Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006 - Wikisource

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006 - Wikisource
Jump to content
From Wikisource
Wikisource:Scriptorium
(Redirected from
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Jan 2006 - Dec 2006
Making proof reading easier
edit
Mediawiki doesn't support proof reading. A first step to make it easier would be to preserve the line breaks. For that a soft hyphen is neccessary for line breaks within words. I think, the only way is to change Mediawiki and add a symbol that, used at the end of a line, isn't displayed and puts the word before and after the line together without an empty space. This could be "­ ;" or a "-" (if the text should have one, it has to be uses twice "--") or something else. Or is there an other solution? --
Jofi
00:15, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
I reported it as
Bug 4473
. --
Jofi
00:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Obviously nobody is interested in that. Why not? --
Jofi
00:09, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't exactly understand the problem or what's being asked. To me everything seems to work just fine.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
00:42, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I try to explain it. If you have an original text like this:
Dies ist ein Beispieltext, der nur Test-
zwecken dient.
it is displayed in Wikisource like this:
Dies ist ein Beispieltext, der nur Test-
zwecken dient.
Correct would be:
Dies ist ein Beispieltext, der nur Testzwecken dient. (without "-" and empty space)
So you have to change the text to have it correctly displayed. But then you don't have the original line breaks. If now somebody wants to proofread the text, it is much more difficult for him to find the correct line. This could be easily solved if:
Dies ist ein Beispieltext, der nur Test­ (or anything else instead of "shy")
zwecken dient.
would be possible and would result in:
Dies ist ein Beispieltext, der nur Test­zwecken dient.
You would have nice text in the article view and original line breaks in the edit view. --
Jofi
21:59, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Oh, got it. Thanks for clarifying.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
22:07, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
partial protection of pages
edit
The current page protection scheme is not satisfactory.
One problem is that there is a good reason for never protecting
pages, even if when they are complete and error-free :
pages will always need to be updated, because we will keep
inventing new formatting tricks, and we will keep adding
interlanguage links.
I posted another bug, in order to have partial protections of pages:
ThomasV
00:24, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
en.wikipedia already has something like that (
w:en:Wikipedia:Semi-protection policy
). I think this could also fit the wikisource needs. People who are active for a longer period of time mostly know what they are doing, but newbies often only "correct" the old typography to a newer one. --
Jofi
01:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
This is a
very
good idea. It's much better than what we had been planning on doing, since this way allows anyone to edit formatting. The English WS had been talking about using templates and protecting those (which contain the text) so as to allow any user to edit the formatting. This way (if it becomes implemented) will be much better.| 16:43, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
I do not have much time to implement it now, this is why I posted this bug. however I guess it would not be too complicated to write, as long as no modification of the interface is made. If someone feels like doing it, please go for it.
ThomasV
21:03, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
well, implemented. please
vote
for the bug.
ThomasV
18:24, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
it was added to cvs yesterday. I do not know how long it will take until it is enabled here.
ThomasV
07:40, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I requested this extension to be enabled on wikisource. however, I was told that it is appropriate to organize a vote in order to show that there is consensus about it. the point is that it would modify protection policy; nobody seems to be willing to take responsibility for that. Vote page will be here:
Wikisource:Vote on enabling the ProtectSection extension
ThomasV
14:26, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
copyright templates
edit
I hate them. All of them. In general, people who visit this site are looking for texts, and I am sure that in most case, they do not give a *** on the copyright status of these texts. The are looking for some information, or they want to enjoy some nice reading. They better not be disturbed by large templates that look like advertisement banners.
I once recommended that those templates be placed in the talk pages. Apparently my proposal did not convince many. Now, there would be another way to keep this information non-invasive: it is possible to modify the skin, so that a new tab for the copyright status is displayed if a copyright template is present in the page (and the template is not displayed). Users who click on this tab will be redirected to the template.
Check
here
for an example. This page uses a template (Copyright-ONU), and this results in a "license" tab (license is French for licence). How it works: I moved the existing template to the Wikisource: namespace. I then replaced the redirect page with an empty div that carries an id recognized by Monobook.js.
ThomasV
20:21, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
Thank you! I'm glad to see someone else hates the copyright templates as much as I do. I really hate the PD templates the most. I'm going to bring this up on the English WS to see how many people would rather have a tab than have to place a template (which are the
ugliest
things) on each work.| 22:27, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
great. let hate unite us :-)
ThomasV
22:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
reply
I'm in for a seperate copyright/license tab. That makes much much more sense to me. Incidentally, "license" is english for "license". "Licence" is American English for "License". :) Cheers --
ChristianEdwardGruber
21:38, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
I support a seperate copyright/license tab as well. It is now used at French Wikisource.--
Jusjih
01:22, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
bilingual extension
edit
the DoubleWiki extension was just enabled by Brion!
you can see it in action in the French wikisource.
In order to use it on all wikis, sysops need to adapt their Monobook.js file.
many thanks to all those who helped me getting this through.
ThomasV
20:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
here
is a short description of how to use it.
ThomasV
20:39, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Note for people following an old link
edit
Could an admin add a note to
MediaWiki:Noarticletext
, mentioning the language subdomains. I have so often clicked on links at Wikipedia and got this simple note. I know that it were outdated links and that the text now is in a subdomain, but most other people will think the article doesn't exist (anymore) and delete the link. --
Jofi
00:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Done. However explainations could be improved.
Yann
14:00, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
reply
Perhaps "other language subdomains", because some people might not know what a subdomain is? Unfortunately Google still displays the old pages, and often the ranking of the old, long deleted pages is higher than of the new ones in the subdomains. --
Jofi
01:19, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Wikisource:New Wikisource logo
edit
There's a new discussion and a soon-to-come vote on the new logo of Wikisource. Please discuss it on the talk page, and discuss the seperate logos there.
Datrio
14:44, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
A Quick Survey of Languages
edit
Out of curiousity, I did a quick survey of activity and progress on the various subdomains using RecentChanges and looking at Main Pages.
If I am not mistaken, there are currently 27 languages with Wikisource subdomains. Of those, I found only
one
that seems largely inactive, namely
cy.wikisource.org
. Besides cy.wikisource, there are just 2-3 others with only minimal recent activity (i.e. an average of just 1-2 edits per day), but all of those have nevertheless added significant content over the past few months and have useful Main Pages.
