Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-01

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Announcements

Page: namespace, status of pages

I have made changes to the Proofreadpage software, that will allow users to visualize the status of all pages of a book, using colors, on the index page. A preview can be seen on fr:Livre:Jules Vallès - L'Enfant.djvu. This system works in combination with a new validation procedure, that is following the system used at de.ws. The new validation procedure requires that two different users proofread a page, and it is described here: fr:Aide:Qualité des pages. There are 4 levels: 'Not proofread' (the default), 'Problematic', 'Proofread', 'Validated'. The button corresponding to 'validated' will not show up if the page has not been previously marked as 'Proofread' by another user than the one doing the validation. (this works by storing the name of proofreaders in the template, as can be seen here). The former 'Incomplete' level has been dropped, because it is not useful when describing single pages.

This new system will soon be available in all subdomains. The names of the different quality levels can be modified by sysops using system messages. It will also be possible to disable the system if a subdomain does agree with the idea of double proofreading. Feedback is welcome.

ThomasV 16:57, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Proposals

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments11 people in discussion

Could we please remove the "permanent link" link from Template:Header2? Almost none of our readers are going to know what this means or how to use it, Wikisource content rarely is moved around, the link is already given in the sidebar, and most importantly, the link takes away screen space from the actual text. In short, removing it would help present our readers with a nice, clean, simple user interface.

See Around the World in Seventy-Two Days/Chapter II for an example of how the "permanent link" text pushes down the real source text for little added benefit. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:07, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Done - it will take a while for this change to take effect on all pages. John Vandenberg 21:42, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

New scripts

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I've created three new scripts to preload template skeletons when creating new pages. These scripts make it much, much easier to add new texts. To try them out, go to User:Remember the dot/Sandbox and copy-and-paste everything to your monobook.js. The scripts only work with Firefox. If there is interest, we should add this to the site-wide JavaScript. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:20, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, they work really well for me, they do make it a lot easier. Not so sure about adding it to site-wide JavaScript though. Suicidalhamster 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It should probably be moved to mediawiki namespace if it's stable, and maybe listed in MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition -Steve Sanbeg 17:42, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
It's not stable yet, there's still more features I want to add to it. If someone can figure out why it doesn't work in Internet Explorer, that would also be very helpful. —Remember the dot (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorizing works by authors' years of deaths

Latest comment: 16 years ago8 comments4 people in discussion

As I find it too hard to update from {{PD-old-50}} via {{PD-old-60}}, {{PD-old-70}}, to {{PD-old}}, I would like to propose categorizing works by authors' years of deaths for easier identification when crossing from 31 December to 1 January, like:

  • Category:Works by authors died in 20xx
  • Category:Works by authors died in 19xx
  • Category:Works by authors died in 18xx
  • And so on.

For living authors, I would like to propose Category:Works by living authors. Any suggestions such as making any templates?--Jusjih 03:00, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. I could help write a bot to automate this, if you like. Quadell 03:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but "Category:Works by authors died in 1954" is a bit clumsy. Maybe "Category:Works by authors who died in 1954"? Hesperian 04:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Then use "Category:Works by authors who died in 1954" and "Category:Works by living authors". A bot to automate this will be very great. We should categorize works by authors who died in the 20th and 21st centuries by years, but should we make similarly deep categories for works by authors who died in the 19th centuries or earlier? Quadell, when you make a bot here, I would also like to suggest preparing a similar bot on Commons where commons:template:PD-old means PD-old-70 rather than 100 and a few countries with very long copyright terms are being left out.--Jusjih 16:38, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
I would recommend "Category:Works by authors who died more than 100 years ago" for anything over 100. (Mexico currently holds copyright for 100 years p.m.a., and that's the longest I know of.) Quadell 16:47, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
It seems mostly useless when it's easy to go to the author page to see when the person died. Eclecticology 21:04, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
My idea is to have permanent categories that will never change, but after long time, {{PD-old-50}} will have to be changed to {{PD-old-60}}, {{PD-old-70}}, finally {{PD-old}}. As Guatemala, Honduras, Samoa, and St. Vincent and the Grenadines usually copyright for life + 75 years and they do not necessarily accept the rule of the shorter term, I just added {{PD-old-75}} to better serve them. I would also like to remind that works published anywhere from 1923 to 1977 are copyrighted in the USA for several years after publication but not life plus several years, so {{PD-old-70}} and {{PD-old-75}} alone may not be good enough in the USA.--Jusjih 02:08, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Just write up a detailed spec on what you want, and I'll implement it if there are no serious objections. —Quadell (talk/swapmeet) 21:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

CSD: Reposted content

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion

At present this policy allows for deletion of:

Reposted content previously deleted according to this deletion policy, unless it was significantly rewritten in a manner that calls into question the deletion reason.

This needs to be reviewed. The policy is undoubtedly useful when dealing with an individual determined to push his vision at all costs. A recent incident has shown that it can at times be applied too freely. There are pages which should never see the light of day again, particularly in the main namespace. In the various supporting namespaces there is more likelihood of different or varying opinions. There is often an element of quasi-policy being made. In many cases we can find a deletion discussion if we know where to look for it, but it can come as a shock when a person starts an article in good faith, only to find his efforts barred on the basis an old discussion in which he had no opportunity to participate. If he has no opportunity to view the originally deleted article he can't even know that he is recreating something. An exception needs to be made for those who are making good-faith re-creations or re-uses of a title. A new deletion discussion should be opened. This may very well result in another deletion, but at least there will be an opportunity for those who did not take part in the earlier discussion to participate. Speedy deletion is not appropriate. Eclecticology 19:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

When you re-create a deleted page it says in a big bold box

Warning: You are recreating a page that was previously deleted. You should consider whether it is appropriate to continue editing this page. The deletion log for this page is provided here for convenience: 17:22, January 11, 2008 BirgitteSB (Talk * contribs * block) deleted "Münchausen, Hieronymous Karl Friedrich (EAm06)" ‎ (Author request: content was: '((sdelete*spelling error))' (and the only contributor was 'Eclecticology'))

