 21:10, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I've just finished with the template. Please, work with it how you will! I just wanted to get something down so that we had something to work with. It doesn't look too pleasant, and there are some problems I might see later on, but I'll address those when more people get in on this, or at least until after you reply. I think the template thing is a viable idea if we try to make it one. Zhaladshar 21:31, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I think the template is definitely a great idea. I have 2 comments. First, I think it should be horizontal, so that it is clearly separated from the work itself. Second, it should probably be localized too :-). One way to do it would be to pass the strings as parameters to the template. In that case, we would need one single temlplate for all works, instead on one per work. But I do not know if it is possible to define templates with a number of parameters that is not fixed... --ThomasV 21:38, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On the first, point, I'm unclear of what you are talking about. It seems pretty clear to me that the template is not actually part of the work itself because of the colors of the template and what it says. If you could work the template yourself and actually show what you mean, that would be wonderful. I've never made a template before (this is my very first) so I'm not fully aware of all the variables that can be used in these or what "parameters" are--I'll have to do more work with templates. So I am unable to address your second point at the time being. I'll work with templates some more and try to figure something or other out, but I don't know how long that will take. Zhaladshar 21:57, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
please tell me what you think about this: Manifesto_of_the_Communist_Party_(full_text); I made the layout horizontal, and, most important, I used parameters. As I mentioned above, I could not find a way to have a non-fixed number of parameters. but I guess we can easily overcome that, by defining similar templates for all possible number of parameters up to 10, and that should be enough for a while.--ThomasV 22:35, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I like it! It's very compact, and since it's at the beginning of the text, it's noticeable. And from this example, I've learned about parameters, so now I can discuss them intelligibly. I'm sure this has been said already, but this conversation is quite large, so I will ask the question here: from what I could gather it seems like there are only a certain number of parameters that a template can handle--is that true? It seems that the MediaWiki software could handle unlimited numbers, but I vaguely remember you saying it could only do ten at a time. Again, template looks great. Good job! Zhaladshar 04:59, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
For anyone who would like to be a part of this discussion, go ahead and take a look at these various pages and tell us what you think. ThomasV and I--more ThomasV than myself--have been working with a new way of doing author pages by using templates to create the pages. I am actually coming to like this new layout better than the previous, but we would really appreciate more input from the Wikisource community. We are also linking various translations of the same work together using templates also. So take a look at these pages and tell us what you think:
Auteur:Karl Marx and the other pages.
Manifesto of the Communist Party and other translations.
Auteur:Franz Kafka and other pages.
Author:John Locke and other pages.
A Letter Concerning Toleration and other translations.
We really would appreciate more people getting involved in this discussion, so please tell us what you think. Zhaladshar 16:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yhere is much to respond to above. First about Dovi. I see his attitude as nothing more than a fixation to have his way on language domains. Dovi's participation on Wikisource has been limited to this campaign, and his edit history shows that he has little or no interest in anything but that. His participation in Meta-Wiki focuses on this, and his activities on Wikipedia include recruiting sockpuppets to support his views. I'm not trying to run a political campaign. I would rather spend my time looking for solutions to our differences, and finding areas of agreement and compromise rather than spending my time looking for political support. With all that and his gratuitous personal attacks why should I give any weight to his opinions?

It is clear that ThomasV and I have major differences of opinion, but it is also a fact that he stated above, "In the meantime, there is a lot that we can do to make Wikisource better, even in the current setup." It is obvious from watching his activity that his actions and his words are consistent. In that atmosphere it is easier to find compromises.

Only time will tell whether the localized interface will succeed in accomplishing its goal. I think that the developers should be congratulated for getting it this far. It is up to the different language sub-communities to write the texts that will make them work, something which would have needed to be done anyway in separate subdomains.

