Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2005-04

Picture

I was just wondering if there's any particular reason why such a bad digitally made image [1] is in the top left of this page.

has been changed to a wikipedia image: original here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iceberg.jpg

Early discussions

What does 'source texts' mean? If there is a text in English originally, and there is a Chinese translation version too (like the Declaration of Independence), can/should I put that in Chinese wikisource? (which will mean that all languages source can be translated into Chinese and store here?) or just store one copy of the original one in the correct language version? (which means i can't put any source translated from other languages?) --Samuel 16:07, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

IF the translation is in the public domain it can be put here, but there are many translations of public domain works which are not themselves in the public domain. In English there are many translations of the Tao Te Ching which is an ancient document entirely within the public domain, yet many translations of it are copyrighted as the work of the translators. Kalki 16:29, 26 Nov 2003 (UTC)

got it. as long as the text is released under the public domain or GFDL, and it can be put here, right? --Samuel 04:45, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Village pump

Should we create a page like Wikipedia:Village pump here? so that we can discuss there. Does anyone know the namespace here? it's Wikipeida:Village pump or Wikisource:Village pump? --Samuel 18:38, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It would be Project Sourceberg:Village pump. Of course the namespace has to be changed, when someone has the time... ;o) Yann 19:24, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Edit conflict - I wrote nearly exactly that! I'm not sure if "village pump" is a good idea though. Does that term make much sense internationally? Meta now uses "Babel", Wiktionary has a "beer garden", a number of Wikipedias have a "cafe" and Simple English has "Simple talk". So, what would be the best name here? Angela 19:26, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I support the concept, but agree with Angela that we need a more imaginative name than Village pump, which is already used on en:wikipedia and wikiquotes. Wiktionary has both a "Beer parlour" and "Tea room"; Wikibooks has a "Staff lounge". My first though was "Water cooler". I also thought of the phrase "In the stacks", the reference being to where things are stored in a library. My most recent idea has been "Scriptorium" which the Catholic Encyclopedia defines as "commonly a large room set apart in a monastery for the use of the scribes or copyists of the community." There are other possibilities. Eclecticology 21:08, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree, I just take that for example, to demonstrate that we should have a place like that, and then we don't need to go back to wikipedia and discuss what should be discussed here! Whatever it's called, you guys have to figure it out, 'cause my English is limited. --Samuel 02:18, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I agree too. For me Project Sourceberg:Babel would be fine. Utimately we will also need one for each language I think. Samuel: And it is just because English is not your mother tongue that your opinion is interesting. What name will you be confortable with? Yann 12:24, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I don't know, i am not good at naming. In Chinese Wikipedia, we call that hu zhu kezhan (The Inn of Mutual Aids). about "Babel", isn't that a noisy place? :0), sounds good. I think we also need a place for discussions of the whole Wikisource (just like what meta-wikipedia does, mainly in English). It's okay to create a separate page for each language too. Anyway, we need a place to discuss this issue first! :oD --Samuel 12:56, 29 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Sysops

At Meta, anyone who is a sysop at another Wikipedia can become one at Meta just by asking Brion and without going through the procedures of applying and obtaining support in the way that happens at the English Wikipedia. Are there any objections to doing that here too? Or would a Project Sourceberg:Requests for adminship page be a good idea even at this early stage? Angela 19:26, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure if it's too early or not. Just asking. :) --Samuel 02:24, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

It's too early to tell which person has got the experience or not. So we can only directly convert WP sysop to WS sysop for the time being. --Menchi 07:02, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Parenting Subpages To Projects?

I've just started the Quattrocento Minor Characters Project page on the English page: I think it would be really good if I could somehow "parent" its (numerous) subpages within this Project to the main Project page. Upshot - it would be nice if pages within a certain project could have a top line that links to the project name <Project Name>, as well as to the Main Page. The alternative (which I'm doing ATM) would be to place a link back to the project main page within each subpage's text... but this is clunky in a different way. Comments? --Nick Pelling 15:32, 2 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Links to sister projects

Hi,

The links to Wiktionary | Wikibooks | Wikiquote are not language neutral. ;o) How to change that? Yann 14:24, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

tough one. :p --Samuel 14:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Wikibooks at least will probably always be one wiki, thus only one link syntax is needed. When Wiktionary, for example, gets internationalized it's different versions will be reachable through this syntax: Wiktionary:fr:entry name. In-line Wikipedia and Wikiquote links will be the same. In the meantime we should not be using en: and fr: type links but instead we should be using more explicit Wikipedia:en: and Wikipedia:fr: type links. --Maveric149 18:37, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

