Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/Oct 2004 - Feb 2005 - Wikisource
Jump to content
From Wikisource
Wikisource:Scriptorium
Moved Discussions / Verschobene Diskussionen / Discussions déplacées / verschoven besprekingen / 移动的讨论
The discussions on this page have been moved from the
Scriptorium
and are retained here for archival purposes. Please do not continue any discussion on this page. If you consider a moved topic to be still open please continue discussion on the Scriptorium, moving the existing comments if necessary.
Special:Booksources
edit
The
Special:Booksources
page in Wikipedia(
w:Special:Booksources
) is much better than the one at Wikisource. How do I change this?
JesseW
01:34, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The text can be changed at
Wikisource:Book sources
Angela
21:57, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wonderful! Thank you Angela!
JesseW
05:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Logo suggestion
edit
See:
Wikisource:Revising the "Sourceberg" logo
should be shown to people who are not familiar with the present logo. I am not sure it can easily be recognized as an iceberg (because an iceberg doesn't have a characteristic shape, and the perspective is unfamiliar) How about a logo that actually includes a
source
reference, somehow?
Dbachmann
12:22, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Wikisource and Commons
edit
It seems to me that Wikisource is made obsolete by Commons - it serves with the same function as the commons, but in only one medium - text. Surely it would be productive for both projects, and Wikimedia, for Commons to annex Wikisource. This would allow the userbase of both projects to expand - though I am not typically a contributor of Wikisource now, if I could upload documents to Commons, I no doubt would. Similarly, 'source users may not bother uploading images now, but if they could do so within the same project - they may well. It is also beneficial to the non-contributing user - far easier to find all kinds of media in one project than over several. In my opinion, the broader the Wikimedia projects the better.--
OldakQuill
13:13, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I disagree. This project is about texts, while the Commons is about other multimedia material. Further developments could be in the area of making it easier to produce translations and annotations. Other possibilities are in developing bibliographies, linking to the Wiktionaries, or perhaps even producing concordances in some cases. Most of our texts are public domain, and any illustrations or other multimedia material are only incidental to what we do.
Why should having documents in the Commons make any difference to your ability to upload them. You can already do that. I'm not concerned about the user base; it will naturally expand in its own time anyway. To me the Commons is intended to serve the other projects. If it has material in other media that we can use I don't mind linking to them if it can be easily done. Having broader projects is not necessarily better; more narrowly defined projects can be more easily focused.
Eclecticology
15:27, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
All of these suggested 'source featured may be fulfilled on Commons. Commons is not just a servant project, but also a standalone archival project. Focusing projects is not an issue - if users on Commons wish to only contribute to texts, they may do so. With a larger userbase there will be more of these specific users - as well as cross-users. --
81.130.60.229
17:19, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
The time is not yet right for merging the two projects. We need better filtering capabilities for Recent Changes, for example - quite a few people working on Wikisource will not care about Wikimedia Commons file uploads. Importantly, I would like to see the initiative for a merger to come from the Wikisource community, which I think it will.--
Eloquence
My name is already in use
edit
I suspect that my name is already in use by an older incarnation of myself -- lost or corrupted password. How to check whether it is indeed the case or not? Marc Girod
I have checked the page
Special:Listusers
and yes,
User:Marc Girod
has already been created. I tried the "mail me a new password" function at the
login page
for
User:Marc Girod
, but it appears that no e-mail is recorded for that user account, so I could not send you a new password, and I can do no further. You now have two options - you can try to contact a developer (perhaps at
Non-development_tasks_for_developers
, though I'm not 100% sure it's the right place) explaining your problem, a developer can probably help you, or you can create a new user account with a different name. If you had supplied an email adress, it would have been easier, as you could then have requested a new password to be sent to that adress. Nobody can see your email adress if you supplies it in your user preferences, and it is possible to disable emails from other users (this can also be set in your user preferences).
Christian S
19:36, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Thanks. I suspect I didn't create this account myself, but it was somehow imported from the Wikipedia base at an early stage. I did supply a mail address in my wikipedia account, but maybe not initially... I'll
try
your suggestion.
Marc Girod temp
09:11, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Italian quotes
edit
In
Dante - Goettliche Komoedie:Hoelle 2.Gesang
the Italian verse 15, written as
rispuose del magnanimo quell'ombra;
<
but gives this:
<
rispuose del magnanimo quell'ombra;
<
Eclecticology
02:27, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
First, I would question why anyone is using '
Mike
05:38, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
It's not just treated as a strikethrough for the other two lines, it's treated as one for the rest of the page. This was not noticed previously because HTML Tidy was active and was fixing the broken HTML as best it could. --
Cyrius
02:30, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Should author pages really belong to wikisource?
edit
Discussion moved to
Help talk:Author pages#Should author pages really belong to wikisource?