In reference to specific issues raised:--

  • Author page language: Initially the idea of a single author page was to be supplemented by redirect pages from other languages on an as needed basis. This would be a quick way of dealing with the issue without a lot of work. If instead someone wants to do the work to create more informative pages in the other languages I have no objection to that. Nevertheless, I still think that there should be one page (preferably, but not necessarily the one for the author's own language) which should continue to contain the links to all the works and biographies in all languages. For reference in this discussion let's call it the principal author page. There will always be special cases that need special treatment. The referenced Chinese page 作者:孔子 for Confucius is a good example since strict modern romanization would have us put this page under the letter "K" while traditionally it would have been under "C"
  • Links to Wikiquote: I have no problem with this idea. It will be especially useful in the case of material that is still protected by copyright where Wikiquote can provide us with links to fair use material. Again, the principal author page should include links to all relevant Wikiquote pages.
  • Uplinks: These are not intended as a substitute for categories or an index. They have more to do with a Table of Contents and the ability to develop a site map. The principle is that every page should be able to be traced back to the Main Page.
  • Translations: Zhaladshar makes an interesting point when he makes reference to the fact that original works may be in the public domain, but their translations may still be protected by copyright. One way to deal with this may be by encouraging our own independent translations.
  • Link maintenance: I regret to say that I believe that this will always be a problem unless it can be automated. If I go to any Wikipedia author page in two different languages there is no guarantee that each will have the same set of crosslinks to other Wikipedias. For the automation to work there may be a need to have each name in a standard form across all wikis, but I'm not at all optimistic about that idea getting off the ground. I've seen where Zhaladshar has been updating Wikipedia author links, and fully agree when he comments about how cumbersome that process is. As valuable as that task may be we do not need to treat doing this as an obligation for anybody; each of us can do no more than he is willing to do.
  • Monolingual users: Yes, there are people such as Thomas describes who feel completely lost when any suggestion of another language is introduced. If we are to deal with that it should not be by dumbing down the system. As I said before I accept the idea of secondary author pages, where the contents could be limited to that language. The principal author page may be a little more complicated but I'm confident that a reasonable solution can eventually be found to suit both the casual and more scholarly users.
  • Cross language links on works: This is perfectly acceptable. If I don't add them it doesn't mean that I oppose them. It's just that I prefer to spend my time at other things. To the extent that they are there they should be in the respective language. On the French page they are there primarily for the benefit of non-French users who are looking to get to the right page. Rather than having "Works in" or its other language equivalent we could use some symbol like or .
  • Meta sections: This clearly needs attention. I've frequently looked at pages where I could not tell where this important meta-material ended and the author's real work began. The infobox idea partly addressed this, but it did not fit into a template very well. There are many ways to address this, and I think the best way will not always be the same. In some cases we may even need a sub-page; in others the solution may be as simple as adding a line between the meta-material and the work.
  • Principal author page format: I still support the two existing major headings. "Quotes" could be a new heading set up in a similar way, but with a different background colour if we go the same way for an author that is quoted in many languages. The additional section that I have been considering is "Copyright" where information could be provided about the copyright status of an author's works. I understand that on a secondary author page some of these headings might be overkill.
  • Placement of backlinks and categories: I know that I started putting the backlinks at the top to make them more accesible. To the extent that I used infoboxes I wondered about migrating it into the box. I have thought about having them at the bottom, but that seemed too inaccesible. Probably any agreed place in the meta-material would be fine as long as the purpose of this entry were clear. The categories display at the top for me, and I like them there. I think this may be something that depends on one's choice of skins.
  • Communist Manifesto: The fourth language that we have for this is not Spanish, but Italian. The "full text" version is a hold over from early days when Maio was insisting that we have both that and a sub-divided version. I didn't feel like pursuing the argument at that point, so I let it be. I would be satisfied with just a sub-divided version.