This means that nearly two dozen languages are flourishing, less than five months after the transfer. All of the larger languages (e.g. English, French, German) seem to have recovered completely from the move and done a great deal to revamp their infrastructures. Other languages have to have managed to do so to a large extent from scratch.
This is something very positive and wonderful. Would be good to get specific feedback from various languages.
Dovi
19:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
de: It has completely recovered from the move, the only (and serious) problem are many external links that link to the old domain. Contributions at de vary very much, but really increased in comparison to before the move. Biggest problem at the moment: There is no community, people come, contribute their sources and are gone again. --
Jofi
00:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Language comparisons by dump size
edit
I took a look at the compressed database sizes (dumps from 22 Jan - 1 Feb). These are the file sizes of pages-articles.xml.bz2
1 enwikisource 93.0 MB
2 frwikisource 52.6 MB
3 arwikisource 23.2 MB
4 eswikisource 17.4 MB
5 dewikisource 14.1 MB
6 lawikisource 13.1 MB
sourceswiki 12.0 MB
7 zhwikisource 9.4 MB
8 rowikisource 8.2 MB
9 itwikisource 7.8 MB
10 plwikisource 7.0 MB
11 elwikisource 6.1 MB
12 ruwikisource 5.9 MB
13 hrwikisource 4.3 MB
14 hewikisource 3.6 MB
15 ptwikisource 1.6 MB
16 nlwikisource 1.5 MB
17 jawikisource 1.2 MB
18 srwikisource 1.1 MB
19 dawikisource 783 KB
20 svwikisource 693 KB
21 kowikisource 649 KB
22 glwikisource 266 KB
23 idwikisource 265 KB
24 trwikisource 257 KB
25 fawikisource 168 KB
26 iswikisource 150 KB
27 cywikisource 66 KB
At the moment cy seems to be the only subdomain that has so little contributions, that it might be necessary to shut it down and merge with the international part again (see contribution above). Surprising results in comparison to the article statistics at
Main Page
: "ar" and "la" have much content, but little articles, the same at "el". The opposite with "hr": There are many articles with rather little content. --
Jofi
00:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
I neither support nor oppose merging inactive language subdomains back to multilingual Wikisource, but I hope that we make a written rule.--
Jusjih
09:14, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Unless it starts collecting spam, there is no need to do such a thing. And even then it would be locked, not "moved back." Plus, the cy.wikipedia has a reasonable amount of activity, so people who know the language will be looking at that Wikisource from time to time.
But the focus of my comments were not on cy.wikisource, rather on the two dozen wikis that seem to be doing not just well (which all of us had hoped would happen), but far better than I personally expected! This is a great thing, and thanks also to Jofi for his stats, which make it even clearer.
As far as community - on en.wikisource I think that has really happened, and quite nicely too, not just people "stopping by" to leave texts. At he.wikisource too, though of course the number of people is much smaller. What really seems to make it happen is working together on infrastucture - policies, templates, cleanup, Main Page and other central pages, categories and classification systems, and of course helping out others with questions and problems. In other words, it seems like the people who want to be
librarians
make up the steady community, which seems rather appropriate...
Dovi
09:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
I certainly generally support language domains. But at "cy" there were no real contributions since December, 11th and the only real contributions have been made in the first 26 hours after the creation of the subdomain. The only admin is Brion VIBBER. I don't know if he really wants to maintain the domain, but the spam on one page kept unreverted for about 3 weeks. If the contributions to "cy" don't increase, there is no reason why we should keep the multilangual part of Wikisource. The activity of "cy" could be reached by almost any language subdomain, and there would be no argument to refuse any of the requests. --
Jofi
23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Just a small point: when comparing database size, remember that non Latin alphabet languages (i.e. Arabic, Chinese, Indian languages, etc.) use much more space (x 2 ?) than Latin alphabet languages.
Yann
10:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Also, Latin alphabet languages get a much better compression rate.
Bogdan
11:05, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes, the comparison is not very precise. But "la" does use Latin alphabet (what else ;-)) and "ar" has less than 800 counted articles. So it's still remarkable. --
Jofi
23:32, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
Question
edit
Hi there! I was setting up an account here to be of some help, but noticed it doesnt work for the language subdomains. Then I wonder, what is the point of starting an account here in the first place? Is the top-level just a shell for the lower levels? Why isnt it linked? I'll probably want to add stuff in English, and occasionally in Dutch; so what accounts should I create?
And, consequently, perhaps it might be worth it to streamline the accounts so that one single account works on different subdomains? Certainly it might be worth it to use signal more clearly that this
is
the top-level in the first place, as there is no visual difference whatsoever.
Cheers! 12:57, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
The old main WS is used to host documents in languages which do not have a subdomain. Regards,
Yann
13:17, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
reply
It
is
linked. If you check the option
remember me
you can use the same account and password combination on most projects. For me it works here and on most Wikipedias except English, I happen to have a different name there, bc this one was taken :(
I am afraid you are not right. You can use the same
user name and password
in every project, but unless you create an
account
in every project, you cannot log in. The button
remember me
BTW is something quite else, it makes your log in automatically every time you visit the project.
-jkb-
12:18, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Image:Wikisource-logo.jpg
edit
According to the page for this image, its copyright has just been released to the Wikimedia Foundation. How can we verify that WMF actually has the copyright for this work? We might need to contact someone to get this finalized. But this opens up a number of possible works for our new logo if this is the case (such as the stylized version and other derivatives of the stylized iceberg).—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
04:51, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
The author has left the same message on his own page:
see here
. Since he was logged in when he wrote that, I guess we have a proof that it was him and not someone else.