Biography lists
edit
Discussion moved to
Help talk:Author pages#Biography lists
中文古典诗词评注计划
edit
对中国古典诗词进行评注，可以参看
野望 (王绩)
以及日文的
酔花間
。甚至可以扩大范围，变成中国古代文献评注计划，包括所有古代文言文的诗词曲赋，小说论著等等。遵守NPOV，融汇各家对某一篇文章的评注，比如
野望 (王绩)
，可以添加各朝各代，古今中外对这首诗的评论、分析、注释、考证等。有人对此感兴趣吗？我们可以先讨论一下格式和写作方针的问题。--
Shizhao
13:04, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
A Challenge to Ec
edit
Discussion moved back to its original location on
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#A Challenge to Ec
New logo?
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource talk:Logo#New logo?
Sheet music
edit
Can somebody help with
Adeste Fideles/Sheet
? Thanks in advance.
Vandalisme
edit
Il y a eu plusieurs vandalismes sur la page principale et avec
AF
. Il faudrait vérifier la présentation de AF dans la page principale et savoir ce que signifie : "Dit is ook 'n demonstrasie van gemeenskapsekuriteit. (As jy "stront" aanvang, gaan iemand dit uitvee en regmaak. Probeer eerder iets sinvol skryf.)"
Caton
13:01, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Je n'ai aucune idée ce que ça veut dire. Je l'ai demandé sur le "mailing list", et je l'enleverai s'il y a besoin. Malheureusement, les conneries se présentent trop souvent. J'ai protégé la page.
Eclecticology
23:32, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)
On m'a repondu. En anglais: ""This is also a demonstration of community-security (If you start to write shit, someone will delete it and correct it). Rather try to write something meaningful." Ou en français: "Voici une demonstration de scurité communautaire. (Si on commence par écrire la merde, quelqu'un l'éffacera et la corrigera). Mieux d'écrire quelque chose de significatif."
Eclecticology
13:06, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Theater formatting
edit
It would be great to standardize the formatting of theater plays. I have defined
this example
for a play in verses. It took me quite some time, but I guess that now that it's done it will be much easier to recycle the same format for other plays. I have no way to know if it is properly displayed with Internet Explorer, though (but okay, nobody should use IE). I also have no idea if the same formatting conventions apply to English and French theater. --
ThomasV
14:16, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It looks good to me. I'm no expert on formatting conventions for plays (English of French), but plays I have read follow a pattern similar to this. The only thing I dislike (which is purely a preference thing) is the numbering. It seems too cluttered to have the numbering on the left side of the text, since that is where the character names are, also. But, again, that's just personal preference. Everything else looks great.
Zhaladshar
15:28, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree, the original numbering was right-aligned in the cell (but still on the left of the text), so it did not show up at the same place as the character names. --
ThomasV
15:37, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I just re-aligned the line numbers to the right --
ThomasV
15:51, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It looks great, but just looking at the edit page shows that it's a
lot
of work. Can it be simplified? Is a single set of line numbers for the entire play typical French practice? Most English numbering re-starts the numbering again with each scene; that can be an advantage when we divide a play into several pages. It also prevents having an update in the early part of the play that puts the rest of the lines out of alignment. As to whether the numbers should be on the right or left of the text, I slightly prefer the right but can live with either. By all means carry on.
What would really be interesting would be if this could be adapted to something like what was done with the German/Italian text of some of the Divine Comedy.
Eclecticology
22:47, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Deathday Scan Parties
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource talk:Scan parties
Election result formatting
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource talk:Election data
Logo selection procedure
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource talk:Logo#Logo selection procedure
Christmas project - need help to find links on wikisource
edit
Hi, we are creating a Christmas related project that should make people aware of the co-operation between wikimedia projects. So I thought that it would be a good idea to insert also Christmas related links (poems, stories etc.) in any available language to the project. So if you know of any contents of Wikisource that is Christmas related, please let me know. I'll check back here during the next days - or just put a note on my talk-page. Thank you!!!! Ciao! --
SabineCretella
14:04, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Right now the only thing I can think of is
A Christmas Carol
by
Charles Dickens
Zhaladshar
15:22, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here's a list of making of things Christmas-related as I find them/post them on Wikisource:
A Christmas Carol
, by Charles Dickens
A Christmas Tree
, by Charles Dickens
What Christmas Is as We Grow Older
, by Charles Dickens
Christmas by Injunction
, by O. Henry
The Gift of the Magi
, by O. Henry
A small series from
The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon
, by Washington Irving
Christmas
The Stage Coach
Christmas Eve
Christmas Day
The Christmas Dinner
A Kidnapped Santa Claus
, by L. Frank Baum
Life and Adventures of Santa Claus
, by L. Frank Baum
Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus
Ceremonies for Christmas
, by Robert Herrick
Christmas-Eve, Another Ceremony
, by Robert Herrick
A Christmas Letter
, by Stephen Leacock
Hoodoo McFiggin's Christmas
, by Stephen Leacock
Merry Christmas
, by Stephen Leacock
The Errors of Santa Claus
, by Stephen Leacock
Thank you so much! I added these links here:
hopefully this sub-project is going to be translated and transferred to many other wiktionaries. It is thought to be a project to show how interproject links can help to show all the potentials of wikimedia. --
SabineCretella
10:15, 12 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Here are some Christmas carols I was able to find:
Adeste Fideles
In Excelsis Gloria
In Dulci Jubilo
Jingle Bells
Last Christmas
Let There Be Peace on Earth
Silent Night
Still, Still, Still weil's Kindlein
We Wish You a Merry Christmas
Great! Thank you! I added also these songs. It is very likely that I am going to add some carols/poems etc. I find that match with this theme. Hopefully I will find also things in other languages :-) --
SabineCretella
17:00, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Please do! It wasn't until you asked for Christmas-related material that I noticed we just don't have much. So most of the non-carol works I've added myself, just so we could have
something
on here. Much more would be quite welcome!
