Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-08

From Wikisource
< Wikisource:Scriptorium | Archives
Latest comment: 18 years ago by Jusjih in topic Other discussions
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposals

Latest comment: 18 years ago38 comments17 people in discussion

Change MediaWiki:Nstab-main

Hi! Recent discussion at #Article/Page suggested that we change the MediaWiki:Nstab-main page, which contains the text on the button next to "discussion" for all pages in the main namespace. It was suggested that "article" become "page", but as all the Author pages have been moved out of the main namespace (and now exist in their own namespace, where the tab-name is "author"), it's possible that we could change this to "work", or "text", reflecting that the large majority of pages in the main namespace are works of literature, etc.

Hence, a straw poll to decide which of the options we like the most, using a few of the suggestions that we mentioned in that previous discussion. Of course, suggestions are always welcome! Jude (talk) 00:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I simplified the poll by merging all the sections. The original subheadings were Work, Text, Article (no change), and Other. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Poll

Article titles should probably be limited to Latin alphabets here

When I check Special:Allpages/United_States_patent_number:903073, I have found a few articles named in non-Latin alphabets. User:Shanel, our fellow admin, has moved a few national anthem articles and created them. Since this is English Wikisource, not multilingual Wikisource, I consider non-Latin alphabets posing problems to most English readers, so I would like to propose that article titles should probably be limited to Latin alphabets here.--Jusjih 01:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with such a strong restriction. I know there are some english poems penned by Author:Oscar Wilde that have Greek titles. I imagine this is somewhat common as in the past Greek literacy was expected of most "educated" english speakers. I suggest we make a policy specific to national anthems and let other works go under thier common name amoung english speakers in whatever alphabet that may be. --BirgitteSB 01:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
A policy for national anthems seems a bit too specific. I say we draft a language policy that will include national anthems, but one which will also include non-Latin titles. I'm a bit concerned about having titles in other alphabets, even though we do have titles in other languages that use a Latin-based alphabet (unless you know the foreign alphabet, you won't even know how to pronounce it let alone know what the title means in English).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
I propose we transliterate or translate all page titles to the latin alphabet, and redirect non-latin titles to the transliterated form. For example, Мила Родино would redirect to the translated Dear Motherland. However, I think that this should be part of a global naming policy, which I'll get around to drafting sometime soon. Quite a number of recent discussions have contributed content to such a global policy. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:48, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
That is not a good idea. We must use the names people will recognize. I will not support titling this book The Wretched. We need to have a flexible policy. In general consistancy to aid readers is good, but insisting on 100% consistancy for it's own sake is silly. Although I generally dislike narrow policies I believe the national anthems will need thier own style guide as they have multiple issues besides titling. We need to remind people that copyright still applies to these songs and deal with the presentation of translations. Also there is a tendency to give translations for any language spoken within the countries borders. Which can end up pretty ridculous. I think we should either only show the original language of compsition and english or all official languages adopted by the country plus english. The rest should be interwiki links. Also I think the english should always be presented first. Hopefully we will soon have Lilypond, so we need to decide how to present that as well with multiple languages--BirgitteSB 12:22, 17 July 2006 (UTC)I struck my strong wording as I had misread the above. I still think the Wilde poems for example should be titled in Greek as that is how they were published.--BirgitteSB 12:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
Would a policy regarding titles also include technical considerations? If so, we should be aware that common technical limitations on the users' end might render a title unreadable/ununderstandable even if that would otherwise not be the case. For example, On the expression of a number in the form 𝑎𝑥²+𝑏𝑦²+𝑐𝑧²+𝑑𝑢² contains only Latin letters, whitespace, Hindu-Arabic numerals and the plus sign, yet in most environments you'd probably have to manually install a rather obscure font to make it display correctly. (I know of this particluar page title because I added that text myself. There may be other texts with this problem.) For my own part, I'd happily ignore this particular problem as it will eventually disappear. But since you're discussing a titling policy, I thought I'd bring up the technical side in general.--GrafZahl 14:43, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
I have to say I'm against translating non-English titles, I'd prefer to stick with the non-English title where there is one for an English text. In most cases where this would be a feasible course of action I'd think it would be the case that the original title is better known than any translation would be, as Birgitte says Les Miserables shouldn't be renamed/re translated to an English title. I think that going by the most well known title might be an option but I can see problems in determining the better known title between different countries. For translations this discussion isn't relevant and shouldn't have any effect. AllanHainey 12:13, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I though of this debate today as I did some work on Author:Xanana Gusmão. I hadn't thought of authors names in non-latin alphabets but I think these definitely need to remain in the authors native language/spelling. AllanHainey 16:31, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
For non-latin alphabets som translitteration is needed. Redirects can be used from the native spellings, but most people will not recognize Όμηρος or Фёдор Достоевский, or Chinese or Japanese authors in their native scripts. For latin alphabets I think that native spelling should be used. Redirects can be used if diacritics are a problem, for example from Author:Xanana Gusmao to Author:Xanana Gusmão. /81.229.39.242 17:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree. It is no help to any English speaker if we put authors' names in their own alphabet. It would mean we'd have to learn to read quite a few languages, which is not practical. I think all names should be transliterated into a Latin-based alphabet with the appropriate use of diacritics (if needed). This is the English Wikisource, so I think we should try to have everything in English (or something recognized by English speakers) as much as possible.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Personally, I prefer not translating non-english titles, and transliterating titles in non-latin alphabets.--Shanel 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
For national anthems, I generally suggest naming the article as at w:List of national anthems. "Kimi Ga Yo" (Japan) and " Aegukga" (South Korea) are well known transliterations, but "The March of the Volunteers" (People's Republic of China) is much better known as "Yiyongjun Jingxingqu".--Jusjih 06:43, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Giving Xenophon temporary admin priveleges