My apologies, I've perhaps been the big violator of that approach. Now that I look at it I realize that it will only work as long as Wikisource is a sub-project of Wikipedia. For ease of linking, what are the chances that we could use 2-letter "w" codes for the projects? In ISO 639-1 only "wa" and "wo" are currently occupied. Eclecticology 20:32, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I suggested that on Wikitech-l a while ago but Brion wasn't too keen on the idea. I'm sure he'll either change his mind or somebody else will do it. I proposed these two letter codes: wp for Wikipedia, wb for Wikibooks, wq for Wikiquote, wt for Wikitravel, wd for Wiktionary and ws for Wikisource. Of course the full names would work as well. --mav

It might be a little early to answer that. Before it can happen I think that each needs to develop its own policy on multiple languages. Wikibooks looks as though it will keep all languages on one project. Wiktionary is on the verge of launching other language dictionaries, which wiil need to develop their own interconnectedness. I don't really participate in Wikiquote, so I can't comment about that one.

Problem

Why can't i see the border in Opera? --Samuel 14:33, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Language Co-ordination

At this point there are 10 individual language main pages, and that number can only go up. Without a careful approach to co-ordination while the project is still small it could quickly become chaotic. Any attempt to co-ordinate these pages must be useful, but it must also respect the views of each language community. I have done some work on the English Main Page which I hope can serve as a model. This proceeds from the three box approach to language main pages that has already developed. The top box area would be mostly introductory material and would continue under the editorial control of speakers of that language. Similarly the lower right box which in the English I have labelled "Secondary Indexing" would also continue under a similar editorial control. This means that those involved could develop whatever indexes they want to put there, or they could even use it in a way that has nothing to do with indexing.

This leaves the lower left box as the one for primary categorization, and this is where we would all benefit from a high degree of co-ordination. I have grouped the categories based on some simple questions that should be considered in order, and finishing with a "none-of-the-above" default category. Can there be a consensus to applying this model in translation for other languages? Can there also be consensus that pages derived from this one should also be co-ordinated? The derived pages which could include several generations would be the primary place for linking the works included in Wikisource. Perhaps they could also have a co-ordinted light violet background colour to emphasize their importance. Comments? Eclecticology 19:04, 4 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am not sure I got all your points here. My opinion is that if there's a good, logical main page layout, I use it and translate it; that's probably logical and doesn't need much coordination. So I can get your Main Page:EN and translate it since I don't completely like the actual one of HU.

I can't ask for anything more. I would be satisfied with a co-ordinated left (violet) box. Others feel it's important for the top introductory boxes to be co-ordinated, but I can live without that. I believe that each language needs to maintain its own control over the right (green) box.

What I don't really see yet is the way you imagine coordination, and where do you mean it.

I see co-ordination as a way for articles in any languge to be available to readers from all languages.

Once I translated the main page I probably won't do it again every month.

That's fine.

If the structure doesn't get changed then the subcategories are coordinated. Then I believe you meant that those subcats should look the same? Well, for me it became obvious when I started to fill the HU.Wikipedia, since most of our material come from en.wikipedia, so our structure is not dissimilar to it.

We had to start somewhere, but I'm sure that there have been Hungarian writers that can and should be represented.

Therefore I will probably copy the EN first level subcats if they happen to exist and get harmonised and mastered to the gods' tastes. If your wish was to ask people to do what I would do anyway it could be communicated. Since I think it's pretty logical I see no probability of great objections.

Great! Yann appears to have gone ahead in FR without being asked. I've started by talking with people who appear more receptive to the idea. I'd like to see if any bugs appear before I make too broad a push.

I cannot comment on the current layout of EN, though. You remember, I still need clarification about the project. :) --grin 08:21, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Groan! More wor for me. :) Eclecticology 20:52, 8 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You can't cheat me! I see you're enjoying it. ;-> --grin 10:23, 9 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Language domains

I am extremely unhappy with the multilingual situation I see developing on this site. Wikipedia has separate domains for each language, and I see no reason why the same should not apply to the other projects. Having only one English domain means one English interface, and that is simply unacceptable. Similar situations are present at Wikibooks and the Meta, as well as the frankly ridiculous list of empty multilingual links at the bottom of Wiktionary's front page. We have to start somewhere, as things could get very messy with so many languages on the same wiki, so can we please organise other language domains here before it gets bad? -- Gabriel Beecham 13:43, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