If you still wish to recreate this you should a) speak to deleting adminstrator and see if they will restore it b) go to WS:DEL and file an undeleteion request. Good-faith re-creators who ignore the big bold box should be able to overcome their shock and then use method a) or b) above. Re-uses of a title would not be "re-posted content" and would not qualify for deletion under this criteria.--BirgitteSB 21:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I've always felt this is a weak point of our policy, a large number of works that have been deleted in the past due to the opinions of one or two users, have since been found to be acceptable - even though the source texts themselves were obviously not "rewritten" as the CSD states. If somebody re-adds a deleted work, it would be best to still list it as CopyVio and alert the poster - then try to "doublecheck" on WS:CopyVio that everybody still agrees it should go - revisiting old cases is always a good idea, and we're not large enough that it will bottleneck us. If everybody's in agreement, we can maybe close the discussion after five days rather than five weeks, but we should be revisiting past deletions as often as possible to be certain we didn't err in reducing our collection when we didn't have to do so. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 21:41, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree that we should revist such things. But let us revist them before we recreate them. On the other extreme, I really do not wish have full deletion discussions everytime some misguided person for the wikiproject to spread en.WP's template system everywhere re-adds {{Lts}}.--BirgitteSB 22:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
      • P.S. When deleting under this criteria, I do think an adminstrator should alert to editor and provide a link to the original discussion. And if I personally was doing this and saw it was a boderline copyright issue, I would certainly take it to WS:COPYVIO rather than delete. But we shouldn't change this general policy rule based on the possibilty of boderline copyvios being recreated. Many, many things are deleted here besides borderline copyvios. The general rule here should be speedy delete stuff we already decided to delete before, while adminstrators are welcome to use their judements and choose not to speedy delete things they feel are worth revisting in a another forum. Overall hard cases make bad law.--BirgitteSB 22:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Speedy deletion should not be used to avoid discussion. I have no interest in reviving the template sharing discussion. It doesn't appear to be a concept that I would support, but if someone is interested in proposing it I see no reason to suppress discussion. How can the person reusing the name know that he is recreating deleted material when he has not seen the original article? How can a template presume that he is? A link to the original discussion is not enough if the original material cannot be seen. I wasn't referring to copyvios or other deletions where legal liability was a significant factor, there is an important reason why that class of article should not be restored first. Sherurcij makes a good point articles can be more easily deleted if the prospect would be that they could be more easily undeleted. I don't go so far as to agree that they should be discussed "as often as possible" only "as often as necessary" Eclecticology 05:30, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
      • I don't see how asking editors to speak with an administrator, and if unhappy with how that goes, to use an undeleteion appeal is repressing any discussion. I think this proposal to remove an entire criteria because of disagreement over how it was used in a very borderline case is shortsighted. Do you even have 10 examples of this criteria being used on a page you would personally like to restore? As I said above, hard cases make bad law.--BirgitteSB 18:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You seem to make my point. For the moment I can't think of any. I'm not even sure of my position on the the specific page that triggered this thread. With the admin flag turned on I'm even less likely to need it personally because I can look at the deleted page. Maybe collectively we can't think of ten pages. That said, the remaining handful of pages where this could become a factor are not likely to create a strain on the community if they are discussed again, and it will give the impression that everybody's opinion is considered fairly without regard to whether they were here at the time of the discussion. Eclecticology 20:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
          • You misunderstand me I am asking for ten examples were you would overturn the deletion under this criteria to show that this a gernerally problamatic criteria rather than one problamatic case. --BirgitteSB 20:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Remove edit size warning

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments6 people in discussion

The following notice : WARNING: This page is xx kilobytes long; some browsers may have problems editing pages approaching or longer than 32kb. Please consider breaking the page into small sections. is often misinterpreted, and I think it would be better to just remove it.

  • First, the 32kb limit is not really a problem today. Even mobile phones can handle pages larger than that.
  • Second, contributors often misunderstand it; they believe it means that the page should be split into several subpages. Actually, it refers to possible difficulties or slowness during the edition of the page, and in invites to add section titles in the page, so that sections can be edited separately. This misunderstanding is widespread.
  • Third, even if one understands the notice correctly, wikisource does not have the freedom to add sections arbitrarily in books if they do not exist. If one has to create a long document, the best way is to split it into proofreading pages, and to create the final page using transclusion. It reduces size significantly.

ThomasV 08:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the warning is still useful, as small pages are easier to work with. They are easier to edit for people on dialup, quicker to undo (for non-admins who don't have rollback), and they segment a work into individually addressable components. The wording of the warning should be tweaked to address those concerns. John Vandenberg 08:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

This was gone over on the English WikipediA YEARS ago (so I can't find and link to the discussion), but the end result was linking to a page explaining what it meant and toning down the message to "This page is $1 kilobites long", or something short like that. 68.39.174.238 23:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

"This portion of the text is X kb in size. Please check to see if you can break the work down into specific chapters or other headings"? I agree it's an annoyance, and I'm not sure the people who randomly textdump aa 985kb work on WS and leave ever really check that notice - Even just something like "Did you know that you can break a work down into separate chapters just by adding a = to either side of the Chapter name?" message would be more useful :P Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 23:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

32 KB is a decent guideline, but we shouldn't be inserting arbitrary section breaks into texts. I'd agree with rewording the warning to be less harsh. —Remember the dot (talk) 02:29, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

'The warning remains valid. I still find that long pages are slow to react in editing, and in being resolved. I have no problem dividing a long page into sub-pages. If that is being done artificially that fact needs to be noted in some suitable way, such by putting [Section 1] in square brackets in the same way we would treat other added material. Eclecticology 05:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Other discussions

Commons Picture of the Year

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Boilerplate notice:

“

The 2007 Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year competition is now open!

Please visit commons:Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Voting to see if you are eligible and get a voting token.

The images are presented in categories, but you can vote for as many as you like, in as many categories as you like. (The categories are just so you don't have to look at hundreds of images at once.) The top 28 images will make it to the final.

Before you cast your vote, you can preview them all at commons:Commons:Picture_of_the_Year/2007/Galleries . Voting is open from January 10-17, so please take the time to have your say!