Because of the massive number of soft redirects that have to be deleted (we have May and June to do this month), does anyone oppose to giving Xenophon (a bot controlled by Jude) temporary (i.e., two days tops) administrator priveleges to delete the pages? That way, it won't flood the recent changes with thousands of deletions. What Xenophon would do would be to delete the pages and check for any pages that link to the soft redirect so that the links can be changed. Once the deletions are made, Danny or another steward would remove the admin flag immediately.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure beats the alternative. You admins have enough to do already. It's a shame that the bureaucrats can't de-admin a bot though. --Spangineerwp; (háblame) 00:01, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I am completely behind this idea. --BirgitteSB 02:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Also support this idea. Much quicker and easier.--Shanel 03:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
'Tis fine by me. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 15:00, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've heard of it, I haven't seen it vandalise, that puts it better than the majority of WPians I deal with, I support everything up to and including it the new head administrator of the site. Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 00:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Announcements

Latest comment: 18 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion

Special:Import

I asked Brion on IRC to enable this interface, which allows us to import revisions directly, instead of the usual copying the page history into the talk page (or using a tool such as this). This apparently does not require the Import permission if you are an administrator. Currently, it's set up to import from the English Wikipedia (as a demonstration, I imported some revisions from the English Wikipedia into an article, found here) but as there's currently a large category of "Move to Wikisource", this shouldn't be too limiting.

Speaking of that category, I'm going to filter through the pages in them, find what we'll take, and move them over. Jude (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed that our import log has two entries. Do we not need "import" rights to do it?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:28, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I think that we need import rights.--Jusjih 02:26, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I can import just fine without them. When Brion comes on IRC, I'll ask him about it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I believe it is only non-administrators that require the import permission to use the interface. Jude (talk) 04:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
That would make sense.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 10:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
I can now import from English Wikipedia only, not from any other Wiki sites.--Jusjih 07:13, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
When accessing Special:Listusers, none of us has "import" permission. As of now, I can now import from English Wikipedia only without the chance to import through my disk, but I consider it insufficient. If you do not object, I would like to ask a steward at Meta for "real" import permission.--Jusjih 12:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
As I said above, Administrators automatically have the import permission. You would have to ask a developer to enable the Import interface to import from other Wikimedia wikis, by filing a bug request, or talking to them on IRC. Jude (talk) 23:26, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I have submitted a bug report. A reply from Bug 6338 says: "If importing from your disk were allowed, you could forge page histories. Thus,I don't think that importing from disk is permitted on WMF sites." However, I can import at Chinese Wiktionary and Chinese Wikisource through my disk. I would export from the source Wiki site, save a file, and import to the target site. I have successfully used the function to fully transwiki many page history from Chinese Wikipedia. How could I forge page history?--Jusjih 06:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
If you manually edit the XML page, and then import it, Special:Import does not and cannot check to see whether or not this is the correct XML page, whether you have just created it out of thin air, or if you have changed usernames, etc. Jude (talk) 01:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Can't we have any better trusted users to imported unaltered page history? I have asked at Bugzilla to transwiki some pages from multilingual Wikisource. Please see bug 6338 but no one has acted.--Jusjih 15:55, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Questions

Latest comment: 18 years ago47 comments14 people in discussion

Category:Works by year

See relevant discussion

Creation and eras

So apparently I'm opening a bigger can of worms than I thought. Apparently a few users have thought it wise to begin creating Category:18xx books for several years (see Category:Books). Seeing this as an opportunity for better standardization, I copied Template:Workyr from w:en and created Category:1744 works, which can act as a model for future categories. However, the question is now what to do with it.

Should it be categorized in Category:1740s? Should that then be categorized in Category:18th century? Or should Category:Early modern works be incorporated somewhere? Alternatively, should Category:1744 works just be deleted, and the works created in that year be placed in Category:Early modern works?