I think I've touched on most of the points raised in this discussion. Eclecticology 20:36, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Thanks, Ec, for replying. Been wondering where you were; you've been oddly quiet here the past couple of days. Here are my replies to many/most of the things you brought up:
Author page language: I think you're right about this one. I do think that there should be one page which has all of the works of that author, and of course, I am still partial to all the Wikipedia biographies. I do, however, think we need to begin turning all of the author pages into various languages. Here is the problem, though: by making Autor:Franz Kafka a page in English, French, German, Italian, Spanish, etc., there will no longer be a "main" author page for him. Any distinction of "main" will be lost by adding all the numerous translations. But we should not lose some sort of author page which has all of the works and links, but how would we keep a "main" author page? I think it would be break the continuity by having Auteur:Franz Kafka, Author:Franz Kafka, and Autore:Franz Kafka all appear the same while Autor:Franz Kafka appear entirely different because it retains the old links. Would it be better to propose adding something to the namespace to indicate it is the "main" author page--like Main Author:Franz Kafka or something similar?
Links to Wikiquote: I agree here, too. I think each translation should have a link to the Wikiquote in that language while the main author page (however we decide it) should have all of them, just like the Wikipedia links.
Uplinks: I've always thought the same way, too. That's why whenever I find a page, I link it to its "higher up" page. Like an author's work should be linked to its author's author page, the author page to the correct Wikisource:Authors template. These indeed should not be replaced by categories (which I think need an overhaul as to how they are applied) or any other source of automated indexing.
Translations: One of my main reasons for promoting this new way of doing author pages is to get people/Wikisource users to actually begin translating works. I don't want to wait thirty years to begin adding translations; it should be happening now. But it will only ever happen if Wikisourcers start the process themselves. And by seeing an author page that has no works in that language might cause some to translate something, at least.
Link maintenance: True, link maintenance (and I can definitely attest to this!) will always be a difficult process, and I really wish MediaWiki developers would come up with a way of doing this. Until that (doubtfully) happens, I don't think keeping the current way of author pages will help any. The number of authors we have is constantly growing, and it takes me upwards of an hour or two to update all the biographies of just one of the twenty-six letters. Of course, the newly proposed way will not help, either. I just don't think we can get around this manual task.
Monolingual users: Good point. We should not dumb down the system, but merely tweak it to suit other's needs. We need not necessarily get rid of main author pages, but I do think we should add other language pages (after all, there would barely be a need for such pages as Wikisource:Auteurs or Wikisource:Autoren otherwise).
Meta sections: I'm not too sure what a meta section is, so I can't comment on this.
Principal author page format: It would be nice to add a "Quotes" section to the pages, although I'm not sure how useful a "Copyright" section would be. Most of our authors are well in the public domain, so most people should know their works are no longer under copyright.
Placement of backlinks and categories: Not sure how to comment on this one, either.
Communist Manifesto: I think the Communist Manifesto which is not the entire full text should just be deleted. It's extraneous and adding the inter-language templates just doesn't look right.
Again, glad to see you're back, Ec. I was hoping others would get involved in this conversation/proposal! Zhaladshar 21:15, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All right, here are my comments:
Main author page: I agree that it is useful to have one 'main author page' that links to all the works by one author. That way, it will be easier to know if localized author pages are up-to-date. Hence, I see this as something that facilitates our organization. However, I also believe that for users, it is extremely useful to have a localized page, that gather links to works translated in one single language, plus their original versions, because the 'main author page', containing everything, will be too difficult to read. So I support Zhaladshar's idea of an additional page, like Main Author:Franz Kafka, in order to still have a german-only page for that author. However, I think the name Main Author:Franz Kafka is ugly. It might be about time to rethink the way author pages are named. There are also collisions in the current system, 'Autor' is the same in german and spanish. (that's why we have Autor:Es:Franz Kafka, which is really ugly too)
One point on which I disagree with Ec is the need to link to all biographies (and, in the future, to all wikiquote pages) of an author. To me, it seems that keeping up-to-date the list of all biographies (resp. quotes) available for one author is the job of wikipedia (resp. wikiquote). That being said, if someone feels that this job needs to be re-done here at wikisource, I would prefer if these collections of babel-soup links do not show up in localized page. So I think they should be restricted to the 'main' author pages if they are to happen. But still, I think it is a waste of energy, because it is primarily the job of wikipedia and wikisource to provide this information. we are just duplicating their efforts here if we do that. Remember that when you are on a localized author page, these lists are just one click away.
Uplinks: I do not like them very much, but that is mainly for aesthetic reasons. That being said, I am not opposed to them. As you can see, I have added them to the author templates, such as Template:Auteur, after the suggestion of Zhaladshar.
Translations: before I was active here at wikisource, I was (and still am) coordinating the french translation of Free Culture. From that experience, one thing I can say is that it takes a LOT of time. that's one single book, and it isq not finished yet. So you guys should not expect these things to be happen quickly, even if you get involved yourself.
Meta sections: Ec refers to the part of a page that is not the work itself, eg the template linking to translations. I fully agree with him that it should be clearly separated from the work itself (see my previous comments). This is why I insisted that this box should be horizontal, and that it should not be at the same height as the title. Maybe adding a horizontal line would make the separation even better. note that the copyvio template also has this problem, I think it should be displayed in a frame.
Principal author page format: why don't we try to define it right now, with marx or kafka?
Communist Manifesto: so this was italian? muhahaha!
--ThomasV 22:19, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's too bad you had to return with insults. The sockpuppets claim, which you have made several times in the past but I ignored until now, is absolutely untrue; either present positive proofs that I have used other identities during this debate or stop making the claim. You certainly weren't so "clean" yourself during the debate (not sockpuppets, but other things). To state that I have only been involved "negatively" in the language-domains debate ignores my helping to start and build up an entire project. Quit it with the false insults, Ec.