Thanks, Wikimedia Commons Picture of the Year committee

”

There are a few images that are from source texts, such as those below. Finding and transcribing the works that these or other images appeared in would be helpful to bring a few POTY voters to Wikisource. John Vandenberg 03:34, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

The Illustrated London News and its coverage of the Franco-Prussian war featured strongly:

Header use guideline

Latest comment: 16 years ago17 comments7 people in discussion

I boldly formalized the guideline on how to use the header template. It is now at Template:Header/doc#Chapter titles. I formalized the guideline because I see too many headers formatted like this:

←Chapter X: Jewtown How the Other Half Lives (Chapter XI: The Sweaters of Jewtown)
by Jacob Riis 		Chapter XII: The Bohemians—Tenement-House Cigarmaking→


The header is not there to give the chapter title, it's just for navigation. Having the chapter title there is redundant and can make the header take up more space than it is supposed to. Instead, the guideline now recommends:

←Chapter X How the Other Half Lives (Chapter XI)
by Jacob Riis 		Chapter XII→


This is much nicer. —Remember the dot (talk) 00:40, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh. Quadell 00:44, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Is that a good "Oh." or a bad "Oh."? Hopefully good... —Remember the dot (talk) 00:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
That's an "Oh, I've been doing it wrong, and I have a lot to fix." But looking below, the issue seems up in the air. Quadell 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The header is more often than not used to give the section/chapter title, and I personally do not like the chapter title being in the body of the page, as that encourages the chapter title being written in all sorts of manner, which makes it more difficult to extract the chapter title from the page.
I agree that an abbreviated previous/next is sometimes prettier, but dont like guidelines that say "Do not", especially when so many of our pages currently do what they are supposedly not allowed to do.
WS:STYLE leans in favour of allowing the initial contributor to make these decisions based on their own preference. John Vandenberg 01:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, as you've pointed out, there's no rush. I would like if we could decide on one format to be used consistently across all articles, and then gradually migrate to that format. One option is to use level 2 headings for chapter titles, as is done at How the Other Half Lives/Chapter I. As long as we do that consistently, there would be no problem. Currently, the formatting is very inconsistent between texts. —Remember the dot (talk) 01:59, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think imposing consistency is appropriate, because chapters are named inconsistently in the real world. Some books have chapters of the form "Chapter 10", others "Chapter X", others "Chapter 10: Jewtown", and others "Jewtown". I think we should be striving to represent the source as closely as possible, and if that results in inconsistency, so be it.

Having said that, I think we should be giving informative chapter titles where it is possible to do so. If it is consistent with the source to entitle a chapter "Chapter 10: Jewtown", then why on earth would we adopt the less useful name "Chapter 10"? And in that case, having provided full chapter titles, it seems wrong to insist on abbreviating them in the headers.

A better example is perhaps Flora Australiensis/Volume V/CIV. Proteaceae/29. Dryandra; this is a nice, clear, useful title. I would be very strongly opposed to the requirement that it be named and/or linked as Flora Australiensis/Volume V/CIV/29, which tells us nothing.

Hesperian 02:16, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I apologize; I was not clear. My suggestion applies only to what we put into Template:Header2, not what we name the actual pages. No pages will be renamed, but rather than saying "Chapter I: The Dog Returns" in the header, just say "Chapter I" and put "Chapter I: The Dog Returns" as part of the source text. If the original source doesn't say "Chapter" or "Section", then it would be perfectly fine to say "28. Banksia" or just "Banksia" if there is no number. —Remember the dot (talk) 03:36, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

(ec) I think any guideline should be flexible, giving the preferred "default" way of doing it unless you have a good reason to do it a different way. Looking it over, it seems to me that it would be best, most of the time, to have a page called Book title/Chapter 9, and have the header say something like 

{{header2 
|title=[[Book title]] 
|section=Chapter 9: The Witty Chapter Name 
|previous=[[Book title/Chapter 8|Chapter 8]] 
|next=[[Book title/Afterward|Afterward]] 
}}

The title is in the displayed section name, but not the page name or the next or previous links. Quadell 03:41, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

That sounds good. —Remember the dot (talk) 04:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that we are anywhere near ready to have uniform headers for all articles. As long as regular contributors are developing their own versions and variations it would be counterproductive to insist on any one model. I'm personally happy with the green box, and I'm ecstatic to see the permalink gone. Beyond that we should perhaps review what we do want in the header or headers that appear on a page. Eclecticology

That's exactly what this discussion is for. To decide exactly how we want to use the headers, and to do that consistently. Of course, the source text themselves are going to be formatted in all sorts of different ways because they were printed that way, but the header is specific to Wikisource and we should agree on one single guideline on how to use it. The guideline will not always apply, but it would keep the headers reasonably consistent. —Remember the dot (talk) 18:10, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference here is that you are framing it as a 'how' discussion while I'm approaching it as a 'what' discussion. There is certainly value to showing the name of the chapter in the header, but is it better in line or under the book title. For long titles, having one under the other seems prettier than wrapping only the last word of the chapter title beneath. In Hesperian's example I had to puzzle over what the "CIV" meant; should it read "Order 104" to reflect that book's usage. Omitting "CIV" completely would incline us more to the usage of these names as family rather than order names in botany. In the encyclopedic articles, I've determined that the article parameter can be used to reconcile the entry of the same thing under different names in different encyclopedias. See Mongoose where the Americana uses "Mungoos" and the Britannica uses "Ichneumon". The recent addition of the Carl Sandburg collection of poems prescribes a certain order for those poems. I don't know specifically about Sandburg, but it was certainly a custom at the time for poems and other literary works to be first published individually in magazines. While one would expect a certain continuity in serialized novels, poems and short stories were mostly stand alone, and I could argue that the proper continuity would be with works of other authors that preceded and followed in some issue of a magazine. At first glance the header looks simple, and if we limit ourselves to the chapters of a novel, maybe it is.
Before we look at consistent appearance, it might be good to look at consistency in filling parameters to make that more intuitive. If a parameter is left blank it means that there is nothing to put there. I would never have guessed that if there is no author we should put "none" (including the quotation marks), and the term "author override" will not be easily imagined by newcomers whom we want to encourage to contribute. If a parameter will never be used in a heading it should also be possible to omit the name of the parameter entirely. I'm sure there are other possibilities that can be raised for changes. Eclecticology 20:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with excluding the current page title in the header, but not always all the titles. The header is an excellent navigational aid, but it doesn't have the kind of flexible formatting necessary to totally replace the content titles. Also, the green box tends to set it off as separate from the document. I would analogize it with the page headers we see at the top of every page in printed books. In the example presented at the beginning of this discussion, I would use "Chapter XI" (or "Chapter 11") as the section title. The full title of the current page could be included in the header but isn't really necessary because I always include the title in the content of the document. This is necessary because some documents have complex title information (see The Literary Digest History of the World War/Chapter 1, which is only partially complete), and I feel it is necessary to distinguish between source content (not in the header) and added non-source information (which would likely appear in the header and header notes. —Mike 21:32, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, that is a good analogy. The page title should always be given in the body of the text. We ought to decide whether we (in general) want it in the header as well or not.
There are many different ways of having headers. A lot of the ugliness problem could be resolved if we changed the formatting that the header template uses. For example:
←Chapter X How the Other Half Lives by Jacob Riis
Chapter XI: The Sweaters of Jewtown 		Chapter XII→
—Remember the dot (talk) 23:12, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The last example is the one I prefer, but I would put in bold the Chapter XI: The Sweaters of Jewtown. Yann 23:56, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If there were a translator in that last version where would he appear?
The "page titles" or flying heads would not normally be needed. They are often there to ease the paper edition reader's navigation, but there can be exceptions.Eclecticology 09:26, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
This is how it would look with an author and a translator:
←Dedication The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli, translated by Ninian Hill Thomson
Chapter I: Of the Various Kinds of Princedom, and of the Ways in Which They Are Acquired 		Chapter II→
Does that look good to you? —Remember the dot (talk) 05:50, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Questions