Personally I like the year --> decade --> century system, but I wouldn't mind a year --> decade --> era system either. There are alot of works on Wikisource, and trying to identify sub-eras is going to get rough at some point. It makes more sense to me to have categories that contain a few books (years) that feed into larger ones. The year --> decade --> century system is used on Wikipedia successfully (see w:en:Category:19th century works, w:en:Category:1850s works, w:en:Category:1857 works), but as previous discussion led to that not being the chosen path, I'd like to know how to proceed with the categorization by time period. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 23:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Hi, all, I support Spangineer's idea of adding the "Work by year" categories. I see the value of the "Work by era" categories, but I think Wikisource would benefit from having a parallel year system, especially since the groupings of works is more precise (which might be useful and pertinent to a reader's search). What do you all think? Willow 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the proposed categories are logical—particularly as we begin drastically expanding Wikisource's repertoire— but they should be nested rather than parallelled. For example, consider the following subtree: 
Works published in 1900 ---|
                           |--- Works published in the 1900s ---|
Works published in 1906 ---|                                    |
                                                                |--- Works published in the 19th century
Works published in 1910 ---|                                    |--- Modern works
                           |                                    |
Works published in 1917 ---|--- Works published in the 1910s ---|
                           |
Works published in 1918 ---|

// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:17, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That kind of nesting does seem sensible and convenient, especially since the year boundaries of the "Works by era" categories correspond (roughly) to decade boundaries. But, for consistency, should we perhaps re-set the "era" boundaries to be exactly the decade boundaries, e.g., set the medieval/renaissance/early modern eras to 600-1419/1420-1629/1630-1899? Just a thought, Willow 07:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
I see no problem with that; the era dates we're using are approximate anyway. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 13:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
Pathoschild's scheme looks good to me. I feel like we can assume that we won't be able to identify eras consisting of periods shorter than 20-30 years, so it makes sense to me place decade categories in both century and era categories. However, as the previous discussion pointed out, the eras really only apply to literature. So should a research paper published in 1914 or the EB 1911 get placed in a category that has the Modern era category as a parent? Or should we implement two parallel systems: the one above (except that work decade categories would not be subcats of "modern works", just the centuries), and also the one below:
1900 literature ---|
                   |--- 1900s literature---|
1906 literature ---|                       |
                                           |
1910 literature ---|                       |--- Modern works
                   |                       |
1917 literature ---|--- 1910s literature---|
                   |
1918 literature ---|
If both systems were used, Category:1900 literature would be a subcat of Category:1900 works and Category:1900s literature. Is the extra complexity worth it? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 14:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I've misunderstood; aren't the eras in the Category:Works by era for all types of works, not just literature? My own preference would be to keep the categories as orthogonal as possible, which to me would suggest that we keep the "time" categories separate from the "subject matter" or "content type" categories. That way, we can group our works with the fewest categories. If we have N "time" categories and "M" subject matter categories, we can make NM different combinations; otherwise, we have to make those combinations into their own categories, e.g., "1917 literature", which could get a little confusing. So my vote is that we just introduce the "Works by year" categories and (re)move the other categories such as 1744 Books. Does that seem reasonable? Willow 09:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd prefer to keep work type and work era separate as well. A previous proposal involves modifying Duesentrieb's CatScan to simplify use on Wikisource. Doing so would allow us to easily integrate it into categories; for example, links on Category:Modern works may include "show only literature" or "show only poems" by intersecting with Category:Works by type. However, this is a long-term proposal and won't be available for a while. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 14:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
As you can tell from the blue links, I've begun to implement this using templates {{workyear}}, {{workdecade}} and {{workcentury}} in the categories. You mention wanting to keep the work by era/work by year cateogires separate—do you still think that it's good to categorize 1910s in Modern works? If so, modifying the workdecade template link there as well isn't tough. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:50, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I personally don't see a need to categorize decades under any work by era categories. It seems to add quite a rigid framework in the (albeit rare) cases that literary eras might have some overlap. I would say to keep the two separate and add 1910s, 1920s, 19XXs works to something like 20th century works, and so on.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Eras are fuzzily defined and change depending on geopolitical region and work type. As long as somebody is maintaining them and they're categorised somewhere logical, I don't really mind either way. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:54, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Fuzzy decades

We've got the ususal nitpicker's problem: when do centuries/decades start/end? The usual questions:

  • Is a year which is divisible by 100 the first or the last year of a century? Officially, it's the last, however, many people would say it's the first. Same for decades and years divisible by 10.
  • Is "the 1920s" the same as "the third decade of the 20th century"? Officially, "the third decade of the 20th century" is 1921–1930 but most people would say 1920–1929. I don't know of an official definition for "the 1920s". The most natural choice would be 1920–1929, i.e. the years starting with 192…. However, I've seen the definition 1921–1930 right here on Wikisource (see below).

Current situation at Wikisource:

  • The template {{workcentury}} treats years divisible by 100 as last years of a century. Moreover, it treats "the x0s" as the years x1–(x+1)0, i.e. 1921–1930 in the above example. This runs contrary to the {{workyear}} template!
  • Indeed, the category (e.g.) 1890s works contains the category 1890 works.