This will let you know that I intend to resist the fragmentation of Wikisource into separate domains. I agree that the situation which you describe for Wiktionary verges on the ridiculous, but until people like you who have a passion for a separate Wiktionary in another language actually do the work of setting these things up, we have no choice but to let it stay that way. If you feel that their should be an Esperanto Wiktionary, then go ahead and set it up. This project is fundamentally different. Eclecticology 20:01, 13 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The only real reason to have different wikis for every language is to prevent rampant naming conflicts in projects that are heavily internally linked (like Wikipedia and Wiktionary). Since source texts can be easily disambiguated and since internal linking is not as important, we can easily deal with having one wiki. Of course MediaWiki needs multilanguage support (this is in fact a planned feature) but that current deficit is not a reason to fragment a project that otherwise does not need it. By having one wiki anyone can set-up a new language version without having to even tell a developer. What could be more wiki than that? --Maveric149 04:07, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I am still not sure how to set up the whole thing. Separate language would be the easiest on the short term, but it would be a waste of resources on the long term: many documents would be duplicated on different wikisources. Beside the menu, there are other issues as well: it seems necessary to me to offer the same documents with different languages titles. This is specialy true for mathematical data, but also for other works. Yann 22:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

An optional interface is needed for the next update of wiki software to deal with this problem... --Samuel 04:39, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Perhaps so, but it would be helpful to have a big picture concept of what that new interface is going to do before your valuable time is wasted writing the code it needs. Eclecticology 09:03, 14 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I think it would be much easier to have a wiki for each language. we need to translate the rules in each language and we'll be able to make intersource link as in wikipedia. I'm afraid about pages in languages i can't understand, how to desambiguate it easily???? My 2 cents. Shaihulud 22:35, 26 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I agree with other posters that there is no need to have sub-domains for a project that isn't as active as Wikipedia — where sub-domain are a must. However, I do agree in having different locations for the documents; for example, all English documents should be located in sources.wikipedia.org/en/ while French are located in sources.wikipedia.org/fr/ I'm pretty sure that this will be easy to code as developers will only need to specify the "domain" of the project; besides, it will help us to locate interlanguage sources more easily. That way we can have an interlanguage link of the form [[en:U.S. Declaration of Independence]] that automatically points to sources.wikipedia.org/en/U.S._Declaration_of_Independence and [[es:Declaración de Independencia de EEUU]] that automatically points to sources.wikipedia.org/es/Declaración_de_Independencia_de_EEUU —Maio 04:49, 18 Jan 2004 (UTC)

This is, in fact, exactly what Wikitravel does. They also have a very good policy and procedure for starting up a new language version. Sure it may be time-consuming and a bit unwikilike (is that a word?), but it seems to be working fine. (And I do realize that Wikitravel is independent of Wikimedia.) – Minh Nguyen 21:47, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

As it is, when I go to en.wikisource.org, I get a list of different languages to view the Main Page in. Why can't that address redirect to Main Page:English? Superm401 22:41, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

---

Texts layout

Moved: Wikisource:Scriptorium.

---

"Main Page" or "Zaglavnaya Stranitsa"?

(Wikipedia User:Ramir)

I have just made a Russian intro-statement on the Wikisource's very first page. And despite the fact that the majority(actually all but Esperanto and Latin) of pages are named "Main Page:<Name of Language_in_itself>, I decided to make a link to Заглавная Страница, which is just "Main Page" in Russian.

Does anyone have any objections to that? I think it would be best to name ALL pages just by translating "Main Page" to the language they are in.

Thanks for raising the issue. This is, in general terms, one of the more interesting challenges that we have in this multilingual environment. I'm not even sure of my own opinion about how to treat this. There is a need to fully respect all the languages, but the system must also be capable of practical functionality. Putting a mass of language links on every page would not be practical, but using too much English can seem like English dominance.

My current thinking is that the link on the main page could be Main Page:Russian but that this would redirect to Заглавная Страница. This would ensure the appearance of a "Redirected from ..." statement near the top of the page. Or perhaps we should do as you suggest on the overall main page, and develop my proposal in a network of cross-links on all the language main pages.