70 years

Latest comment: 16 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

From January 1 2008, the following creators have been dead for 70 years. Their works may be public domain depending on jurisdiction.

62.65.107.196 18:57, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

There are more in Category:1937 deaths. John Vandenberg 03:52, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
Just be careful of that bizzare eternal copyright on Barrie's Pan. 68.39.174.238 06:33, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
No need to worry there. We have seen it raise its head recently and in the past with varying results: 2006-04: kept and 2006-06: deleted. John Vandenberg 09:13, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

User Name Changes

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Is it possible to get an existing user name changed to a non-existing user name? --The White Rose 11:36, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Change of user name is done by a bureaucrat, contact User:Zhaladshar. 62.65.107.196 08:14, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. I have e-mailed Zhaladshar. --The White Rose 07:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

log in

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I forgot my password so what can I do to log in? I have tried to create a new account but had no success.

When you are at the log-in page enter your user name and click on "E-mail Password". Eclecticology 18:18, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just So Stories - can images be mixed with text?

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Rudyard Kipling made his own illustrations for Just So Stories. I have an edition with his own illustrations, and have taken some photos and intend to take more. It seems that the illustrations would be useful in cases where Kipling had a full-page illustration, on a page facing the text, and put something like, "This is a picture of the whole story of the Jaguar and the Hedgehog and the Tortoise and the Armadillo all in a heap. . . ." And I certainly feel I can upload those particular full-page illustrations to Commons and then add them to the individual stories here at Wikisource. However, Kipling also drew a picture for the first letter of the first word in each story. For example, How The Whale Got His Throat begins with "IN the sea, once upon a time, O my Best Beloved, there was a Whale, and he ate fishes." This is the picture that Kipling drew for the letter I in the word "In". The story How The Camel Got His Hump begins with "NOW this is the next tale, and it tells how the Camel got his big hump." This is the picture that Kipling drew for the letter N in the word "Now". The story How The Rhinoceros Got His Skin begins with the sentence "ONCE upon a time, on an uninhabited island on the shores of the Red Sea, there lived a Parsee from whose hat the rays of the sun were reflected in more-than-oriental splendour." This is the picture that Kipling drew for the letter O in the word "Once".

I uploaded those three samples to Commons really just so that I could ask some people here to take a look and to give me some advice. Would those images be useful? I've never used any sophisticated image-editing software. I could crop the edges, but that would be all. If someone could help to remove all the background, would it then be possible to insert them into the beginning of each story? So far, I've seen images in sort of box on the right or on the left of a page. I've never seen anything here that indicated that it would be possible to mix the images with the actual text, so that an image could be used as the first letter of a word.

Please tell me whether or not I should continue to upload the images of the first letters of each story. It's no problem to keep going with the full page illustrations that Kipling did, but I don't want to waste time over his first letters unless they can actually be used. As you can see, each first letter image is relevant to the story. Thanks. Cowardly Lion 22:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

When I added The Goblins' Christmas I had the same problem. I mixed it in with the text as best I could. Any other suggestions? FloNight 01:41, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing out that link to me. I've just taken a look at the source in the edit box in that page, and now I think I could have something like this:

N the sea, once upon a time, O my Best Beloved, there was a Whale, and he ate fishes. He ate the starfish and the garfish, and the crab and the dab, and the plaice and the dace, and the skate and his mate, and the mackereel and the pickereel, and the really truly twirly-whirly eel. All the fishes he could find in

all the sea he ate with his mouth—so! Till at last there was only one small fish left in all the sea, and he was a small 'Stute Fish, and he swam a little behind the Whale's right ear, so as to be out of harm's way. Then the Whale stood up on his tail and said, 'I'm hungry.' And the small 'Stute Fish said in a small 'stute voice, 'Noble and generous Cetacean, have you ever tasted Man?'

OW this is the next tale, and it tells how the Camel got his big hump.

In the beginning of years, when the world was so new and all, and the Animals were just beginning to work for Man, there was a Camel, and he lived in the middle of a Howling Desert because he did not want to work; and besides, he was a Howler himself. So he ate sticks and thorns and tamarisks and milkweed and prickles, most 'scruciating idle; and when anybody spoke to him he said 'Humph!' Just 'Humph!' and no more.