The technically simplest solution would be to adhere to official standards, define "the 1920s" as 1921–1930, alter the {{workyear}} template and move 1890 works to 1880s works. Granted, that may confuse some users. Maybe they should be warned with a note through the {{workdecade}} template to that effect. Another option is to say "10th decade of the 19th century" instead, but that sounds very clumsy. One could put years divisible by 10 into two decade categories. None of this seems really satisfactory. Does anyone know if a similar discussion took place over at Wikipedia? If so, what was the outcome? (Or are these questions not actually important?)--GrafZahl 11:18, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Excellent points. Personally, in the name of simplicity and common use, I'd say that we define the 1920s as 1920-29. I think that's different from saying the third decade of the 20th century. Also, the way the template works would make it difficult to have 1890 works ende up in 1880s works without individually changing all of them (as far as I can tell, it would eliminate the opportunity to use a template). The century issue is more difficult. I hadn't noticed that the century template started at xx01, but there too that can be changed to reflect common use; that is, that the 20th century ran from 1900 to 1999. Or we can just leave the inconsistency as is and not worry about it. Personally I'd say leave it as is, but I'm open to either. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
It is not very difficult change the categorisation of years divisible by 10. The template is the only page you need to change, all the pages that use the template will be updated autmatically. I have put an example in the sandbox [1]. /82.212.68.183 21:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
If/else statements in templates? That's pretty awesome. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I prefer the 0-9 definition of a decade (and by extension, centuries as 00-99). Using the alternate system, year 0 is part of the pre-Common Era, which is awkward. Further, users seeking works published in 1920 will naturally look in Category:1920s works. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:52, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
There is no year zero ;-) Do you thus suggest that everything stay as is, or that we make modifications to {{workcentury}}? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 17:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed with the points already stated. There is a difference in organizing works according to the "third decade" and the "1920s." 1920 is the last year of the second decade, but it is the first year of the 1920s. As already stated this is because of the "no year zero" issue, and results in a mismatch of years when we try to split time purely numerically (e.g., 1920, 1921, 1945) or with language (e.g., 3rd century, 5th decade, 1st millenium). A possible solution to the problem we just discovered (one which I admit is not perfect, but is not as bad as changing the common way years are divided) would be to change "Category:XXth century works" to "Category:Works published in the XXXXs". Using the former choice we have the problem of mismatching we just discovered. Using the latter we at least conform to the rest of the templates-by-year that we use.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand entirely—1900s is already used to mean 1900-1909, so how could it also replace "20th century" without causing greater confusion? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 19:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The decade 1900s is 1900-1909. We also use similar language to talk about centuries. We often say the 1800s where we mean the time falling in 1800–1899 and the 1200s to mean 1200–1299. It's a phrase that can be used to describe two different blocks of time. It can be a bit confusing, but if we explicitly state which block of time we're talking about (whether we mean the decade or the century) we should be fine.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:35, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Most people automatically think of decades and centuries from a starts-with-zero perspective; it's more intuitive that the "1920s" be the "192x" years. Categories should be simple and intuitive; conforming to technical details is not a particularly important concern. I don't think it's necessary to explicitly state how we're organising the years, as long as we're consistant; the categorisation will speak for itself. If one looks in 1920s works and sees 1920-1929, it's not a difficult leap of logic. ;) // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:58, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
If ease of use is the primary goal, I agree centuries should run from XX00 till XX99, as suggested by Spangineer, which would require alteration of {{workcentury}}. As Spangineer further pointed out, there is no year zero, so that needs special treatment. I don't think we need more changes besides these. Changing "20th century works" to something like "works created in the 1900s century" sounds awkward to me, and is, IMHO, not needed if we're going to ditch official standards anyway.--GrafZahl 15:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I've updated {{workcentury}} (see Category:19th century works, for example) so that the century runs from xx00 to xx99. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 20:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam

Hi all, I'm a newbie to Wikisource. Anyway, I just added this document, and I can't figure out why there is all that crap at the top of the page. Please help me. --Samael775 15:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

That is a very odd bug. I don't believe it's ever happened before this instant. I can only think that the problem lies somewhere in the MediaWiki software trying to transclude and nest two different pages onto one. I don't know for sure, though. A few users here are a bit more savvy when it comes to templates, so hopefully they'll weigh in here. I suggest, though, that in the meanwhile, you just take the {{wikipedia}} template out of the {{header}} template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:28, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I have removed the wikipedia tag, and that does fix the problem. For the purpose of correcting this bug, here [2] is the messed up version. --Samael775 18:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem isn't so much a glitch as one of wikisyntax. {{wikipedia}} transcludes a table, the opening tag of which must be on a new line. For example:

Works Does not work 
foo
{| class="wikitable"
|-
! Test
|-
| Blah
|}
 
 
foo {|  class="prettytable"
|-
! Test
|-
| Blah
|}

Adding a new line before {{wikipedia}} will work. However, I suggest excerpting from Wikipedia using {{wikipediaref}} instead (as is done on Dulce et Decorum Est), as this is more informative and allows readers to know the general significance without having to click through. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Prayers

Would it be okay to start a category for prayers? --Think Fast 14:13, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that prayers are suitable for wikisource as they're not really published documents or sources/text given or referred to more than once. Prayers later than 1923 would be copyright of the religious person who made them up too. AllanHainey 14:30, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, there are many published books of prayers. It seems to me this should be no different than anything else - if it has been previously published and there are no copyright restrictions, then it is good to go at Wikisource. Personal prayers (not published) would not, though in the user namespace they would normally be OK like other personal expressions. Dovi 15:58, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was thinking the same thing. There are prayers that are printed on postcards, greeting cards, plaques, etc. and then there are private prayers. People couldn't just come on and write up their own prayer—that would not fit in at Wikisource. However, previously-published prayers such as Peace Prayer of St. Francis of Assisi would be acceptable. I think that I will start a prayer category containing such prayers. --Think Fast 14:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I didn't think that they published prayers, only hymns, but if they do then we should treat them the same as other published works. AllanHainey 14:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Book of Common Prayer

"This work is copyrighted in England under a perpetual copyright term. Permissions to publish in England may be obtained by following the guidance in A Brief Guide to Liturgical Copyright, third edition (RTF file)." (The external link is broken.)

