Wikisource talk:Namespaces

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

New namespace: Author?[edit]

Authors:? Authors:Ben Johnson, Authors:Poetry, etc etc. --Maio 08:20, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think that I could support the main idea here. The current Wikisource:Authors and the alphabetical pages that derive from it could continue as indexing pages for these. Using the word "Authors" alone for the namespace seems preferable to using the longer "Wikisource Authors:xxx". We can start using the format at anytime even if it is not yet formally recognized as a namespace.
I do have a complaint about Authors:Poetry. This parallels the "List of ..." pages that are sometimes a source of controversy in Wikipedia. Many of these genre pages could be very long, and do not account for the fact that many poets also wrote in other genres. This is partly why I prefer a primary linking from author pages directly. The other use for the individual author pages will be to give a list of works by the person, even when we don't have all the texts in our database. Eclecticology 08:42, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)
These type of lists may be controversial at Wikipedia because they are inappropiate for enciclopedias, but for Wikisource they are a must. The pages could be subdivided by the first letter of each author. Check out Wikisource:Short Stories for a similar idea. For example, Ben Jonson would be listed in Authors:J and at the same time in Wikisource:Poetry by author:J, but only his poetry works would be listed in the latter. --Maio 04:08, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Actually, now that I think it over in-depth, there is no need to list the authors' name on each "by author" subpage. Their name is suffice to point the user to the author's works. --Maio 05:06, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I think that most of this will fall into place over time. We may have different visons, but on this they will likely lead to the same place. What I would like to see co-ordinated at this point is for the individual author pages. do we go with the title Wikisource:Authors:Ben Jonson or simply Author:Ben Johnson? Eclecticology 07:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Author:Ben Jonson will suffice. About Authors: — I thought more about it and it is really unnecessary. For example, Wikisource:Authors of Poetry, Wikisource:Authors starting with J, Wikisource:Authors of Poetry starting with J, etc. will suffice what we may need in the future. --Maio 21:40, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Good! The namespace "Author:" (in the singular) it is. I will move any individual author page to that format when the occasion arises. New author pages will also follow that format. I would also be inclined to set them up for those authors that are on the varios Wikisource:Authors alphabetical pages, but I would give low priority to those authors that are now represented by only a single work. I do intend to continue using pages like Wikisource:Authors-J for developing master author lists. This is still different from your approach, but I think that we can proceed in parallel without stepping on each other's toes.

Namespaces in a multilingual environment[edit]

In addition to "Authors:" we need to consider the sensitivities to our contributors in other languages. On the one hand it is far more efficient to have only one word for a namespace, but I can see that some users may feel offended by having all the namespaces in English. Is it possible to have the software make the namespaces appear in whatever language the user wants?

This came up when I was looking to clean up orphan pages and ran into Usator:Novus. He is from Spain, but contributes in Interlingua. My first thought was that it should be User:Novus, but hesitated when I realized that there was a bigger problem. I can read Spanish reasonably well but do not have enough of a command to get into a meaningful conversation. I don't know if he understands English. Maio may be in a better position to sound out his views. Eclecticology 02:36, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I would like to know what happens when two pages are called the same, but are in different languages. Example: Wikisource:Auteurs, which is the current French page, but it would be the same in Dutch (and probably other languages too). Is there currently a way to differentiate when linking, similar to wikipedia? (fr:wikisource:auteurs versus nl:wikisource:auteurs) nl:Gebruiker:QapIn

This kind of question has to be the subject of agreement by many people. There are two opposing tendencies in a multilingual environment like this. An all one language structural environment (most likely English) has the clear advantage of being more efficient. Organizing these structures to respect a wide variety of languages is a very complicated and grossly inefficient challenge, but doing it right would make this a project to be envied. The irony is that when you ask speakers of the dominant language group to make such decisions you are undermining your own rights and powers. I hope that that statement din not sound too much like a flame. :-( I think that in an all languages in one project Wikisource:auteurs (nl). This format would only be applied only when disambiguation is required. The format that you suggest would likely be more appropriate if we were establishing separate wikisources for each language. Eclecticology 21:03, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I'm more than happy with creating a page like Wikisource:auteurs (nl). There is indeed no need to make it nl:wikisource:authors. It's just that I see my link go to a page that does not speak the same language as the referring page. That in itself is fine, but I needed to know how the general idea of WikiSource was. It's weird if you link a say russian borrowword and end up on a russian page because of it, that's my only concern. nl:Gebruiker:QapIn
No worry about flaming.

And while I'm at it (although this might be something better discussed elsewhere): is there a way to set up a user account for all wikipedia.org projects, so that one does not have to create a separate page for every project?

What many people do for this is set up one user page for this, and use redirects on the other projects which they edit. Personally, although I can see the advantages of a single user page, I at least prefer to have separate user talk pages. That way it is easier to know what project is being discussed. Eclecticology 21:03, 15 Feb 2004 (UTC)
I do like the link-idea, as I don't mind mixing wikipedia with wikisource. I will however try to keep as many user pages as languages I cooperate in projects with or make the one I have bi- tri- or multilingual... nl:Gebruiker:QapIn

New namespace - Country:XXX or State:XXX?[edit]