O
O

NCE upon a time, on an uninhabited island on the shores of the Red Sea, there lived a Parsee from whose hat the rays of the sun were reflected in more-than-oriental splendour. And the Parsee lived by the Red Sea with nothing but his hat and his knife and a cooking-stove of the kind that you must particularly never touch. And one day he took flour and water and currants and plums and sugar and things, and made himself one cake which was two feet across and three feet thick. It was indeed a Superior Comestible (that's magic), and he put it on stove because he was allowed to cook on the stove, and he baked it and he baked it till it was all done brown and smelt most sentimental. But just as he was going to eat it there came down to the beach from the Altogether Uninhabited Interior one Rhinoceros with a horn on his nose, two piggy eyes, and few manners. In those days the Rhinoceros's skin fitted him quite tight. There were no wrinkles in it anywhere. He looked exactly like a Noah's Ark Rhinoceros, but of course much bigger.

Of course, the images would have to be cropped. As it is at the moment, the one about the Camel doesn't look much like an N, but I think it would if all the background were removed. Is there someone here who could do that and re-upload them? Or should I ask at Commons? There would be a total of thirteen of those first letter images. At the moment, Just So Stories here at Wikisource only has twelve of the thirteen stories, but I intend to put that right! For some reason, the last one is left out of a lot of editions. Thanks for your help, FloNight. I realize that as it is now, it wouldn't look right at all, but you've made me think that it's achievable. Cowardly Lion 02:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The main concern is that if we use images in place of words or even letters, we need to be sure that there are no accessibility issues. As far as I can see, we need to add the word at the end of the image tag, like so, but we would need to check whether w:screen readers understand that. Also, that doesn't appear to work for individual letters, as the "O" in the last example is placed on a separate line when I copy and paste it: "... no more. / O / NCE upon a time, ...".
My own thoughts on this is that high-quality page scans are a better way to capture the original, but on occasion I have tried to re-create the original pages using wiki syntax. If it looks reasonable, and you want to put in the effort, go for it. John Vandenberg 02:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for that. My understanding then is that since Kipling drew a picture for the first letter of the first word, it's more complicated than if he had drawn a picture of the first word. So we could have had an image of the word "IN", and then added the pipeline and added the word "IN" just before closing the square brackets. But since he just had a picture for the letter I, we'd have to add just I before closing the square brackets and then put N outside the brackets, and that mightn't work for a text reader. I hope I'm making sense.
The solution then seems to be either to drop the idea entirely or to have ordinary text and have an image at the side to show what the first word looked like in Kipling's original version.
Regarding the other images, I had taken, but not uploaded, several photos, but in the meantime I've discovered this website, which has all the images online. In one way, they're better than mine; in another way, they're worse. For a comparison, see
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:All%27s_Well_That_Ends_Well
which has a picture presumably taken from some website, where the background is white, and the angle is correct, as the page was flat, but where, if you increase the size of the image, the letters get very blurry. The other picture was taken by me with an excellent camera. The file size is much greater. If you save to disk and then greatly increase the size of the image, the letters remain perfectly in focus. But, the page looks yellowy-brown, and the angle isn't good because I couldn't open the book completely flat without damaging it.
Would it be better for me to use my own photos, with rather off-white pages, and the angle not quite right, but excellent quality for blowing up, or images from that website which are completely flat with a white background, but which lose quality quite badly when the size is increased? Also, I presume that if I take them from the website, there are no copyright issues, since the webmaster just took them from Kipling's first edition, and didn't re-draw them. Cowardly Lion 14:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Just a note to crop the illustrations closely, so we don't have the extra lettering around the sides of his single illuminated letter. But the idea itself seems to work, as evidenced in Howard Pyle's Book of Pirates/Chapter I Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 20:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Requesting bot flag

Latest comment: 16 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

Hey all, I'd like to run a task, that'll involve initially 600+ edits, and, probably expand to a grand total of 1400 or so edits:

Replacing <big>T</big>ITLE with {{bbsc|Title}}, in the EB1911 articles. (Test edits: [2] [3] [4] [5] [6])

I've run a few test edits, and, it seems to be working alright now (I'd tried before in AWB, and, ran into limitations with the software, now I'm using my own software, and, it's going like it should). The bot I'm requesting it for is User:SQLBot, and, a detailed description of the task can be found here, including source code.

Given that it's going to be a lot of edits, I thought I'd ask for a bot flag, so that I won't flood the RC feed. SQLQuery me! 11:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SQL is simply fulfilling the bot task requested on WS:BOTR. If you update the requested task, SQL can adjust the bot. John Vandenberg 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
I've added my comment to the discussion on the bot request page. Eclecticology 11:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It is obvious that this user might be doing plenty of things with his bot after the flag is granted, not just capitalizing letters. When a user is requesting a bot flag, we should consider his ability to control his bot (for example he should be able to understand and revert mistakes made by his bot), and his willfullness to apply community decisions. Therefore support or opposition to the flag bot should be based on his technical capacity to control a bot, not on the particular task he proposes to do first. Whether letters should be capitalized or not should be the topic of a separate discussion. So, please do not take it bad, I think your opposition is a bit offtopic. ThomasV 08:05, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
It isn't offtopic at all to discuss the specific task requested! The request was for a "one-use bot" If he will "be doing plenty of things with his bot" it is just as obvious that they should be specified beforehand. Although I agree that the proposer should be able to control his bot, that is a generality to be applied to all bots that does not need to be discussed in every bot application, and as such is offtopic to a specific bot. Eclecticology 11:11, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
what makes you think SQL is requesting a bot flag for one single use ? My experience is that people who are granted bot flag rarely request it to be removed after their first task is completed. ThomasV 11:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
See the relevant heading Wikisource:Bot requests#1911 Encyclopædia Britannica maintenance one-use bot. Perhaps they should be made to expire automatically after their job is done. Eclecticology 11:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Comment I am not against giving SQLbot the flag, but I have reservations on using templates for such trivial edits. Using a lot of templates makes editing much more difficult, so we should use templates only when they bring a real benefit. I don't think it is the case here. Yann 11:20, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
    • In this case, I think the template makes things better because it keeps the word together. I can't see <big>T</big>ITLE as being less diffcult to work wtih than a template.--BirgitteSB 18:44, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Author page categories