I would like to ask if anyone can tell whether we can have this permanently copyrighted work here. Articles for this work are now among the oldest pages.--Jusjih 06:49, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Similar to the King James Bible, this perpetual copyright only applies in England; in the United States, and most other countries, its age would decree that it is in the public domain (just like with the King James Bible). It was clearly published before 1923, and as Wikisource is hosted in Florida, it would come under American laws.
Of course, I am not a lawyer. :-) Jude (talk) 12:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
From Help:Copyright tags, I add PD-US for now unless someone can think of something better. I wonder what gives permanent copyright.--Jusjih 06:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
No. I consider that a new copyright tag should be created, perhaps coded PD-outofUK to explain that British law specializes permanent copyright but they are in the public domain in other countries where out of copyright. PD-US is not sufficient.--Jusjih 16:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I just added Template:PD-nonUK to better suit the perpetual British copyright. Please edit as needed.--Jusjih 14:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Portal Problem

I just went on to update the Portal:Speeches (as I haven't had a chance yet this month)but I see that something funny has happened with the templates. It doesn't look like its been a change to the page which has caused the templates to stop showing. Anyone know what could have caused this & how to fix it? AllanHainey 12:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Allan, the problem was that Portal/box-header got deleted a few days ago. So, that broke everything on the Portal page. I suggest, however, that we take this page and move it to a real template namespace and make all the changes on the Portal page to reflect the new name of the box-header. The main article namespace should be reserved for solely source texts.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 14:16, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Zhaladshar. I'm happy enough for Portal/box-header to move to Template:box-header or similar but it may take me a wee while to convert the links in the portal as I've got very little free time right now. AllanHainey 12:00, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Match icon vanished?

The match link adjacent the language name under "in other languages" box on sidebar appears to have up and left, though matching seems to work well enough. What's the matter? PoptartKing 07:07, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've noticed it, too. I'm not sure what the problem is. I can only assume that something in the MW tree has broken those displays. I'll ask ThomasV if he knows what happened.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
To fix the icon an administrator can change the line 
if( document.body.className.substring(0,4) != "ns-0" ) return;
to 
if( document.body.className.indexOf("ns-0") < 0) return;
in MediaWiki:Monobook.js. /EnDumEn 15:52, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch! It works like a charm now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Runtime Error

Why do I get a runtime error saying the following? 

  Line: 237
  Error: 'mainpg' is undefined

And am I the only one or is this everyone? I am using IE 6.0. --Think Fast 14:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I also get
  Line: 123
  Error: Object required
And sometimes, usually when editing,
  Line: 12
  Error: Unterminated string constant
Any help would be appreciated. --Think Fast 14:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Those errors occur in the site javascript. The error on line 237 (addOnloadHook(mainpg);) was due to code which called an object onload that was never defined in the code; I fixed that.
The error on line 123 (var s = a.innerHTML;) isn't so easy to correct. It seems that it occurs when a (var a = document.getElementById("ca-nstab-main");) is undefined, for example if there is no such id. This apparently happens when the user edits in a namespace other than the main one. For example, editing the Wikisource namespace changes that id to "ca-nstab-project". To correct this, we'd need to add a conditional check to select the appropriate id. I'll let someone with more experience with Javascript confirm and correct this error. :)
I'm not sure what's causing the error on line 12 (ta['pt-watchlist'] = new Array('l','The list of pages you\'re monitoring for changes.');). Such an error might occur if the single-quote inside the string was not escaped... but it is. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Other discussions

Latest comment: 18 years ago46 comments21 people in discussion

Spoken Wikisource

The German branch of Wikisource has uploaded two audio files at http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Spoken_Wikisource_German . If anyone would like to participate on building a library of audio files with spoken Wikisource texts under free licenses feel free to use the Commons category Spoken Wikisource and to share your thoughts on this topic with the German community at http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Gesprochene_Wikisource . Greetings from Germany! Wikisource-de-User FrobenChristoph --172.182.5.236 18:07, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

This is very interesting! You should also know that there is another project that does a similar thing: LibriVox.org. It might be worth your time and effort to get in touch with them over there and possibly collaborate.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:40, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

National Geographic Magazine and other periodicals

I have just completed National Geographic Magazine/Volume 31/March 1917, moving the articles into subpages and adding headers accordingly. I am proposing this as the model for all periodicals, which are an important component of Wikisource, and I would like to know what people think of how I set it up. Danny 14:13, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

I like this setup.--BirgitteSB 02:55, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I also like this idea. Perhaps, if we decide that it's the best, we could note it somewhere in our naming conventions? Jude (talk) 03:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Like this, too. I was wondering how we'd name such serials like Littell's Living Age, and this is a very good convention. Especially since I'd like to add many more serials once I've knocked some projects off my list.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 12:42, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Looks good to me too. Question though—is there a reason why we don't include the NGM images here, instead of only linking to commons? --Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:58, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think it was the uploader's preference to add the works to Commons. At one point, the works were on WS, but this was back when all the languages were on WS. When we moved to our own sub-domain, I think he decided to upload them elsewhere.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:27, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Uploading them there makes sense to me, but I feel like the images should appear on our pages with the text of the article. I was just wondering if there's a style guideline against that or something (that we don't add images to our pages but instead link to commons). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 16:15, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
I like this also. I was thinking of doing something similar before most of my free time dried up. - illy 13:52, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Question about posting historical military rosters.