On the other hand, Zhaladshar is right: It really is good for you to be involved in the discussion of the author pages. Despite some very deep differences, it is clear to all of us that you are an energetic and hard-working contributor, and we all want you here. No one has contributed more than you to this project since it began. So keep staying involved. Dovi 22:33, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It's conceivable that I may interpret the term "sockpuppet" differently. Essentially I see it as a person who participates is a vote without otherwise doing anything else. Nothing was intended to suggest that his own vote was sockpuppetry, or that he had personally cast additional votes to the one to which he was entitled. What I said was that his promotion of his position in other venues had the effect of "recruiting" others to act as sockpuppets. Enough said of this.
. . .
I saw the conversation on Monday morning, including seeing the timestamp whem Thomas said that he was tired. (I'm on the Canadian west coast, but I don't know what time zone Zhaladshar is in.) The obvious conclusion from reading all that was that I would be writing a long reply that would need a careful approach. After dealing with a few easy issues on Wiktionary, and trying to pay minimal attention to family duties I really couldn't get to a proper answer until today.
After reading both of your replies I think that there is more agreement than disagreement. There's an opportunity there to meet the needs of two distinct groups of users. I also agree that Main author:... is ugly. I had avoided the word "main" completely to avoid any other confusion with other uses of "Main page". "Principal" was only a temporary working term to allow us to talk about this. I'm currently leaning to the Latin terms "Auctor" and "Scriptor", with the other being reserved for specifically Latin author pages. My intent is at least to minimize modern language bias.
The German/Spanish ambiguity could be solved by using synonyms. Both would probably need to be changed. Would "Verfasser" and "Escritor" be workable alternatives?
For what version of the Communist Manifesto to keep, I very much prefer the chapter divided one. (I believe that both existing versions are complete.) This has more to do with avoiding articles that are too long, and how we deal with that policy. There's much to be said for applying the same policy on that for all languages; without that the links between other languages could become too complicated.
On translations I fully understand that this is not as easy a task as it first appears to be. We need to search for a format that will encourage this. Shorter, rather than longer, pages will help. As I've said befor, I like the two column German/Italian Divine Comedy pages. If anchors can be built in to this kind of page it could be an encouragement to translate short passages without feeling an obligation to do everything.
I agree that the copyright situation will be easy for most authors: all in or all out. There are still some for whom the question is not easy at all because of the variations in copyright law from one country to the next. U. S. law in particular is very difficult on this. They are moving to the life plus seventy orinciple, but it will be another half-century before that is fully in place. Eclecticology 00:17, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Hey, Ec, good to hear from you! For your information, I'm Central Standard time zone, right in the very middle of the US (right in Missouri). I agree that the "Main author" thing is ugly--it's actually very hideous, to say the truth. But at least it got us doing something in terms of naming conventions, so it served it's purpose in that regard. Zhaladshar 00:34, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I too like the two-column format for translations. however, I think the original text should not be duplicated in as many files as there are translations, because errors/typos will be difficult to deal with. ideally, the second-column should be automaticaly generated from the original file, and there would be a button to show/hide the original version. hum, maybe that too is a bit too far fetched? --ThomasV 10:35, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Valid points. We have some interesting challenges ahead. Eclecticology 11:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Suggestion for a naming convention[edit]