These language interlinks can be very difficult, and I am often dismayed by how little attention people put into grasping the big picture. Eclecticology 19:45, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

redirect to correct language

It it possible for this site to detect the browser's language settings an redirect you to the wikisouce site in your language? --Noldoaran

Log in problem

I am unable to sign in. When I hover over the link, it just disappears! Please tell me how to get it corrected. - Anupamsr

I'm unable to reproduce your problem, and I have no idea what is causing it. If you think it is a problem with our software, please fill in a bug report describing your problem and browser specification (see Wikisource:Bug reports, please use the MediaZilla link), and then hopefully a developer will look at it. For now you can try this link to the log in page. I'm sorry that I cannot help you any further than this. Christian S 18:20, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Changes to the main page

The main page has been radically changed without prior discussion, and I must say that I do not like the new look. The reason given in the edit summary is that "confusing and pointless redundancy" should be removed, what we are left with is just an uninspiring list of links. Why should anybody go any further? What is this site all about? As it is now the main page says nothing about this, but it should, and it's quite booring to look at, when it should be inspiring. I definitely think this page should be reverted to the old standard. --Christian S 06:59, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Just before I saw your message to me about this I was working on Author:Isaac Newton. Because this has a very long list of links to the different Wikipedias when I came to the "new" main page I had to look twice to make sure that I was not still in the Newton page. Although his claim of confusion and redundancy may have some merit, he really did not do this in a socially acceptable way, and his results just make things worse. Feel free to change it back. Eclecticology 07:38, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Old version restored. Christian S 08:05, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Thanks. He has also rearranged the English main page and the author templates, then used a bot to add an author category to all the author pages. If it had been just the categories it might have been acceptable, but using bot to get one's way is not very good behaviour. I've rolled back most of the bot edits. Then he had the chutzpah to complain about Ardonik reverting his changes without discussing it first. I'm going to protect the Main Page, English Main Page and top Author template for a few days until this all works its way through. Eclecticology 09:44, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fine. It is sad that we have to take such measures, and I do hope that he comes to an understanding of how things are done in this community. Christian S 10:08, 2 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New languages: KU and TR

I would have liked to set up two new languages: Kurdish (KU) and Turkish (TR). Unfortunately the main page is locked. If that state continues, please give me a link where I can put the translations. Erdal Ronahi

Now unlocked. The crisis is hopefully passed. Eclecticology 20:44, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I want to create the "Asturian" section but the main page is locked. What I do? Llull 14:12, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Main page

I could be slow but it took me a while (~10 mins, reading talk page etc) to decipher that the Main_Page:English is not here Main Page. :-/ I did finally figure out that I need to click on Welcome to Wikisource or scroll down and click on EN to get there. ;-) -- Sabre23t 04:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Fy

Could someone who has the right to do so change "Wolkom by Wikisource (Wikiboarne). Dit is in sammelplak foar boarneteksten dy't út it publyk domyn komme óf frij jûn binne ûnder GFDL." to "Wolkom by Wikisource (Wikiboarne). Dit is in sammelplak foar boarneteksten dy't publyk eigendom binne of frijjûn binne ûnder de GFDL."? Thanks, Aliter 20:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

BM / Bambara

Could someone add this to the Main Page? Thanks, Guaka 15:04, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

<tr>
<td align="center">
=[[Main Page:Bambara|BM]]=
</td>
<td>
Bienvenue sur '''Wikisource''', un site hébergeant des
textes dans le domaine public ou sous [[Wikisource:Licence GFDL|licence GFDL]]. Ce
site est un projet de la fondation [[fr:Wikimedia|Wikimedia]], tout comme le projet [[bm:|Wikipedia]], un projet multilingue pour créer une encyclopédie
libre.
</td>
</tr>

commons

shouldn't somebody add commons to the sister-project link?24.65.22.111 01:18, 12 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Romanian text

Can some admin change the Romanian text to this one (I fixed the accuracy of translation, grammar, spelling etc) Bogdan 10:52, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bun venit la Wikisource. Acest sit este un depozit de texte originale scrise în orice limbă, care fie se află în , fie au fost publicate sub termenii . Situl web este un proiect al fundaţiei şi este frate al , un proiect în mai multe limbi, ce îşi propune să creeze o enciclopedie , completă şi corectă.

Indonesian text

Can some admin change some of the links for the Indonesian text like the one below? Changed some of the link from :en to :id. Thanks! Hayabusa future

Selamat datang di Wikisource. Situs ini adalah sumber bahan bacaan dalam berbagai bahasa, baik yang berada di bawah domain umum yaitu tanpa hak cipta maupun berada dibawah hak cipta . Situs ini adalah bagian dari yayasan dan merupakan salah satu proyek saudara , sebuah proyek yang bertujuan untuk menciptakan ensiklopedia , lengkap, dan akurat dalam berbagai bahasa.

Nahuatl portal

Can someone add a nahuatl portal? For now, it could just say "Axkan in Wikisource nawatlahtolkopa" and link to Main Page:Nahuatl. Sj 04:47, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Quehcua portal

Can somebody add the w:Quechua Portal to the Main Page? The link is "Qhapaq Panka" Guillermo Romero ^[@] 18:12, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)