I've contributed an article on Wikipedia about my father's military group, the 351st Bomb Group, and had planned on adding a set of four rosters for the four Bomb Squadrons which comprised the larger group. When I posted the roster or list for the first of the four, a Wikipedian suggested that rather than contribute that material to Wikipedia, Wikisource might be a better location. However, I read that "lists" are not normally Wikisource material, and a group roster can be viewed as a list.

My question is this: should I place those four rosters on Wikisource? You can view one of those at: List of personnel 351st Bomb Group 508th Bomb Squadron

Thanks in advance for the advice. —unsigned comment by Chyeburashka (talk) 8:08, 24 July 2006.

The key question here is did you compile the lists yourself or is there a published source they can be verified against?--BirgitteSB 19:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I obtained the original list from a published source, which had its source from microfilm records. I edited the large list for the entire larger group, organizing it into the four smaller and approzimately equal sub-groups (squadrons) using standard unix tools (grep, sort, uniq, vi), adding wiki-formatting. The URL for that source is the first listed external link at the above wikipedia article. Chyeburashka 19:30, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I think this would fall under the category of reference data; it's a list without cultural or intellectual significance (the inclusion policy excludes such data). Wikipedia has many such lists to complement its articles; for example, see Wikipedia's article List of anime. The list you contributed would be a good launching pad for articles about any notable persons in the 351st. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Notable persons such as the Gable, Clark 1st Lt. (the famous actor)? Yes, that's a good point. It looks like the consenus here at Wikisource is that my massaged lists are not the type of thing which is the target here. Thanks to all for their input. Sorry for not signing the first time. I'm very new to this. Chyeburashka 20:01, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Wikisource would include a transcription of the daily orders and load lists that were on the microfilm, not the compiled list derived from those sources.--BirgitteSB 19:48, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

I placed On Chorea, and note that it has the "unlinked" tab. To what would one link this? I have already done medicine and early modern. It is a single essay, the classic description of a condition, the only work by the author, one which is quoted in every publication on the disease, and not readily found on the net. The answer may be applicable to more classical original works on specific diseases, but I do not find a ready link. --Seejyb 23:25, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

The message says that no other page links to that page (that is no longer true since you put a link here on the Scriptorium), not that you should link to other pages from that page. I created an author page for George Huntington and put a link there. /82.212.68.183 23:41, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Since there is an author page now, I've removed the {{unlinked}} template. Basically, if that template is on a page then the page needs an author created (if there is an identifiable author for the work) or put on an index page at Wikisource:Works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:07, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, that helps me for the future too. --Seejyb 17:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Update MediaWiki:Sitenotice

It's rather funny to see something that says "Early registration for Wikimania 2006 is open until July 16" when it's July 26. Could an admin update this with text similar to that found at w:MediaWiki:Sitenotice so our visitors don't start to wonder? Thanks! --Spangineerwp (háblame) 21:32, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. :-) Jude (talk) 23:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't add an author correctly

Ok. Although I tried - several different ways - I did not add a new author correctly. If you look at the authors page for D authors, you'll see a user Firelight which is not what I intended. The author is Samuel Adams Drake.

If you could tell me what to do to fix it, that would be really, really great.

[Note: this is an author of several books - of which I have one. I'm working on getting the one I have online.]

Oh, yes. Thanks in advance. You folks seem to be very helpful on things. And I would like to become proficient enough at this to be a help rather than a hindrance. —-Firelight (talk)

I think I fixed it. Your only problem was that you left the "User:" part in the title when you moved the page. The software didn't understand that. So I moved it to Author:Samuel Adams Drake and added it to Wikisource:Authors-D. It's also now in the proper categories. Let me know if you need more explanation or have more questions. Don't be afraid to ask; we all started out not really knowing how things work. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. —-Firelight (talk)

Talk:Bible (King James)/Psalms

See my entry on the above-referenced talk page. --Lycurgus 08:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Digitisation project

Hi,

my name is Antonio Borrillo, I am a student completing a post graduate course in Digital Information Management at London Metropolitan University in London. My dissertation is focusing on the: "Digitisation of out-of-copyright work in Libraries, Archives and Cultural Institutions". Therefore I am trying to compile some information around this area, and I would really appreciate help from anyone who has/is working on a digitisation project (preferably books and paper material). This research is part of a wider project which aims to gather data on digitisation programmes. The aforementioned data will be utilised for no other purpose than research and the anonymity of all the participants will be guaranteed. There is also a short multiple choice questionnaire (at the bottom) which would be really helpful if you could complete.