I propose to drop the 'Author', 'Autor','Auteur' prefixes, because there are collisions ('Autor' is both spanish and german).

[[Karl Marx]] for the main author page
[[Karl Marx - fr]]
[[Karl Marx - de]] for localized versions
[[Karl Marx - en]]
[[Karl Marx - it]]

if a book has the title 'Karl Marx', then we can call the corresponding page page [[Karl Marx - authorname]], or [[Karl Marx (authorname)]]. Note that this convention is already used in some places, such as Les Confessions (Rousseau) and Les Confessions (Augustin) --ThomasV 23:21, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I like the idea of just using the author's name as the main author page. I've actually been quietly wanting this for quite some time, for the fact that people who come here looking for an author's page would not necessarily know our naming conventions and would not be taken to the author's page by simply typing in "Karl Marx"--that would seem absurd to him. Since it's very rare that a work will exactly match the author's name, we can just do what you suggested--something like Karl Marx (Author of the work) and leave it at that. It's similar to other disambiguation pages we have currently (like for the title The Raven, which is both a Grimm fairy tale and Poe's famous poem). In terms of the suggestions for localized versions, I don't think they are very aesthetic. I suggest something like Karl Marx (Deutsch) and Karl Marx (Italiano) instead. Of course, I am still in favor of using namespaces, but of course we have seen where they are causing problems with languages using the same word for "Author." Zhaladshar 00:41, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It seems that Thomas and I were developing our ideas at the same time because I had an edit conflict when I went to post.:-) Assuming that we go with your idea I think that the format [[Karl Marx/fr]] would be more appropriate. This might be more in keeping with what I have been trying to do develop a consistent use of punctuation in titles. For the author name matter, I clearly support the parenthesis.
For me the advantage with some kind of prefix in the author page title is that it allows a search function to generate a complete list.
In a more speculative mood I wonder whether the Main author page could be structured in such a way as to allow the automatic generation of any language specific subpage.... or is this a little too far out? Eclecticology 00:52, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by structuring the author page to allow an automatic generation of any language subpage. How could this be done? It sounds interesting, but I don't really know what you're proposing. Zhaladshar 01:01, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
That last bit may have been a bit of pure wishful thinking, because the technicalities are way beyond my capacities. What I was imagining was a main author page where an instruction would take the relevant material from a chosen language and merge them with a pre formatted template for that language. Eclecticology 10:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I am not sure what you mean with 'using a search function to generate a complete list'. do you refer to the search function built into the interface, or to some shell/php commands? if you mean the search box, just typing 'author' in it is a bad idea, because it will return all pages that contain the word 'author', not only author pages. if you mean shell or php commands, I agree that it is easier to deal with prefixes than suffixes. So maybe something like [[fr/Karl Marx]] , or [[fr - Karl Marx]] would better suit your needs. I find 2-letter countyr codes better than using homonyms like 'Verfasser', because homonyms are not all equal, and it seems that some languages would be priviledged in the choice. another point is that country codes take less letters in the title, so the relevant information (i.e. 'Karl Marx' for that matter) is more visible.
Concerning the automatic generation of author pages, I think it is a great idea. Note that the templates we use so far are a first step in this direction. Generating the whole localized author page (list of works, list of links to other languages) would be even better, because it would ensure that these lists are up-to-date. However, templates will not allow us to do more elaborate things than we do now. In order to completely generate an author page, I think we would need to use php, or some scripting language, like perl or python (which supposes shell access). However, it should be done in a way that it is not too difficult for a newcomer to add a new work...
--ThomasV 10:21, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
The search function in the existing interface does give us the list in the title search section, but unfortunately it's an unsorted list with currently 311 items. The list of everything that begins with "Author" is also grouped together in the all pages function. The synonyms were just one possibility; I was reasonably confident that "Escritor" would work, but I wasn't so sure for "Verfasser". Are you sure that you meant "country" codes in your suggestion? Having both country and language codes in the same project could be a source of major confusion.
I find that beginning with a two letter code looks ugly too, though it is certainly shorter. It has other problems too. It would open up the question about whether article titles should be allowed to start with a lower case letter. (That was a tough argument in Wiktionary.) Also, not all languages have a two letter code. Some languages have more than one script. The important thing about these pages is that they are about the writers who are represented here. Perhaps a whole new namespace is necessary with a relatively more language neutral name than the current "Author". Maybe even using "scriptor" to coincide with our scriptorium, and having both a main page and a series of sub-pages in a manner similar to what you said before: [[Scriptor:Karl Marx]] for the principal author page with [[Scriptor:Karl Marx/fr]] for the French page. etc.
My grander idea may need to wait until we have a developer who wants to commit himself exclusively to Wikisource.
Some of the templates that you have devised may be steps in the right direction, and they look great, but I do have concern about the general understandability of the syntax. The interlanguage linking templates are designed for a fixed number of languages. How easy will it be for a newcomer to ad a reference to an additional language? Eclecticology 11:43, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Using [[Karl Marx]] for the main author page has other advantages than just simplicity. I think it will be good to use a namespace that is consistent with other wikimedia projects (wikiquote, wikipedia), because it will make things easier for them if they want to create links to wikisource author pages, whether manually or automatically. just as it is easy for us to link to them.
concerning author templates, I agree that newcomers might have difficulties to use them. I will add comments to describe what the parameters are doing. Note that the current system does not enforce the use of templates: a newcomer can add an author page in the traditional way. later someone might decide to convert the page to the template format. the advantage of using a template is that if we decide to change the formatting of author pages, there is one single file to change.
re 'country' codes: of course, I meant language codes, i.e. the codes that are already used in wikipedia.
--ThomasV 12:47, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)