ThomasV
07:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't believe the copyright status of the image affects any stylized versions of the image - only versions that directly use the image itself (which is currently just the current logo). The stylized versions fall under whatever license their creators grant, irrespective of how the original image is licensed as they are not derivative works in the legal sense. (Note, ianal, but that is my understanding, anyway) --
HappyDog
23:53, 13 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
My understanding was that if someone stylized the iceberg logo, that would be considered a derivative work, since they're taking the iceberg as a source of ideas and expanding on it to produce something new. As such they would have to obtain permission from the current copyright holder to create a stylized version. I'm not a lawyer, either, so I may have a wrong understanding, but that was how I understood it to be.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
14:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'm not sure. Taking your ideas from a source is different from using the image
_as_
the source. A moot point in the current situation, but I'd be interested to know what the actual legal position would be if permission had not been granted. --
HappyDog
00:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
new subdomains
edit
new subdomains were created :
yi.wikisource.org
sk.wikisource.org
cs.wikisource.org
ml.wikisource.org
congratulations and good luck!
ThomasV
11:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
Thank a lot,
-jkb-
12:22, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
reply
References
edit
Cite.php: for references in the same page. You can read more
here
. Used at spanish wikisource
in this article
. --
LadyInGrey
22:41, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
I've updated/corrected the link ;)
Aleator
16:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
reply
Wikisource-I mailing list
edit
I've noticed that most of our sister projects have a mailing list of their own yet we do not. I was wondering what people would think of having a mailing list for us to make discussions and whatnot on. It would probably be a much better method than relying on this Scriptorium (let's be realistic: very few discussions ever happen here anymore, since many contributors do not regularly check this site)--discussions stand a much better chance of not stalling and dying. Also, it would be a way to let people see what sorts of things are going on at WS. What are your thoughts?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
15:06, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
I support a mailing list. Previously, you, I, and other administrators could oversee all pages, so we could delete copyvios in any languages, but as more language subdomains break away from this multilingual site, a mailing list becomes even more important to co-ordinate things at Wikisource subdomains.--
Jusjih
17:03, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
I agree. would be useful.
ThomasV
20:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
support from me,
-jkb-
09:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
The list has been created. For those interested, subscription information can be found
here
.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
18:30, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
For those who may be interested in subscribing, the first mailing list discussion to begin concerns the creation of a Wikisource
format
-to-wikimarkup conversion script (see the
archives
). //
Pathoschild
13:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Lets try and advertise this in the subdomains too. I put a message in the Spanish Cafe. Anyone that can translate various languages, please advertise this to people at those subdomains too. --
BirgitteSB
18:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
reply
Policy pages
edit
Since this wiki is still active, I think it would be good to add some documentation to it and give it a bit of a backbone. Recently, on the English sub-domain, we've written a lot of policies, and I think a few would be beneficial here. I think we should definitely port over
the inclusion policy
once it's been established and
the deletion policy
at the least so that we can have some official documents to point to should people ask.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
20:45, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Zhaladshar!!!!!!! Yes!!!!! First, I miss such pages here. Secondly, I think in the process of creating new language Wikisources they would be very usefull for the new ones. Now i mus search in all projects to find something on deletion, on blocking, is a xx.wikisource more close to xx.wikipedia or to wikisource.org, on copyright (in fact, there are some serious differences between the page here and the page on the en.wikisource) etc. I think we need it. Urgently.
-jkb-
09:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Agreed. The great work done on en.ws would be beneficial here.
Yann
15:49, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'm hoping to porting over deletion, copyright, inclusion, administrator, and blocking policies to begin with. We can change them as we need to fit this sub-domain, and it would allow us to have an actual, hard copy policy to point to and allow newer sub-domains to have an established document to refer to/translate and adopt on their own project. That way, some of the growing pains can be avoided.
I'll also revamp many of the pages in our "Wikisource:" namespace which are so out of date that it's embarrassing. Once school lets out, I can dedicate much more time to this project. But I expect to have policies over here by the end of the week.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
16:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
OK. I am not like to promise I will help by writing some pages on this – 1. my english is ok but other speak better, 2. some of you are longer time here as me so you can judge the questions better, 3. I still have much to do with the new cs.wikisource. But if there is something I could help so i will do so.
As fitst I would like to mention that there are some differences on the use of the fair use licence:
Wikisource:Copyright
– probably limited
en:Help:Copyright and Wikisource
- ???
en:Wikisource:Wikisource:Copyright
explicitly prohibited on Wikisource.
So, what with fair use???
-jkb-
17:37, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Fair use doesn't make sense here, as it usually means "part of a work" included in other related document, but we want to publish whole works independently. The exception may be book covers or photos of the author.
Yann
18:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes, one of the things the copyright policy will formalize is that (1)
all texts
must be public domain, GFDL, or GFDL-compatible. WS has been lax on this and it caused us some frustration and problems a little while ago; (2) it will prohibit fair use (I prefer in its entirety, but at least no fair use texts) to an extent we can decide upon later. For a site like WS, copyright should have been the first thing we nailed down, but it's pretty much turned into the very last thing. Ironic...—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
21:11, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I support disallowing fair use that will not fit here. Is there any draft policy here to disallow non-commercial licenses as well? Fair use and non-commercial licenses are now disallowed at English Wikisource, but this policy has not been uniformly enforced at other subdomains, including Chinese Wikisource.--
Jusjih
17:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Copyright policy? Delete all Creative Commons works?
edit
I recently wrote
a very long email to wikisource-l
to express desire for establishing consistency across subdomains: "Currently it seems that some licenses are valid on some subdomains but not others. (English Wikisource) requires all content to be compatible with the GNU Free Documentation License. However, maybe some other language subdomains do not have this policy?" In the same email, I went to explain that CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are free but not compatible with the GFDL.
The first reply
was from Erik Moeller (Eloquence), who wrote: "Wikisource should instead follow similar principles as the Wikimedia Commons and allow any free content license to be used for added works." That said, I thought that someone high up in Wikimedia said that we must have GFDL-compatibility, which implies that Creative Commons works must leave Wikisource? --
Kernigh
19:40, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Putting Hindi sources and Scriptorium out of Wikisource?
edit
Isn't it time to move Hindi pages out of the main domain?
Almost all pages found by "random page" in the main domain are in Hindi (and their number growing), and this does not help looking for other sources in more rare languages. Additionally the Hindi script URLs are much harder to work with, and the community Scriptorium gets in fact "polluted" by the inability to locate appropriate categories.
Most of the Scriptorium should also go to Meta-Wiki as it is already cross-project, and contains much more tools and management templates or help pages already written there for specific languages.