Thank you in advance, every help will be very much appreciated ! Hope to hear from you soon

Kind regards
Antonio Borrillo

Digitisation in libraries, archives and cultural institutions

Introduction
This questionnaire is being conducted to ascertain whether culture institutions are involved in the digitisation of out-of-copyright work. It will form a part of a larger project that aims to gather quantitative and qualitative data on digitisation projects in UK.

The research is being conducted as a part of the completion of a Master level dissertation in Information Management. The research findings will be used for no other purpose and all responses will be treated confidentially.

All the individuals involved will be informed about the scope of the research and about its findings. Participants are recruited on a voluntary basis and they will also be made aware that their anonymity will be guaranteed

If you have any questions about the nature or extent of this research, please at antobbo@gmail.com. Completed questionnaires should be to antobbo@gmail.com.

Thank you for taking the time to complete this questionnaire.

Questionnaire

  1. Is the library involved in any digitisation program? If yes go on question number 3, if not answer question n.2
  2. Are you planning to develop a digitisation program?
  3. What kind of books collection is your library digitising? Mark with an x
    —Rare books…( please specify the period if possible)
    —Ancient books……(please specify the period if possible)
    —Specific subject books…( please specify the subject)
    —Series…( please specify the series)
    —Other (please specify)…
  4. Why has the decision to digitize been taken? Mark with an x
    —Improving accessibility…
    —Optimisation of costs…
    —Digitisation as preservation…
    —Enhance the prestige of the institution…
    —Other (please specify)…
  5. Which is your target audience? Mark with an x
    —Staff…
    —Organisations…
    —General public…
    —Others (please specify)…
  6. What type of fund did you utilize for the project? Mark with an x
    —Internal funds…
    —External funds:
    —public or private grants…
    —funding agencies…
    —Other (please specify)…
  7. Are you aware of any heritage organisations involved with digitisation projects? (please specify which one)
  8. Would you be prepared to engage in a follow up results?

If yes fill the form at the next page and you will be contacted by telephone/email for another short questionnaire


Institution:
Director:
Address:
Country:
Website:
Telephone:
Fax:
Email:

—unsigned comment by Antobbo (talk) 09:06, 27 July 2006.

How/where to store data files in text format

Dear project members, I have recently had the fortune to receive an email licensing the files linked from this website under GFDL.

Data contained: Word lists and legends from Word Frequencies in Written and Spoken English: based on the British National Corpus. (2001) pp. 320, Longman, London. ISBN 0582-32007-0.

More info: Books of English word frequencies have in the past suffered from severe limitations of sample size and breadth. They have also tended to be restricted to word forms alone. Most importantly, almost all have dealt only with written language. This book overcomes these limitations. It is derived from the British National Corpus - a 100,000,000 word electronic databank sampled from the whole range of present-day English, spoken and written - and makes use of the grammatical information that has been added to each word in the corpus.

I have tried to upload the text files, 41 files, about 21MB, to Commons. Unfortunately this file type is not accepted. Have you any proposals to store this data anywhere in a Wikimedia wiki in its original format? If so, please contact me by email so that this very valuable source can be made available.

Thanks for thinking of a solution. Siebrand 23:05, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the interesting thing that I thought is that, although it is clearly a form of reference data, it appears to've been previously published and then released under a compatible free license. It's not just a willy-nilly piece of collected statistics... I'm quite sure this would be suitable for Wikisource, but then, I could be wrong. :-) Jude (talk) 23:38, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
I just clicked through some of these lists and I get the impression that — taken for themselves, without some added value — they do not really belong here. However, our policy does allow them, because they are part of a source text.
For example, the (quite non-free, unfortunately) German equivalent has selected usage examples for many words. With such added value (for example) the lists would be great for Wikisource, IMO.--GrafZahl 08:38, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Siebrand: What files types, exactly, were the files you tried to upload? Was it ".txt"? Since that's purely a text file, we can take that here at WS. Of course, there's no need to upload the file; it would be better to copy and paste it. Also, if you upload the files, could you upload a copy of the email you received also, so that we can prove that it's actually been released under the GFDL? Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:48, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
It would also be great if you could forward it to permissions@wikimedia.org, thereby lodging the release with the Foundation's Legal department. I can also confirm that they've recieved permission and put the appropriate templates up, reference the ticket, blah blah. Jude (talk) 00:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
I have forwarded the permission with mail headers to permissions@ on Fri 28-07-2006 0:40 CET. Siebrand 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
The files are of type text with a .txt entension. I do recognise that the researchers may probably have data that is even more useful than the data they have now released. Please see it as a start of working together. I'd gladly forward the contact I've had to someone more knowledgeable with regards to the matter. Please contact me by email if you see yourself as such a person. Siebrand 19:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
If we could actually get access to several corpi this would be useful to WP as far as determining the commonly used name of various things. --BirgitteSB 23:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Add new category - Forklore

I'm new to this. But I didn't see Forklore in the category list. I have a dozen or more books (out of copyright) that are on Forklore - not quite Mythology, although some are close. Can a Forklore category be added?