Due to the ongoing discussion amongst some users about country pages, let me suggest the use of the namespace Country:XXX or State:XXX for those pages. State:XXX is perhaps the most general. These pages are, as I understand it, intented to be listings of sources relevant to any country/state, and there are arguments against making those pages in the author namespace (states are not "real" authors) as well as without a namespace (they are not sources). Making short informative titles for such pages in the Wikisource namespace may be difficult. --Christian S 11:40, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I think that this is the best solution. I'm not too fussed either way though, whether country or state is used. Ambivalenthysteria 11:48, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I'm not sure the term "country" is applicable to for example the individual U.S. states, but country pages could be relevant for those as well. On the other hand, "state" is applicable both to independent countries and states as well as non-independent states in a union. That's why I see State:XXX as the most general namespace. --Christian S 12:22, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
Yeah, I think you're right. Could be a little vague, but avoids potential issues down the track. Ambivalenthysteria 12:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
What about corporations, churches and other 'Corporate Authors?' Further wouldn't a page lising all documents concerned with (say) the American Civil War be useful? Perhaps a classification called ((ABOUT:XXXX)) would be the best way to handle it. [[PaulinSaudi 12:58, 20 May 2004 (UTC)]]
You've got a point there. I think Subject:XXX would be a good possibility (I personally like it better than About:XXX). --Christian S 13:37, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I too like the "About:" name space, its far more flexible. eg: About:Child Poverty. or maybe About:Little gnomes that control the world in their underground firery layers. ok maybe not that one but you get the idea. :-) -fonzy

The Wikipedia crowd has been favoring "Category:" but there's no reason or obligation to use the same term. Perhaps it's better if our term is distinct from theirs. As between "About:" and "Subject:" I do favour "Subject:" because a noun says more, and it has more kinship to the Subject Classifications in a library. Is there a better term still that could be accepted across all languages.
The debate in Wikipedia, in Meta and on the mailing lista has been going on for about a year. It has been characterized by a recognition that the wheel was such a great invention as to merit frequent rediscovery. I can appreciate Paul's first effort with "Country:" or "State:", but we really need to think further ahead than that.
We need to remember too that Wikisource is a single multilingual project. If we go ahead and set up a series of English language subjects that process will need to be repeated for each language that we wish to serve. A search in a coded classification system can give us a list of all relevant articles without regard to the language of their texts. Eclecticology 20:56, 20 May 2004 (UTC)
I think the idea having a Subject namespace isn't bad. It's probably wiser to go for a broader option than State. Ambivalenthysteria 00:00, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
Thank you for your kind words E. Are we reaching consensus at this point? If so, when and how should we act? I am standing by to do the work once we have made a decision. [[PaulinSaudi 04:56, 21 May 2004 (UTC)]]
A coded classification system would be best. One possible way to build up this system could be pages named "namespace:code" with a multilingual header in the text stating what the subject is in multiple languages. This would require a list of subject codes, probably one for each language. This way only one subject page per subject would need maintainance, along with one list of subject codes per language. This leaves us to the problem of finding a namespace for these pages acceptable to all languages. --Christian S 11:18, 21 May 2004 (UTC)
I must admit that I do not understand the technicalities of this. It seems to me a page entitled ((XXX)) is just as useful as one labeled ((ABOUT:XXX)) or ((SUBJECT:XXX)). This 'namespace' stuff is mystery to me. [[PaulinSaudi 13:48, 21 May 2004 (UTC)]]
For more about namespaces see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Namespace What we are talking about is more in the nature of pseudo-namespaces. Eclecticology 21:26, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

I think we are on the verge of various consensuses about the [pseudo-]namespaces. If I'm completely off base I'm sure you will all be quick to let me know.

  1. The [Author:] namespace functions in a manner similar to an author listing in a library catalog, and should continue to be used in that way.
    It remains to be determined if that English word can be used for all such spaces for all languages. Can the structure of an author page be put in a sufficiently generic style as to obviate the need for corresponding pages in other languages?
  2. The [Subject:] namespace functions in a manner similar to the subject catalog of a library. Aside from the word "subject" itself which should be made standard, the available titles are very much language dependent, but this does not prevent them from listing items in other languages.
    Is this the work that Paul is looking for?
  3. The [Class:] namespace functions in a manner similar to the Library of Congress or Dewey Decimal classification of books. A defined class should apply to all applicable articles without regard to the language of the article.
    Even if we all agree to the principle the [Class:] namespace is not quite implementation ready. How do we allow for multiple overlapping classification systems in a way that recognizes the system to which any given piece of code belongs? I believe that both the LC and DD systems should be available for us, and so too should other systems used in other countries.
  4. The manual production of lists in any of the three areas above is not particularly efficient. Scalability to an automated search should be a design criterion; author, subject and class metadata should be an integral part of any article. The previously proposed info-boxes may be a good medium for implementing the orderly application of these measures.

I think that Wikisource is small enough to allow this sort of thing to be developed with relative ease. It will then be easier to tell developers exactly what we want the software to do. For Wikipedia, with over a quarter million articles to be adapted, the task is daunting. Eclecticology 22:57, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

The suggestions of E looks fine. About the [class:] namespace: the easiest way to tell the classification systems apart would probably be the use of "pre-codes" for the classification systems, something along the lines of LC-XXX for LC classification codes and DD-XXX for the DD classification codes. If several classification systems are to be implemented, will the texts then need to be classified with respect to all classification systems, or just one of them? In any case a set of classification guidelines would be nessesary (I for one is not familiar with the LC and DD classification systems). --Christian S 11:38, 22 May 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. Do we agree to the format [Class:LC-XXX]? If so I can begin a Wikisource:Classification systems page to start the development of pre-codes. The DD and LC systems are well known in the ISA and Canada where the LC system is mostly used by university libraries and the DD by public libraries. What European standards are there for such classifications? Ideally every article should be classified under all the systems, but that's not realistic at all. We'll end up with as much classification as people are willing to do; no-one should ever be faulted for failing to add classification numbers.
There is still the issue of infoboxes. See above for one that was designed for the Communist Manifesto, and see also The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn for examples. Just how much can go in these remains an open question, but we should be flexible. Does anyone want to develop an easy to use template? I think I've already created more than enough work for myself with the classifications. Eclecticology 19:21, 22 May 2004 (UTC)