The main Wikisource sites hould just include the multilingual portal, and the initial sections for rare languages, properly organized into language categories, for easier transfer to another domain later when this content becomes significant. To ease this transition, a minimum set of international common (meta-)pages and templates should be created that will be transfered to the new domain translated later with the articles.
So the main wikisource should remain small and manageable.
(note that new domain names could be created early as equivalents to the main site. This would make interwikis to Wikisource already working for those languages that still have not been transfered into a separate database.) 20:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi,
I did most of the work regarding Hindi and Sanskrit here. And most of the pages are Sanskrit, not Hindi. I am totally against separating languages unless there is a significant community to support a subdomain. In cases of Hindi and Sanskrit, I doubt that such a community exists, seeing the edits made upto now, and the number of editors on corresponding Wikipedia languages. And please, logging in and sign your comments.
Yann
20:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Agreed with Yann. Unless there are a number of people who are willing to start up a new language Wikisource, a sub-domain should not be made.
The Scriptorium is not a place to locate language categories (I'm assuming you mean here to locate works written in a particular language). This is to discuss local issues on this wiki is sometimes used to coordinate between the different languages.
The current wiki is small and scaleable, and should remain entirely open for works of a particular language which will likely never get its own sub-domain. I see no reason why any of this should be ported over to Meta.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
21:42, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I agree with this anonymous contributor that moving these pages out to a subdomain would clarify the situation here...
ThomasV
08:06, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't see a Hindi sub-domain as a project that will be all that active. It seems to be the case that inactive projects collect more vandalism than anything else. I seems safer to keep them here where a number of people watch the project than to move it to a new domain which might only be frequented by a very few people and only at irregular intervals. I would love to see a Hindi sub-domain, don't get me wrong, but I believe there should be support from people who will be active for it.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
19:59, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
sure. all I wanted to say is that there would be advantages to it.
ThomasV
21:10, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
languages main pages
edit
For those wikis that do not have a subdomain, I would like to proceed with a reorganization.
Currently we have a
set of main pages
for each languages, and a
set of categories
This has two drawbacks :
it is redundant.
it is difficult to locate a document, or to access the list, for someone who does not understand a language.
Since the number of pages in languages that are here is in general small,
it would be possible to have the whole list of texts directly on their corresponding main page.
So, I propose to use the category pages as the main pages. That is, move the content of each
main page to the corresponding category page, where it would be used as a header.
It would make it more direct to access the list of pages written in a given language.
What do you guys think?
ThomasV
13:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
It is good, but someone must be able to identify which language an article belongs to.--
Jusjih
15:12, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
ok, I am starting to move a few of those, and to have a unified design.
ThomasV
07:46, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Change Logos to SVG-Version
edit
Hi there! There are SVG-Versions available for
Image:Wikimedia without text-35px.png
Image:Wikibooks without text-35px.png
Image:Commons without text-35px.png
and
Image:Wikiquote without text-35px.png
. Would be lovely if one of the admins could change those images in
Template:Sisterprojects No Text
and
Main Page
. The new logos are
Image:Wikimedia-logo.svg
Image:Wikibooks-logo.svg
Image:Commons-logo.svg
and
Image:Wikiquote-logo.svg
. Thank you very much! Regards,
217.225.124.149
20:46, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't get what the big deal about the SVG versions are. What's wrong with the PNG ones?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
13:50, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think that there may be some browsers/systems which do not support SVG, so I would not change the logos.
Yann
14:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Browsers without SVG support should not be a problem. The MediaWiki software should render the images as PNG. I know that there was a problem with transparency in PNG, but was not that fixed? I think the advantage of SVG is that scaled versions of scalable SVG graphics are more accurate than scaled verions of portable PNG graphics.
82.212.68.183
15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Important change in the policy of de.wikisource
edit
At de.wikisource there is a majority of those, who don't want to have texts without source or texts copied from other websites any longer (see
here
). So, if you contributed German texts in the last years, I strongly encourage you to add your source to the text. If you cannot do this or if you copied the text from another website and you want to keep your wikified version of it, then now is the right time to copy your text from de and to transfer ist elsewhere. It most likely will be deleted at de. --
Jofi
21:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Why does the German Wikisource want to delete web sources? Does this mean that if a text (such as Kafka's
The Metamorphosis
were copied to de.wikisource from a website it will be deleted simply because it's an internet source?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
13:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes, I really do not understand what de.wikisource wants to do.
Yann
14:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I can agree that the purpose of Wikisource is not to be a copy of Project good mountain or any other website. But works copied from other sites on the web can still be useful on Wikisource. So I see no reason to delete those works or to forbid copying more works.
82.212.68.183
14:54, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
If you forbid copying works from websites, the number of works the German Wikisource has will become virtually nil. How many people have access to old books and decent OCR material that they can scan in works and edit them? Such a process is extremely time consuming--just as much as transcribing them would be. I'm hoping that we are just not understanding what is happening (maybe they are forbidding a certain kind of web document?) and it's not an all out ban on web sources.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
19:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
At de.wikisource there are some projects that OCR works and edit them. And that is nice. But in fact you did understand correctly what is happening: Most likely anything else shall be deleted. Certainly that means, that thousands of pages will be deleted. In fact the whole process of transfering the texts from multilangual wikisource to de was unnecessary: Almost everything of those texts have no source or are copied from other websites. --
Jofi
23:51, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'm curious as to what is causing this change. How and why was this decided upon? It is an extremely dramatic change in policy, and I wonder about the ramifications. The biggest I'm concerned about (it's the only one I can think of right now; I'm sure I can come up with more later) is that user involvement in de.wikisource will drop dramatically. If all web-based contributions are excluded, most people who do not have decent OCR software or the rare books will be turned off of the project, because they've got no opportunity to be involved. Sure, some will stay, because they've got the required tools to allow them to be useful, but what about the newbies? Saying to them, "Oh, I'm sorry. We do not accept what you are uploading to our project. Please do not continue to add those works" would not put de.wikisource in a very good light and will cause growth in that project to all but halt. This is the reverse direction of what any Wikimedia project should want.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
00:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think that it is entirely contrary with the rules of wikisource. For me, it is a nonsense.