Latest comment: 16 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Can we try to limit the categories on an author page to those that have a direct relationship to the person as an author. I just looked at the page for former US Supreme Court Justice Author:Benjamin Nathan Cardozo where he is put in Category:Jews. What does his being a jew have to do with his writings? For our purposes such a category should be limited to persons who wrote about specifically jewish topics. The biographical notes on an author page are meant to place the author in a particular context, and nothing more. If a person wants to know more about an author he can go to Wikipedia. Adding these extra categories is beyond the scope of Wikisource. Eclecticology 18:22, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I think you make a good point, maybe the category name should be changed from Category:Jews to Category:Jewish topics. - Epousesquecido 02:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
It's important to stress here that I'm only talking about author pages. Eclecticology 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
At the same time, I imagine the people reading Wikisource:Mormonism would like to be able to view an Authorpage Category to view all Mormon authors. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Haile Selassie 02:27, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
In that case it can always be added to the notes. Author:Richard F. Burton wrote about Mormonism in his City of the Saints, and in that context it makes sense to say that he was not a Mormon, or that he was not a Muslim when he visited Mecca. I think that your hypothetical reader will be more interested in works about Mormonism than authors who are Mormons. Eclecticology 02:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Advice

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

The Pentagon Papers are a mess (it's my fault, I added them), and it occurs to me - should something like this be at Wikisource:Pentagon Papers with links to the individual reports - or one cohesive articleSpace? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 23:05, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I had a similar problem - a coherent collection of reports that are kinda a single work but kinda not. I solved it by transcribing them as individual reports, but categorising them into Category:Letterbook of Explorers' Journals. Hesperian 05:51, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
The works were all published as one unit, and had not been previously published. I think it should remain one work, rather than being a collection in Wikisource space. Many of the most important documents might not be subpages, though; perhaps it should be a combination of the way you organized Cornhuskers and the normal chapter-subpage style. Quadell 18:23, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Formatting part of a work

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I'm having some difficulty getting the index that was part of History of Iowa From the Earliest Times to the Beginning of the Twentieth Century formatted correctly. I want it to have two cells per row. The first row, first cell would contain the first line of the first column on the page. It would go on like that to the bottom of the page. I accomplished that, but I can't get some of the lines indented. The colon trick doesn't seem to work in cells. Could anyone help with this? I apologize if I have posted this in the wrong area. Psychless 00:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Try putting the colon
at the
 start of
a new
line.

Hesperian 07:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I thank you for the solution, but the extra line breaks wouldn't be acceptable in the text I'm working on. I'll just be adding 3 [&]nbsp; in front of the lines that need to be indented. Psychless 03:45, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Bot flag request: Polbot

Latest comment: 16 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

Hi, I run a bot named User:Polbot on the English Wikipedia and the Commons. I registered the username here as well, and I'd like to have her run some simple, automated tasks. Specifically, I'm thinking of adding placeholder headers for the poems in Cornhuskers, with previous and next links, like Near Keokuk. (Then I can fill in the text easier.) If I can figure out the details, I'll also have her modify existing poems in the collection like this. Of course I could also apply her to similar collections like The Socialist Movement, The suppressed Gospels and Epistles of the original New Testament of Jesus the Christ, etc. What do you say? Quadell 04:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

  • Sounds good. Cowardly Lion 04:09, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
  • I dont like the idea of "placeholder headers". The pages in Cornhuskers all appear to either be red links or typical pages with headers. Red links are good.
    OTOH, writing a bot to add missing headers will be very helpful; you can drive it from pages marked with {{no header}}. If written this way, collections of poems could be dumped into pages, and the bot could run behind and add the headers, or add the previous/next links in the header. John Vandenberg 04:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
    • Just to be clear, I would only add headers for pages that I am going to add the text for, immediately afterwards. Quadell 11:54, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Then this isnt a task that needs a bot flag. We want new content pages to appear on Special:Recentchanges, unless you are creating hundreds and the import process has been approved. If you are going to use a bot to assist creating the pages, why not use m:Pagefromfile.py (or similar) under your own account. John Vandenberg 13:43, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
        • If I do it under my own account, each page will show up twice on recentchanges: once for the header with no content, created automatically with prev and next fields filled in; and once when I manually add the content. m:Pagefromfile.py is nice, but I'd want to modify the process slightly for different works, and I use Perl. Quadell 14:18, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Withdrawn. So my plan is now, I'm going to download and format the content offline, and then upload all parts in bulk with an automated script. John Vandenberg's comment above indicates that I should do so under my main account, and that I don't need permission for a work of a couple dozen chapters. Unless someone objects, that's what I'll do. Quadell 18:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Good idea! —Remember the dot (talk) 22:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

As you are now uploading hundreds of pages (not just headers) in an automated fashion, and there have been no major problems so far, I think it is reasonable to perform this uploading using a bot account. It might be handy to accompany each upload with a note somewhere that appears on Recentchanges. If you do continue doing this under your main account, could you use a shorter edit summary so that the Recentchanges entry is less likely to wrap and consume two lines. John Vandenberg 02:52, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I always have to create the "main page" of the work manually, so I could do that under "Quadell", and import all subpages as Polbot. That way the main entry will show up on recentchanges, but the subpages won't. If this sounds good, I'll be glad to give Polbot a botflag for her birthday. —Quadell (talk / swapmeet) 03:23, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
My birthday came! Huzzah! Polbot 03:33, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

exercises for error of refraction

Latest comment: 16 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

hi i m working on a thesis named EXERCIESE FOR THE ERROR OF REFRACTION & i want some recent literature for visual training,effect of visual training on eyes & error of refraction. i m asking u for this because i got so many previous literatures on this topic from this site & i hope u will help me further also for my this thesis.

