Index talk:Egyptian Literature (1901).djvu

Author

@Xover: I don't think that The Colonial Press can reasonably be considered the "author" of this volume; do you have any objection to simply leaving the author field blank? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:07, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: No, not at all. The publisher is clearly not the author here. What was going through my mind was more like a corporate-author editor since the work itself doesn't specify a physical person that edited it. For the individual texts we can give the translator, which maybe makes leaving the author blank on the overall work less likely to bug my obsessive streak so much. :) --Xover (talk) 06:17, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Annotations

@Xover: I see that you added annotations to Page:Egyptian Literature (1901).djvu/11 in the form of links to Wikipedia. I have removed them based on the consensus documented at WS:ANN, since the text is not identified as a user-annotated edition, and no clean version of this volume exists elsewhere on Wikisource. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:28, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Thank you, "but…"—and far be it from me to be too assertive on such an issue—have not light linking to author pages, named works, wiktionary, and wikipedia (i.e. WS:Links) always been exempted from the Annotation policy? --Xover (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Links to author pages and other works on Wikisource are basic wikilinks and do not count as annotations; for this reason they can be added to the "clean" unannotated copy without issue. Links to sister projects like Wikipedia and Wiktionary are acceptable wikilinks in a user-annotated copy, but are not exempt from WS:ANN ("Wikilinks within the body of a text are considered to be annotations" but "basic wikilinks do not count as annotations" per WS:Links). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Then the policy is written very confusingly (i.e. Links to Wikimedia-project pages are acceptable.). Nor does it reflect the discussions that led up to the policy being written: there was broad support for linking to sister projects (wikt and enwp, mainly), with the line of separation being "interpretive" vs. "non-interpretive". --Xover (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: agreed, it is written confusingly. Also it is possible that the community consensus has changed since those discussions; I am pretty sure the current consensus is as I outlined above (WS links are acceptable always, other wikilinks are acceptable in annotated editions only) but that might be based entirely on the policy in question —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:30, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: In any case, thanks for correcting me on this point. I'll have to mull this state of affairs over a bit. I'm thinking I may poll WS:S a bit on whether this is an issue worth revisiting, if for no other reason then to make the policy clearer (and get rid of the infinite "proposed policy" tag on WS:ANN). --Xover (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2019 (UTC)