Marc
08:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
apparently this policy was "decided" in order to ensure quality of their texts. For that they proposed to remove all texts for which the source is unknown. In addition, some people proposed to remove texts that exist already elsewhere on the internet. I did not really understand the reason for that latter decision. I think that such a policy would terribly harm de.wikisource. I wonder if we can/should oppose that.
ThomasV
10:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
PS: why is the logo at de.wikisource different from other sites?
reply
I'm a fan of opposing it. It goes entirely against the whole purpose of WS, and I imagine if this gets executed, there will be some bad light shone on Wikisource. I'm not against removing texts whose source is unknown. Many other sister projects have similar policies. But to
entirely remove
all
texts that exist elsewhere on the web will hamstring the project. What about texts which a person scans in, but exist on a website somewhere? Are those not accepted?
To remove all web-based works completely overlooks the benefits that WS can give those texts. Sure, they exist on Gutenberg or Bartleby, but we can interlink them, add multimedia content (if it exists), and many other things which give those works value no other website has given it. I would rather not see this policy happen.
Was this policy ever voted upon? How many people supported it? Is there any course of action that can keep such a detrimental policy from taking effect?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
16:35, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Sorry, i am a bit short of time and then when I have it I try do to something on cs.source... So it is the first time i hear about this nonsence. Sure, it must be clear that a text or a document from some webpages is free licensed and OK, but not this! If there is any chance to oppose it i support it.
-jkb-
16:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Its not correct, what jofi here has written. Nobody wants delete tomorow thousands of pages in de-Wikisource. We are in a discussion process which sense have textes without any sources and which sense makes it to copy textes from any webpages to wikisource. And we have duscussed some solutions for it. Yes the radical solution is to delete all these textes and search original sources, like first editions or other historical important editions o a text. Another solution is, to find to all texts (you can imagine what work this is) a source (see above) and to compare these editions with the text in Wikisource. And also other solutions are discussed. But to say its clear the most active editors wants sometimes only texts with clear and good source in de-Wikisource. And copy&paste from any webpages is not good to reach this target.
That we want remove all Texts is not true, this is one of possible Solutions. And when we should delete these text, we want these texts back, based on clear sources and with high scientific Level. Short abstract: what jofi here says is not true an he is making panic without an base. Greetings --
213.54.67.220
21:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
s:de:Benutzer:Finanzer
reply
Agree with Finanzer s:de:Benutzer:FrobenChristoph --
84.60.205.115
22:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
It seems that the positions in the discussion are not as radical as it first seemed to me. But nevertheless I still encourage all people who added German texts to add their source to it. In my opinion it is still clear, that there is a majority supporting the deletion of some of the texts that have been added in the last years, if they don't fullfill some quality criterias. --
Jofi
00:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think it is a good goal to be
source
for quality high level textes. One of criteria for a good text is to know where ist does come from. To achive this, there is a need for information about the source. There is no need for another haystack of nonvalidated information called ws. I think it is usefull to bring the ws to a higher level of quality, by retrieving these informations. If a text is nearly unavailable, it may be really usefull to keep it and state clearly that the source information is missing and searched for. If a text has an high availability in the net, there is no need to keep it without the source information, the best solution is to find the missing information and to add it, or as a last step delete it. To be just another mirror of low quality information may be the goal of other projects not of ws. sincerly --
Joergens.mi
08:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I fully agree that texts should be sourced whenever possible. I am currently doing just that on fr.wikisource. However deleting a text already copied seems a solution a bit extrem to me. The source and validation can be added later.
Yann
08:29, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Is there any sense in a text, that is copied from somewhere in the net, wihout a source. Is it the full text, or is it an edited version. Which is the right bible (that has nothing to do with religion here, it is just a well known big example)? The Roman Catholic version, the Martin Luther version, the protestant version, the Anglican version.... When one of this chosen, for example catholic. The next question is before or after the 2. vatican synod. These are all bibles with a
slightly
differennt content. Hopefully you see without the citation of the source - where does it come from - the text is absolut useless. --
Joergens.mi
09:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Well, I will take another example. Say that somebody copied a text from a another website without giving the source (or not), for example a text of Goethe. If the orther site doesn't give itself the source, what would you do? The text should be verified with a paper version, but that will take time if it's a big work. Deleting the text doesn't improve the situation.
Yann
10:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I fully agree that
not only the licence but also the source
must be clear. We need a high level quality. I am just hardly working to change it on cs.source. But the fact a document comes from internet can not be the criterium! In this case, what shall you do with the most old lithurgical texts and the most juristic ones? They are all PD, and i do not think, that somebody will scan or retype them, when you can find all on internet. Therefore if the first reports here are not true, it would be good, but probably there is a need of discussion on some principles like licence in wikisource etc. Zhaladzhar wanted to prepare something, i think. And i suggest, that such serious policies would be discussed also in other Wikisources as well.
-jkb-
10:10, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
The criteria isn´t it comes from the internet. The criteria is the source is missing. If someone does the work do digitise a book, he mormally has the source und will tell it. Most of the problems come from
"I found the book in the internet, it´s interessting, lets copy it to ws". This internet page dosn´t has any source information, so why should i provide one. "I´m a real big guy by copying this big book." .
Oh a real nice poem, i like it. Who is the author, I don´t know. Is it free, I don´t know. But there is a webspace container called ws, lets copy it. What´s about URV without a source?
--
Joergens.mi
10:27, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
@yann It must be verified. Mayby it is reprint with some amendments and a foreword. Are these copied wiht the text. If yes are the amendments and the foreword free or is it a URV because of the add ons. --
Joergens.mi
10:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Joergens.mi, I understand what you mean. And I also have some texts on cs.source where I have to do something - as I said, the source is in my eyes as important as the licence. But: If somebody copied the Grundgesetz or the Declaration of the USA onto your de.wikisource without given the source so it is no reason to delete it. Both text are undoubtly PD, I must just compare it with a source and if it is the same, so I have the source or i copy it one time more if there are difference in the text. But this can be done later. In such cases I use a special template saying we know about the problem and we shall solve it. (And I think an URL is sifficient source in cases of some juristic sites which offer laws etc.).