You probably won't find recent works on Wikisource, unless those works are in the public domain. But over at Wikipedia, you might look at w:Vision therapy and w:Refraction, or you might ask at w:Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science. Quadell 16:33, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

"American" vs. "United States"

Latest comment: 16 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Authors from Belgium are "Belgian authors". What are authors from the U.S.? "American authors" or "United States authors"? En:wiki uses "American", but Commons uses "United States". Do we have a general standard? I ask because I noticed both Category:United States Civil War and Category:American Civil War, and these sorts of problems crop up all the time when we don't have a standard. I have a slight preference for "United States", but I'd be happy with either. Quadell 15:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When this came up a few years ago on en:wiki there was a strong consensus in favour of using "United States" adjectivally, but these things can change. In most categories "United States" seems more precise, and avoids the usual objection from residents of other countries in the Americas. Thus, we can have Category:United States authors. "American Civil War" almost has the stature of a set phrase relating to that specific conflict, and I would be inclined to favour merging into that category rather than the more awkward "United States Civil War". Eclecticology 19:08, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks. Quadell 14:21, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

pseudonymous and anonymous

Latest comment: 16 years ago10 comments3 people in discussion

There are many works where the author is not known and will never be known, such as Epistle to the Laodiceans. These works currently have "pseudonymous" or "anonymous" as the listed author, which is of course a redlink, since there is no author by that name. However, not every user will know what these works mean. Also, having a redlink in so many articles seems less than ideal.

I created Author:Pseudonymous, describing what this meant. User:Jayvdb deleted this page (correctly, according to policy) under G4, citing the previous deletion discussion at Wikisource:Proposed_deletions/Archives/2007/02#Author:Anonymous_and_Author:Disputed, which I hadn't known about. I'd like to revisit this. It seems there are various ways to deal with pseudonymity (and, by extension, anonymity) on Wikisource.

1) We could leave things as they are. Problems include: this leads to permanent redlinks on many important documents; and this doesn't allow for useful descriptions of the meanings of the terms, links to the relevant Wikipedia articles, copyright issues, examples, etc.

2) We could decide to have Author:pseudonymous and Author:anonymous as artificial author pages. This would be a change, but it would fix the problems with #1 above. (See User:Quadell/scrap for my current suggestion of what this could look like.) A potential objection is that these aren't really authors, which is true -- it would be artificial.

3) We could have a separate page like Wikisource:Anonymous and disputed works describing what this means, Wikisource policy, copyright concerns, etc. Author:pseudonymous could be a redirect to this. As an alternative, the {{header2}} could be changed to link to this instead of linking to the author if an optional parameter is provided (such as "noauthor=yes" or something).

Comments? Quadell 14:10, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum to #3: Or we could, as a guideline, use "override_author" to link to the Wikisource:Anonymous and disputed works page. Quadell 14:13, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
We could also have the header template logic detect "author = anonymous" and link to Wikisource:Blah, like we currently do for "translator = wikisource" which links to Wikisource:Translations. John Vandenberg 09:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with using Author:anonymous, or Author:disputed, but I have reservations about Author:pseudonymous. It certainly should not have been deleted without being discussed. Using CSD rules for this was not appropriate. I note that Quadell was on a long absence between July 2005 and December 2007. The original deletion took place in February 2007 with the unanimous support of five people. The purpose for speedily deleting previously deleted articles is to thwart those who are pushing a POV by recreating articles. It should not be used to create difficulties for a person who was not a participant in the original deletion discussion. I propose that Quadell's page be restored, and that the deletion discussion be moved back from the archives and into the active discussion page for further comment.

Pseudonyms do not imply that the author is unknown. Such an other has chosen to use a name other than that by which he is legally known. A pseudonym therefore is perfectly acceptable as an author name; often with this the question is whether he should be listed under his pseudonym or his "real" name. Eclecticology 07:03, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Please dont wiki-lawyer over when CSD can and cant be used, who we can do it too and how many hoops we need to jump through to do it. I followed up the deletion with a comment on Quadell's talk page, finished off another reply to Quadell, and went to bed. afaics, there is no need to undelete - Quadell work is here: User:Quadell/scrap. I dont doubt that he got annoyed for a few seconds, and then did the right thing and brought it here for discussion. He has quite rightly seen that this is an area we need to improve, especially wrt guidelines on how the header should be crafted for these types of works.
It's no more wiki-lawyering to point out an improper application of speedy deletion than to use that page as an excuse for summarily getting rid of something that you don't like without discussion. A deletion discussion happens in a particular time, and expresses the will of the community at that time. Communities change, so dragging up a nearly year-old discussion on a specific page title and treating that as set-in-stone policy is just wrong. It creates an atmosphere where any obscure old discussion can be used against people who were never around for the discussion in the first place. While headers were a related part of the discussion, I see that as a different issue from the use of Author:anonymous. Eclecticology 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
The Author namespace is dedicated to identities. For complex authorship, the details should be on Wikipedia, or maybe on a sub-page of the work. Having pages for Author:Paul of Tarsus and Author:Seneca is also great, as it still identifies an author. Having an index of all pseudonyms is also OK, but it doesnt belong in the Author namespace. Author:Pseudonymous would be a bloody long list. Author pages named "Anonymous", "Disputed", "Anonymous Elizabethan Dramatist" and "Pseudonymous" are classifications of authors/authorship: they are not authors. John Vandenberg 09:02, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
If you read what I said, I am less supportive of Author:pseudonymous than of Author:anonymous. When did we ever decide that the Author namespace would be so narrowly focused? Quadell's approach has some merit, and it was brought forth in good faith. Sure, even I have some reservations about it, but that's why we discuss before we delete. Eclecticology 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, yes. That's why these would be artificial author pages. I can see both pluses and minuses to using those. My current preference, among those so far discussed, would be to have {{header2}} auto-detect "Anonymous", "Pseudonymous", and perhaps a few others, and link to a general Wikisource page on the topic. If this looks like the way to go, I could try to make a mock-up of, perhaps, Wikisource:Unknown or disputed authorship.
(P.S. -- Thanks for taking up for me, Eclecticology, but it's cool. Jvdb can be abrupt sometimes, but I didn't take it the wrong way -- for more than a minute. I think dealing with this here, rather than CSD and DRV, is the most productive at this point.) Quadell 15:13, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
I suppose that if you had not mentioned it on this page I might never have been aware of the problem. CSD is a heavy tool with many good uses, but like any heavy tool its use needs to be monitored. Eclecticology 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

See Wikisource:Anonymous texts and WS:PD#Wikisource:Anonymous texts. John Vandenberg 14:13, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Greek originals