It's conceivable that I may interpret the term "sockpuppet" differently. Essentially I see it as a person who participates is a vote without otherwise doing anything else. Nothing was intended to suggest that his own vote was sockpuppetry, or that he had personally cast additional votes to the one to which he was entitled. What I said was that his promotion of his position in other venues had the effect of "recruiting" others to act as sockpuppets. Enough said of this.

Look, Ec, everyone I was in contact with (Germans, Maio, and Yann even though I knew he supported your position, but he is a serious contributor whose comments I wanted) are contributors worthy of respect. There was nothing at all wrong with being in contact with them or anyone else. (You yourself, needless to say, did the same or more.) As far as the people with 0 contributions – they were outsiders who became interested in the debate and responded by requesting domains that they could participate in confortably. I never had any contact with any of them, but I certainly don’t consider such people "sockpuppets." That in itself is part of the deep disagreement between us: When monolingual users come and ask for domains, do we respect their request as part of our commitment to multilingualism and language support? Or do we disqualify their votes and even call them "sockpuppets." This was a vote between insiders and outsiders. Your approach was to delegitimize the outsiders. And now I will emulate your worthy declaration, namely: "Enough said of this." No more on the personal level. Dovi 01:39, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Mi opinión[edit]

Voy a usar español en esta discusión a pesar de que podría hacerlo en inglés, sólo para ver como mi comentario es ignorado por la mayoría de la gente porque no hablan español o lo que es equivalente, mi comentario y mi opinión son de segunda categoría porque no son en inglés. Para ejemplo un botón: el comentario en el Scriptorium "中文古典诗词评注计划" ha sido completamente ignorado.