-jkb-
10:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
@-jkb- What you said is ok, such an url may be an good entry to the source definition. but the problem ist in a lot of cases even this start is missing. Look here:
and these things are the problems. --
Joergens.mi
11:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes, Der Geier... Sure, i know it, too, and you can see many texts like this also in Wikipedias... Here it is no great problem - everything is missing: no licence, no source, no author, no wiki to an article with explanation what it is etc. Either, I would try to find something by myself if I think it is important, or I would suggest to delete it indeed. In this case. But not if it were a law where I know at least, it is PD and i can use it for an article in Wikipedia.
-jkb-
11:45, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
This are the things (Der Geier) we are talking about, nothing else. To make a usefull cleanup, by searching for articles of this type, and put them on a good base. If this is not possible, then and only then a deletion is intended. This is all we are argueing about at de.WS and we are at the beginning of that process not at the end. Even with the laws youre a talking about some information will be usefull, because there are changes from time to time, therefore the year of the issue or the version should be mentioned. --
Joergens.mi
13:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
This isn't nearly as drastic as it sounded at first glance (phew!). I actually think this is a noble effort. All texts should be sourced (author information, edition--make it as fleshed as possible) in order to help give WS a high quality of source texts and to make us more than just a copy and paste website.
However, I would like to suggest instead of mass deletion of unsourced texts, you simply place a template on the text like {{unsourced}} (or whatever the word would be in German). That way, editors who want to do a little bit of house cleaning will know that there are some texts that need to be worked on to be considered appropriate for WS. But just because there is no source right now does not mean the work should be deleted anytime soon. Each deletion need to be specific to the text in question--maybe one text is a very rare one (maybe a very old manuscript) that doesn't
have
any (or much) source information, and such information is quite hard to find. It should be kept, due to its nature, even though it doesn't have the requisite information on it. Of course, for more common texts, the source information won't be hard to find at all.
I think of unsourced texts as analogous to Wikipedia's "stub article." Unsourced texts are by no means complete, but deleting them is unwise as it prohibits further growth of that text. Just as a good Wikipedia article (in general) won't be written over night, nor should we expect a good source text to be so easy to add that we can add
everything
in one go. Sometimes searching will be necessary, sometimes it won't be fruitful at all, but if you keep it, you will allow others to also check that work, and maybe something will happen many months/years down the future.
-jkb-: I'll eventually get those documents over here. en.wikisource has been keeping me busy lately, and many of the policies I want to bring over have been getting changed slightly here and there. I want to bring a static text, not one that is getting changed every few weeks. I should be able to get them over here within a short time, though.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
13:25, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Don't hurry be happy (or was it don't worry be happy???),
-jkb-
15:14, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
We don´t hurry. I think we have statet clearly our intention. We are at the moment at the '
beginning
of an discussion process how to improve the quality not at the end. The result will be some rules, how to proceed. --
Joergens.mi
18:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Logo update
edit
After one admin on the german wikisource had unilaterally changed the logo to a self made version but - rightly complained - that the old wikisource logo didn't even contain the project name, Zanimum was so friendly to create a clean redraw of the iceberg together with the project name and formally hand over the copyright to the Wikimedia Foundation. A version suitable for use as logo can be found
here
, bigger versions are uploaded on commons:
Wikisource-newberg-de.png
and
Image:Wikisource-nt.png
, EPS versions are available from Zanimum. It would be nice if the local project admins could update it. greetings,--
Elian
I like this versoin alot. Can we try to achieve consensus to adopt this without a full contest? It is not very different from our current design and it appears that de.wikisource.org already has consensus on it. However I cannot read German, that needs to be confirmed.--
BirgitteSB
23:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't know if there ever was a bigger discussion on this topic. The temporary logo at DE was supported by 3 people and opposed by none. The replace of the old logo was earlier supported by about 3 people and opposed by none. The "new" logo was already used at some Wikimedia pages as far as I know. The community at DE is not that big and most of them don't seem to be interested in a logo discussion that much. If nobody complains about the new logo, this can be called a consensus. --
Jofi
00:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
it will not help wikisource if each subdomains starts to have its own logo.
ThomasV
06:42, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
These methods are not really adapted. The logo concerns all subdomains of wikisource, and must be voted by all and not by only one .
Marc
07:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Please have a look at it. Actually it
is
the old iceberg logo. Just in a clean redrawn version. To date all subdomains – also the german – use the same logo. The subdomains never used the same
file
. And I agree to BirgitteSB: I also like the discussed version very much. --
Frank Schulenburg
07:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
No :
This is not the official logo ;
there was no vote.
Marc
08:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
The well-known iceberg is not the official logo? *puzzled* By the way: Do you actually know whether the file
Image:Wikisource-logo.jpg
(on
Commons
: "Original photo") is protected by trademark? --
On these page, you can see the exact form of the official logo :
if you want to change it, you could have the courtesy to make a vote.
Marc
08:27, 22. Mai 2006 (UTC)
The Wikisource iceberg is a nice logo. I don't want to change it. --
Frank Schulenburg
09:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
There must be a vote in order to change the logo. In the meantime, I ask the german admins to revert back to the official logo. Those who want to change the logo should take part in the discussion
here
instead of taking unilateral actions. I wrote there that I am willing to organize a vote
if
the logo proposals are made before the vote, not during the vote. The reason is that I find it tricky to organize a vote when the set of options is not known. So far I received very little feedback on that.
ThomasV
09:31, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I also agree that there must be a vote before the official loge is changed. But secondly, It is not OK when somebody starts to change the logos in different Wikipedias - Zanimum did so at least twice in cs.wiki wothout consulting the people there. Next time we need a lear vote.
-jkb-
09:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
So far all the votes held about logos on wikisource yielded no results. On the other hand, there are several problems with the picture used as logo now:
copyright was never transfered to the Wikimedia Foundation, instead it was published under GFDL (this goes against our logo policy)
the image is a bitmap and as such not suitable for print in large versions.
it doesn't contain the project name
The new variant (it's not a totally different logo for which - I agree - a vote or a contest would be necessary) was created to solve these problems. As the designer of the promotion materials for the Wikimedia Foundation I was very happy that Zanimum provided this printable version. If you're not happy with this logo at all, you're free to organize a contest in the community and select another logo which also fullfills these conditions (copyright wikimedia, vector version, including project name), but the current thing confronts the wikimedia foundation and the promotion department with so many problems that it should be changed, now when there's finally a variant which solves these problems. --
Elian
Elian, i do not say if I am happy with the logo or not, i even do not say if I am happy with the old one. But a logo is central for an identification. not only here, also on Wikipedias, Wikcionaries etc. If every server would start to make an own logo, it would be awful. And, these logos are to be found enywhere on main pages where there is an redirect to other projects. So, we nee it to be unified, somehow. And secondly, as i said above, every project can decide what it shall do. It is not possible, that somebody change the logo and then he changes it in other projects. Really, I do not argue against the new image. But agains the way it has been done. OK?