(I'm new here. So, if there is a more appropriate way to request or handle this, please let me know.) —-Firelight (talk)

You can create a new category quite easily. Either follow a link to the category you wish to create or replace the page title with "Category:Folklore" in the address bar. Once there, click the 'edit' button, type out a description, and either add a relevant parent category or add "[[Category:Uncategorised]]".
That said, it already exists; see Category:Folklore. I've categorised its parent category to Category:Works by genre. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 23:42, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the information. I can see the category by using the link you supplied. What I don't understand is that when I go to Category:Works by genre, that I don't see Forklore in the list. How do I see a list of all the categories?

It seems that unless someone knows exactly what to look for, that it's difficult to find books by subject. There must be some link (or something) that I'm missing. (I have read as much of the Help pages and other introductory material as I can find that seems to be relevant.) —-Firelight (talk)

The wikisource category system works like a tree. In this case, the largest branch is Category:Works by genre, from which many subjects branch out, including Category:Traditional literature. From that there are three branches, including Category:Folklore. In a perfect world, it would be easy to narrow down to exactly what you are looking for, but here, it's not necessarily clear that Category:Folklore fits into Category:Traditional literature. It might be better to simply eliminate it and move folklore and the other two directly into Category:Works by genre. You are correct that it's not always extremely easy to find books by subject, but as of now the best options are to simply type in the kind of material you're looking for (as in Category:Folklore), or go to Category:Works by subject and explore the subcategories. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 00:43, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I would not have thought of looking in Traditional Literature. Although a couple of my folklore books are certainly "literature" (mostly the North American ones), most of the others are more of a history. Not a history in the sense of the folklore being true accounts, but written as an account of what people (usually, the more common folk) talked about or passed down from earlier times. —-Firelight (talk)

public hearings

I would like to post the transcript from a public hearing on wikisource. is this something that would be approrpriate or that has been done before?—unsigned comment by 143.231.249.141 (talk) .

I don't see why not. It sounds like it would be something that we'd take. Any additional information would be helpful in determining whether it meets our inclusion policy, though. But it (initially) sounds like something we'll take.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm wary of saying that we can take this as I'm not sure about the copyright implications of a transcript of a public meeting. I suspect it would be in effect Public Domain as the meeting was public though I'm not certain. What type of public meeting was it? on what issue? I don't think that we'd really want to host a transcript of a half dozen people arguing over planning permissions in the back of beyond, but we'll see.
If we do host this it would need to be complete and unexcised rather than an excerpted or edited transcript. AllanHainey 10:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I would like to also stress the neccesity of this being a complete transcript. If the recording it is transcribed from can be uploaded as well to Commons that would best and would also allow proofreading. If the recording cannot be distributed for copyright reasons the transcript would also be restricted.--BirgitteSB 16:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Searching wikisource

Is there any way to force the Search feature to look ONLY for the word typed in? I ask because I use Wikisource to find citations for Wiktionary, so I am looking for uses of particular words most of the time. I tried looking for examples of the phrase "ace up his sleeve" or "ace up my sleeve". I discovered that searching for the word "ace" returns documents that do not contain the word ace. Rather they include face, surface, preface, aceitic, etc. In other words I am getting hundreds of false returns on my search because the fature looks for ace, -ace, and ace- all at the same time. I can find nothing in the Search "help" page that explains how to work around this problem. Can someone help? --EncycloPetey 03:42, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

My suggestion would be to use google with a search of "site:en.wikisource.org 'ace up his sleeve'", as Wikisource's, and Wikipedia's search function absolutely sucks. :D Jude (talk) 08:10, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

requested move

I don't have an account here, so can someone who does move Rue Barree to Rue Barrée ? Thanks. 216.195.144.247 19:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed it, thanks for pointing it out! I do very much encourage you to create an account though, it really takes less than 30 seconds, no validating eMails, nothing like that, just pick a username and password and away you go! :) Sherurcij (talk) (CRIMINALS ARE MADE, NOT BORN) 10:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Template:PD-UN may not apply outside the USA

Under the Second Protocol of the Universal Copyright Convention (Paris, 1971), protection under U.S. and other member state copyright laws is expressly required for works published by the United Nations, by U.N. specialized agencies and by the Organization of American States. Even though American law required copyright notices and registrations and the UN Headquarters was not exempt, I am wondering if earlier UN works considered in the public domain in the USA may be considered copyrighted elsewhere if any contracting parties copyright these works without requiring copyright notices or registrations. Please discuss before I consider whether or not to amend Template:PD-UN to caution that the same rule for the USA may not apply elsewhere.--Jusjih 16:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

As no one responds, I have nevertheless added a note that PD-UN may not be valid in other countries that are party to Protocol 2 of the Universal Copyright Convention done at Paris on 24 July 1971 that requires copyright protection for works published for the first time by the United Nations.--Jusjih 16:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Missing Scriptorium Button

The scriptorium button has disappeared from the navigation box on the left, replaced by current events. I believe the same, or similar, problem occurred here under "Missing Scriptorium button" and was fixed easily by Pathoschild. - Politicaljunkie 23:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It required a null edit to clear the cache; possibly a conflict in the default MediaWiki, after a tech-y upgrade. It appears to be fixed for me. How is it for everyone else? Jude (talk) 01:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks normal to me. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 03:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Normal for me, too. --Think Fast 01:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-08&oldid=14004781"