Veamos, ¿resulta que ahora merece la pena hacer dominios independientes porque la mayoría de las contribuciones no son en inglés? Vaya, mientras los demás tuvieron ese problema parece que importaba un bledo, ahora que lo tenéis vosotros, los anglófonos, es importante... ¿Aun os preguntáis porque la gente quiere dominios en su propia lengua?

Para los que no quieran dominios, les sugiero que se pasen por la wikipedia china e intenten contribuir allí. Porque lo de la traducción de la máscara está bien, pero para llegar allí tienes que saber inglés (para inscribirte) ¿y eso como lo haces? Y las pestañas siguen diciendo "edit", "history", "move"... Cosa que evidentemente a los que saben inglés les parece fácil, pero a un árabe o a un coreano le puede representar una barrera considerable. Eso, por no hablar de la consulta, que la gente que consulta no tiene máscara en ningún idioma mas que en inglés. ¿Así pensáis animar a la gente a que contribuya? ¿En un proyecto en el que no pueden leer la información? Pues vamos aviados...

Realmente la actitud de alguna gente es graciosa: si no contribuyes tu opinión no es valiosa, pero para contribuir tienes que dominar el inglés, pero si dominas el inglés, resulta que ya hay grandes posibilidades de que tu opinión sea la de los que ya están "dentro", es decir, no a los dominios. Es una manera estupenda de censura a través del lenguaje. Vamos a dejar votar sólo a los que probablemente opinen como yo.

Finalmente, yo tenía pensado hacer algunas pequeñas contribuciones, nada espectacular, cosillas que podrían enriquecer el proyecto. Pero viendo que aquí o te adaptas a la lengua del imperio (factor importante, no olvidemos que una lengua es su cultura) o pereces (sólo hay que ver esta página: 99% de los comentarios en inglés; ¿y aquí me tengo que sentir cómodo?; si eso no es discriminación, que baje San Pedro y lo vea), pues no me apetece mucho. Hace falta ser insensible a los problemas y aspiraciones de los demás para actuar así. Sólo falta decir, el juego es mío y si quieres jugar tiene que ser con mis reglas,... no me sorprende que la EL se separara.

Asi que, que os vaya bien y os deseo mucha suerte. Hasta nunca.-- 21:18, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

No soy el autor del anterior mensaje, pero le apoyo
No sólo es eso lo problemático, ya que si sales acabas en páginas de otos idiomas, lo mismo que en página aleatoria o cambios recientes, lo que desorienta a los nuevos. Ya puede ser complicado por la longitud el nombrar los artículos y las coincidencias con otras lenguas lo dificultan más. Un dominio independiente para cada idioma empujaría a las páginas pequeñas.
Please, Translate it--FAR 10:55, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I am sorry that I cannot answer to you in Spanish. I fully agree with, on the fact that the current system is discriminatory. If you want to make things change, please log in and vote! --ThomasV 10:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Setting up a language subdomain[edit]

One of my main concerns was that once we create a subdomain (or any other language domain), we would need to move pages over there manually. Doing this would not only be a pain in the ass, but it would also mean losing the history information that is attached to each page. However, histories are of crucial importance to this project, because they are often the only way to detect vandalism. (for example, when only two letters are changed in a whole book). I think we better preserve that information. I just had a discussion with TimStarling about this. It seems that it will be technically possible to copy the whole wikisource database into, and then to delete what is not needed there. If we proceed this way, we'll be able to preserve history information. --ThomasV 14:59, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In Spanish wikipedia Comae suggested there was a possibility to export and import pages with the histories. I´ll ask more about this posibility
Cheers (and excuse my English)--FAR 18:52, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I asked the question about different language sub-domain and was told that having a single domain for all languages is better.
Advantages of Single Domain:
1) Can search for a word in all languages
2) A tool to read the search results from different languages in my language can be developed for e.g.
3) "Translation in real time" script can be added to wikisource so that language will not be an issue.
1) Can not restrict my search, googling "something" is better.
2) It's almost impossible to watch the sources being added to a language for e.g. Sanskrit.
If I want to know what has changed on the Sanskrit wikisource, I can't subscribe to recent changes RSS feed (since the feed will contain all languages!)
shantanuo 27 October 2005