-jkb-
12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I agree with the unification, and the new version of the logo should be used on all wikisource projects without delay. Of course if people are unhappy with the logo, then as always, we should be open to a discussion of positive change, including a logo contest if that is warranted. The idea that logos have to be voted on is just mistaken, though.--
Jimbo Wales
13:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Well, it is for me good to hear here that we should unificate the logo (in the mean time there are some dozens of wikipedias and wikisources on the internet, and therefore we must show who we are). Just to explain the other point,
to vote or not to vote
(existentially not as bad as
to be or not to be
:-)): sure, i know the rule
Voting is evil
or so, but here in Wikisource we have some three hundreds of logos and since about 6 months we are preparing a voting (that never took part... I know). So we must now find a way to make all happy or "half happy" at least. But first condition indeed: all Wikisources of this Wikimedia project shoud have the same logo.
-jkb-
15:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Since the logo finding process lasts for almost 2 years and nobody knows when it ends, and because the current logo not even contains the name of the project, I would like to start a short vote to add "Wikisource" to the logo. I think this is absolutely necessary because otherwise people can't see where they are. I think it is no big deal to make such a change. --
Jofi
16:08, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
it should be no big deal, right. And it was done already in a professional way. You're welcome to organize a new logo contest, but for the time being, I think the logo should just be changed to the one with project name. This gives us enough leeway to look for a new good logo while we're free of the problems of the old logo. --
84.153.74.172
16:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
@ Jofi: Well, sure, this would be necessay. The only one problem is: some Wikisources do not call themselves Wikisource but the use this expression in their language or even they have something different. What shall we do with it?? Otherwise support for Jofi.
-jkb-
16:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
They could adapt the image to add their text, as it is done in other Wikimedia project.
I know added this:
It is the same image as in the current logo, only the text "Wikisource" is added. Absolutely irrespective of the logo discussion I would like to have it used instead of the current one. I support replacing it by a better logo. --
Jofi
21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
sorry Jofi, this solves the problem with the missing name, but it doesn't solve the copyright problems and the printing problems. --
Elian
Elian I thought the copyrights had been transfered to WMF already. If they have not been then neither the current iceberg or the one Zanimum redrew would be acceptable, since the latter is a derivation of the former.--
BirgitteSB
21:24, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Maybe this has been said before. The current logo is licensed under the GFDL, transferring the copyright will not change that. But the copyright holder can authorise derivative works that are not GFDL-licensed. So if Zanimum got permission, he did not have to license his derivation under GFDL. So if everthing was done correctly that version is still acceptable as a logo. /
82.212.68.183
22:21, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
It´s a real curiosity.
There are several projekts (wikibooks) which added text to their logos, without any discussion.
Just such a text addition at de.WS gives a big discussion.
Some people defines a new logo. (personnally I don´t like it, but that doesn´t matters)
Other say it schould be adapted immediatily.
But here the old logo is still the logo, why hasn´t it changed here (as a good example) to the new form?
--
Joergens.mi
10:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
following the above diktat by Jimbo Wales I uploaded
Image:Wiki.png
. I guess some developer has to set it up as logo now.
ThomasV
07:39, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Wouldn't it be better if the words
Wikisource
were included in the image, not out of it ? Is it too late to do that ? --
Zephyrus
08:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Something like this :
These images are all fairly ugly. If we're going to keep the iceberg logo, I'd prefer Zanimum's stylized version, or the version the English WS uses for its
news
page. I believe that Uwe Kils has given copyright of the current logo to the WMF, however.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
13:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I too prefer the version on the news page; the colors are better, and the shape has more style. but I do not think that we have the power to change a decision that comes from above us. Anyway, I am happy that we will not have to organize a vote, thanks to jimbo
ThomasV
14:37, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I like Kcyclopedists' logo for WikisourceNews too. Could he make another one for Wikisource without news ? Can you do that, Kcyclopedist ? --
Zephyrus
05:00, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I prefer the version on the news page,too. I don´t think it´s a goot idea to put wikisource in the center of the Logo. if you look at most of the examples, putting the text above or below is much smarter
Wiki News logo
--
Joergens.mi
15:40, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Yes. Not in the middle. First, some ones use the logo for other purposes too, where it could be disturbing. Secondly, I would suggest, we should have two sorts of an official logo: one with and one without the text (say for those Wikisources who would want to make another text).
-jkb-
16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
ThomasV: What decision is being made above our heads?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
02:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Z: I was referring to the request by Jimbo. Anyway, I am quite happy that the issue is solved now.
ThomasV
06:04, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I don't think I quite understood what Jimbo was saying. Is he saying we can all choose our own logo?—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
13:51, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
In contrary, he said he agrees with my suggestion to unificate all daomains, i.e. one logo for all wikisources.
-jkb-
14:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Languages and categories
edit
Some times I have some problems with the language of a text – I simply do not know: is it a document or is it some sort of vandalism?? The last exmple is
Ein Tad
. Undoubtly, it could be a language. In times the Czech Wikisource was here I started to use a category
Czech
(or
Česky
) for all pages as a main category, other categories were subcategories of this one. By the way, in the moment you decide to create a new domain, you have an advantage when moving your wikisource to the new one: a developer must have a look in this category and move everything he finds. I would suggest the same for all languages here, maybe this category should be in English (it is also possible to use the abbreviations like de, en, mt etc); and more over there could be a notice in the edit window, something like do not forget to give here your language code / category...
-jkb-
09:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Most
language categories
here use the local name of the language. I think that makes sense, since persons looking for texts in a language will probably know at least so much of that language that they know the local name of that language.
