Is this list intended to have all authors and all texts, or only authors of English texts? Yann 19:52, 1 Dec 2003 (UTC)
My intention in setting it up was to have it for all personal authors in any language. This could include the huge output by Anonymous. There are some things that could be indexed from separate Wikisource pages: Treaties, Laws and other Official documents could go together. Election data and Mathematical data could form two additional top level categories. We will probably also need a miscellaneous category for those things that don't fit anywhere like the Euro-Song entries, but categories could be split of from that later when we have a better grasp of the kind of things that are appearing. A smaller number of top level categories is likely preferable if we are to achieve anything resembling foolproof. Knowing where to put something has to be obvious.
I've also been encouraging the following the following format for entries
- work 1 in original language
- translation A
- sub-translation A1
- translation B
- translation A
- work 1 in original language
Your French translation of Gandhi's Unto This Last would qualify as a sub-translation if you translated it from the English rather than directly from the original Gujarati. Eclecticology 04:50, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
Shouldn't this index be in the "article" namespace? This seems like something that would be needed (or at least very useful) by any downstream user of our content. Thus it is not meta text concerning the project itself, but index information concerning the content. --Maveric149 06:23, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- I don't feel strongly one way or the other about that. I was putting more attention on trying to develop a working master index, and anticipating issues related to a multilingual environment. I think an argument can be made for either side as to whether indexing material is text or meta text. I admittedly lean slightly toward the view that since indexes are organizational structures they are more characteristic of meta material. Then the "Wiki is not paper" argument leaves me asking whether it matters at all. So if you feel that these should be adjusted at a namespace level, I won't oppose it. I know from experience that you would do so without creating a bundle of broken links.
- As I say, I tend to think things through as I work on them. I can easily see the authors top level index as something that could be converted to another language by substituting a different introductory paragraph, and changing the codes for links to author biographies in Wikipedia. It would be nice if this could be done automatically in a way that insures that if some one adds a link to any language's master index, there will be a corresponding change tn all the functioning languages.
- Other kinds of indexing can wait until we have a functioning categorization scheme that lets a contributor enter anything into a category box, and then later be able to use a working search function to list all category boxes that have that entry. Wiktionary has developed a large assortment of half-baked assortment indexes that are often abandoned by their creators once they're bored. It's a bit like having a huge stack of almost empty computer hardware boxes in the corner, each one of them containing a cable, a switch, or a driver disk that you might need in a year or two. Eclecticology 08:18, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Is it already available on-line? Eclecticology 02:24, 10 Dec 2003 (UTC)
I have a proposition. Can the author entries be listed "last-name-first"? So instead of Author:Edwin Abbott Abbott it would be "Abbott, Edwin Abbott". No article titles would be changed, just how they are listed. I figured it would be a good idea to check here first before going ahead and doing it! :) Supadawg 8:10 PM, 27 Apr 2004
- I can understand the usual rationale for what you propose. It's always done that way on paper. But Wiki isn't paper so we are not bound by that. Nevertheless, I suppose that if I had been involved in Wikipedia at the very beginning I might have argued as you have done. Now, for Wikisource, the strongest argument for the way it is currently being done is co-ordination with Wikipedia so that the links can work more smoothly. Eclecticology 04:39, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)
I would like to suggest a new standard format, using a definition list instead of a bulleted list for the first level. As the page is now formatted, it looks much too "busy" to easily scan over with the eye. Also, most entries simply refer the reader to a separate author page. I agree with the poster (above) that last names should be first because that is how they are sorted, but I could go either way with that. The format I would suggest using could be either of the following two:
|Option A:||Option B (preferred):|
You may notice that the 2nd example is linked to the author's page (if available) by clicking on the author's name. Because the author's page should probably include any available biographic links, it is duplicating effort to try to fit them in on this page. (The original formatting of the examples is shown below for comparison.) Moverton 02:18, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Although I have promoted the existing style since the beginning, I was actually beginning to think about changing it to what you suggest. If you do it it saves me work. :-) The bulleted vs. definition style is not an issue. I've been adjusting entries as author pages are created, but that too can continue with your proposal. Eclecticology 07:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
I support option B. As it is now, I have several times ended up with a 'pedia page by clicking the name when what I really wanted was the author page... option B will in time, if author pages are created for all authors, put an end to that little irritation:-) Christian S 19:01, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)
- It looks like we have a mini consensus. I will be out of town until next week, but would be happy to do the editing on these pages after I get back. Moverton 22:50, 30 Jun 2004 (UTC)