Latest comment: 16 years ago9 comments5 people in discussion

I've been importing PD translations of ancient Christian works, such as 1 Clement. (Modern translations are copyrighted, but there are several pre-1923 ones.) Obviously the original texts are not under copyright. I've found the original Greek (or Latin) in some cases online, e.g., at this site. Does this belong on the English Wikisource? Or should I put it only on the Greek Wikisource? And that's fine for Greek and Latin. . . but some of these works were written in Syriac or Coptic, and there is to Syriac Wikisource or Coptic Wikisource. How should I handle this? Quadell 15:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello, Greek texts should go to the Greek WS and Latin texts to the Latin WS. Syriac or Coptic texts should go to http://wikisource.org Please note that there are already a Greek version of the Bible and a Latin version there. It seems that the Greek version is in old Greek. Yann 17:05, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. Wow, poking around I see that http://wikisource.org sure is a mixed bag! Quadell 14:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
Better still is a two column approach in this project with the original in one column, and the aligned translation facing it in another column. See the excellent work being done at Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Eclecticology
This is done automatically (though imperfectly) by the Wikimedia software, e.g.[7]. Quadell 00:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The strange thing is that the two versions are together on the pt:ws. It would make more sense the other way around. What possible interest would Portuguese speakers have in hosting the English translation. Eclecticology 08:21, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The software feature pulls the page from each sub-domain and puts them side-by-side. Here is the "same" feature running from en.ws, showing the English on the left hand side. John Vandenberg 09:03, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
I see. I went to Quadell's link to pt:ws, and linked back from there to the English version. It did not then show the two versions on the English page. Knowing that one needs to enter "?match=pt" is not particularly intuitive. The two should probably show by default on the target language. Eclecticology 18:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The more intuitive way is to click on the double arrow to the right of the desired language on the interwiki link ;) That is still hardly self-explanatory, but it is hard to come up with completely intuitive language nuetral interface that still fits in the margin provided for interwiki links.--BirgitteSB 20:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
The double arrows do not appear in all skins. Eclecticology 05:52, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Footnotes

Latest comment: 16 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

A little more than halfway through The Merry Adventures of Robin Hood/Chapter I, there is a reference to Adam Bell, with a "(1)" immediately after. Then, the next sentence reads like this: 

     (1) Adam Bell, Clym o' the Clough, and William of Cloudesly
     were three noted north-country bowmen whose names have been
     celebrated in many ballads of the olden time.

It looks very messy, and intrudes, as if it's part of the story. Presumably in the printed book, it was at the bottom of the printed page, which may have been immediately after that sentence. I think it should go at the bottom of the page here, which of course means the end of the whole chapter - unlike in the printed book.

Is there some better way of doing it than what we have there at the moment? Thanks. Cowardly Lion 01:15, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The same in Chapter II. There's a reference to "crabs", and at the end of the paragraph, we have:
     (2) Small sour apples.
which really looks horrible. Cowardly Lion 01:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

You know how to do <ref> tags, like at A History of the Civil War, 1861-1865/Chapter I, right? Quadell 02:42, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

If not, I can help. I often run complex regular-expression search-and-replace functions to make correct <ref> tags out of visible footnotes, like you're describing. If you'd like a hand, just ask. Quadell 14:20, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I usually prefer to put these things at the end of the paragraph; Perhaps this reflects my annoyance with paper books when I need to go back and forth to the end of the chapter or book to follow the footnotes. I also put a horizontal line before the footnote, and indent it. I have been using the same type size but would consider a smaller one. The bigger type size in the example gives the wrong impression that the footnote is more important than the principal text. With the Burton translation of the Arabian Nights I would put them at the end of the paper copy's pages. This was mostly because Burton did not break up his text into paragraphs, and his footnotes are renowned for what they add to the material.

Strictly bibliographical footnotes are boring, and do just as well at the end of the chapter. This opens up the possibility of using two series of footnotes. Eclecticology 21:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

There has been a fair amount of talk in various places about having two series of footnotes, and it seems like it would be useful here; I've played around a little with doing that, but haven't finished anything yet. -Steve Sanbeg 17:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
They do this a lot on Wikipedia (e.g. Alcibiades), with one set of notes purely for references and the other for notes that don't really belong in article text. It works fairly well there. I could certainly see a Wikisource document using one set of footnotes for those that were present in the original document (e.g. The American Language/Chapter 22), and the other set for Wikisource-specific annotations. —Quadell (talk/swapmeet) 21:28, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Hello

Latest comment: 16 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Just joined, with the idea of getting classical and medieval parallet Latin-English sources into public domain. I see a few people have already had such an idea (with Catullus and some of Ovid). Can someone point me in the right direction of style and structural points? E.g. Do we have Ovid/Metamorphorses then a tree under that, or is the tree structure implied in the title, or is it done by categories or what? If I translate a piece of Latin, do I lose the right to reuse it in one of my own publications or what? Grateful. Ockham 08:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Welcome to the project! If you translate a piece of Latin into English for Wikisource, you have the choice of licensing the translation under the w:GFDL, w:Creative Commons, or best-of-all, releasing it into the w:Public Domain. No matter which choice you choose, you are still absolutely free to use it in your own publications. Wikisource:Ancient Rome is probably a good place to start your poking-around, though it's far from a complete list of our works. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Wikisource:Sheet music 08:14, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks!! But what on earth is the difference between these three? Why is public domain better? Ockham 08:18, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Another new user asked for advice regarding GFDL vs Creative Commons, and I tried to give a decent comparison. See User talk:Skylark1#On licenses. Public domain is considered by some to be better because it releases your work from any copyright restrictions. There are also many reasons why public domain isn't optimal. see w:copyleft for some of them. John Vandenberg 08:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks I'll put those links in a convenient place. On the organisation of an author's work I see there are precedents for those and there are already some other people working on Catullus. Thanks again. Ockham 10:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Feel free to go ahead and make improvements to Author:Catullus, Carmina, or any other page that takes your interest. Nobody is actively working on these, so you wont be interfering. Remember, it is a wiki, so you can't break anything. We all watch Special:Recentchanges so if you do something that looks really strange, somebody will drop you a note. If you are unsure about anything, ask more specific questions here. John Vandenberg 10:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2008-01&oldid=14591944"