Ein Tad
can be deleted here since it is already present att the welsh subdomain.--
82.212.68.183
09:48, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Done for
Ein Tad
Yann
14:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
Ported over some policies from en.wikisource
edit
Okay, I'm making good on my promise. I've now brought over an inclusion policy and a copyright policy. They can be located here:
Wikisource:What Wikisource includes
Wikisource:Copyright policy
I've made almost no changes to it (meaning non-existent templates are dead, many shortcut links are dead, etc.). I didn't want to make any changes until I brought it up here (maybe we will bring over the templates from en.ws, maybe get rid of them--it's all up to discussion). Read it, and say what you like, dislike, what should be changed (whether it relates to actual policy or presentation), or make the changes yourself.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
23:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I support both policies to be applied here based on English Wikisource. There are several works here with non-commercial licenses that will have to go. Based on
[1]
, it seems that Angela has suggested that non-commercial licenses are to be disallowed at all Wikisource sites. When we have the policy officialized, I will nominate articles with non-commercial licenses for deletion.--
Jusjih
14:10, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I think I have to read it once more but now I can say I'm like to support it (hmm, and then to translate it for cs.source... good job),
-jkb-
15:54, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
I'll begin working with these to make them more Wikisource-general instead of English specific. That way, the transition to using them on other WS (should that happen) will be easier to do.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
14:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
BTW, what shall happen with the old draft
Wikisource:Copyright
which is still here? We should not have two different pages on copyright :-),
-jkb-
09:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Because the page was so out of date, we blanked it and redirected it to
Wikisource:Copyright policy
, which encompassed some elements from
Wikisource:Copyright
and many new elements which reflected better what a good copyright policy should be.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
14:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The old draft of
Wikisource:Copyright
is still there as of this writing of mine.--
Jusjih
04:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
On en.wikisource? It's a redirect over there. Here, it should probably be redirect to remove mention of fair use.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
15:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
No, not at en.wikisource but at this multilingual site.--
Jusjih
06:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
I have redirected
Wikisource:Copyright
to
Wikisource:Copyright policy
and moved the talk page, but I have not merged the history of two project pages.--
Jusjih
03:05, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Copyright question
edit
I'm thinking of ading portions or all of the
AASHO
1927 list of
United States Numbered Highways
- an excerpt is
here
. What if anything of this is copyrightable? Would I have to condense it into a simple list of cities, or would even that not be OK?
Background: the list was compiled by AASHO, a private organization forwed of members from all state highway departments. The individual towns listed along the route were chosen by AASHO, and a relocation away from one required AASHO approval. It was copyrighted and the copyright (at least for the 1929 edition) has been
renewed
CLNA: AMERICAN ASSN. OF STATE HIGHWAY OFFICIALS.
TITL: United States numbered highways, by W. C. Markham.
ODAT: 19Aug29; AA23426 RREG: American Assn. of State Highway Officials ; 24Jul57; R196400.
Hmmm... that also means that the 1927 edition (which has no mention of a "W. C. Markham") was not renewed, and so should be OK. I'm also interested in the bigger question though. --
SPUI
00:12, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
If there is no copyright and if the text is only English you should put it at
English Wikisource
. /
82.212.68.183
08:47, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
reply
new subdomains
edit
the following subdomains have been created:
I would like to ask those who use these subdomains to move content from here to there.
In addition, pages have to be deleted on this site; otherwise there will be duplicate copies and chaos.
For that reason, it would be great to have one person in charge per subdomain, who blanks the pages
that have been moved, so that I can later delete them.
To do that, please replace the text on the pages that were moved with "[[Category:Moved to xx]]",
where "xx" is the name of the subdomain the pages were moved to.
ThomasV
10:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Also, remember, if you want to keep the page histories, ask a developer (probably Brion) to do the page transfers.—
Zhaladshar
(Talk)
15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Please remember to check the copyright status of moved articles as well.--
Jusjih
06:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Why not not to transfer the pages from here to the new domains by transwiki? It has been activated, I made one or two trials today from cs.wiki to cs.source, and it it fully OK incl. the history. Sure, it must bve activated for each subdomain, i.e. somebody must get the access, and he must get also the access for transfers from here (normally, it is activated only for transfers from xx.wiki to ss.xource). But it should not be a problem, and we must then find a list here, what can be deleted.
-jkb-
22:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
- - - P.S. like Gububu does for the hu.source
Creating new subdomains
edit
It was requested on IRC that we clearly list approved subdomains seperately from the ongoing or inactive disscusions. Also I was told that the procedure of filing a bug to create new subdomains is not good for the developers. I am on IRC regularly and can make direct requests to them if someone will leave a message on my talk page at
en:User talk:BirgitteSB
. I looked at
Wikisource:Language domain requests
and I think we could make a seperate section for approved domains and move the disscusions to it as they gain consensus. Does anyone else have ideas on how to make the page clearer? --
BirgitteSB
23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Sysop for a while
edit
Hi, some time ago a made a proposal in meta -
m:Meta:Babel#Sysop for a while
-, and today a tzried to start a new discussion on this topic. Everybody who would like to say something to it, please go there and make it. Thx,
-jkb-
15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Side-by-side alignment tags for translations?
edit
Hi, all, I'm relatively new, so forgive me if this isn't the right forum for asking this question.
I've been transcribing some old texts onto the Latin and French wikisources, and then adding my translations at the English wikisource. Someone very nice at the Latin Wikisource started adding mysterious tags to my contributions, such as
[[la:Confessio philosophi]]
{{interwiki-info|la|(vo)}}
which
BirgitteSB
explained gives a side-by-side view of the original and translated texts. So cool!
I'm wondering, though, whether it's possible to introduce matching tags into the two texts to help them align better. It might be helpful for students if they could see paragraphs of the original and translated texts
exactly
opposite to one another. A good test case would be the dialog
s:la:Confessio philosophi
and
s:en:Confessio philosophi
. Thanks for your help! :)
WillowW
08:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
Hi Willow,
For that, you need that the div class=text to be exactly at the same place on both documents, and of course, the paragraphs should match each other. Regards,
Yann
09:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
reply
Hi,
Yann
, thanks for the suggestions! I added the