Zhaladshar
21:06, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Suggestions for transcription and cleaning up wikiproject
edit
I have a couple of rare New Zealand-orientated books that are in the public domain, and would like to put them on Wikisource for the sake of preservation. However, I attempted transcribing one by hand and because it was such a long and tedious process, I only made it to page 3! So how, exactly, do most people do it? A guide would be very handy.
By the way, is there a wikiproject dedicated to cleaning up texts for the sake of readibility? I'm not talking about modifying the actual content, just making sure paragraphs are put in place where appropriate, and that it is divided into parts and chapters for a table of contents. Sounds like a good idea to me at least, since some of them are in a pretty bad stat ein this respect.
Cheers.
The easiest and shortest method for me is to scan and OCR the text before copying it into the Wiki. Of course be sure to weed out all the OCR mistakes before saving it. —
Mike
05:13, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that OCR is the fastest and easiest way, if the text is latinised. But the OCR program that I have tried so far gives useless results when I try to scan texts in gothic script. The errors were so many that it was in fact faster to transcribe the text by hand than to correct all the errors. And yes, the process
is
tedious, but presently I have no better solution for texts in gothic script.
There is currently no cleaning up project (as far as I know), but please do go ahead and start one. I find that work just as important as adding new texts, as poor formatting, justly or unjustly, implies that the work has not been done properly, and that the text may not be trustworthy (if the contributor didn't care about formatting, did he/she then care about proofreading?). A good start would be to create a page like
Wikisource:Texts needing formatting
or
Wikisource:Texts needing cleanup
listing the relevant texts there as you stumple upon them, perhaps with a short note about what needs to be done, thereby bringing to the communitys attention that these texts needs cleaning up. --
Christian S
20:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Try voice recognition software - it may be easier/faster than typing' Chee(rs), Melb. Aust
US Patents
edit
I'm often running into the need to cite US patents as sources for various pages on the English Wikipedia; however, for various older patents the US online patent database offers them only as a series of TIFF images. If I convert them to a friendlier format, such as PDF or PS, would Wikisource be an appropriate place to deposit a dozen or so patents? (I believe as actual documents, US patents are in the public domain).
Matt Crypto
20:32, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
There should be no copyright problem with including patents. What we do about the titles we use should remain an open question until we have a few to work with. I don't know if everyone finds PDF to be a friendly format. I would be inclined to use plain text for the descriptions, and whatever other format we normally use for black and white drawings. Even there we will be able to review that after we have a few in the database.
Eclecticology
12:28, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)
I agree that plain text would be preferable, but I don't have the means to do OCR at present. Would PDF be an acceptable half-way house? To most, it's a friendlier format than a series of TIFFs.
Matt Crypto
13:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Copyrights of TV interviews
edit
Does anyone know how copyright laws cover transcriptions of TV broadcasts? I was going through Wikisource and I found this:
A Report on Senator Joseph R. McCarthy
. It was aired March 9, 1954 on CBS. Is this eligible for copyright protection (I'm leaning to "yes," but I just want it clarified)? And if someone could just tell me what the copyright laws regarding television broadcasts in general are, that would be great.
Zhaladshar
21:38, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to
, the copyright term could last anywhere from 1982-2049, depending on whether the copyright was renewed. CBS would hold the copyright to the original motion picture production, as well as the transcript of that production. The original broadcast itself would not be copyrighted,
, because it was a free (and intangible) display of the motion picture. I hope this makes it clearer! The folks to contact about the copyright status would be CBS.
Clifflandis
02:29, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Revisiting categorisation
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource:Categories#Revisiting categorisation
Wikimedia Quarto
edit
The second edition of the newsletter is underway, with an eye to finalizing draft content by the 17th. Please add yourself to the list of contributors if you are interested in any aspect of its production; we need more people in every department!
We seek someone who would like to write on Wikisource. A brief update is needed. Let others know how Wikisource has been going recently (Subdomain poll, new logo poll, resources, number of admins and so on).If you have an interet, please give a look on
m:WQ/2/Todo
. Thanks. --
Aphaia
01:26, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Help needed to write Extension
edit
In
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain requests
, we seem to have reached an
agreement on the idea of localizing author pages. However, it will be necessary to
maintain a comprehensive list of all the localized pages referring to the same author,
or of all the translations of a given text. In order to automate this process, I
started to work on a
wikimedia extension
. This
extension is now in CVS, and I hope we will be able to use it after the next release.
Part of job of this extension consists in translating lists of adjectives such as
'french', 'english', 'german' in different languages. The goal is to be able to
automatically generate arrays such as: 'Diese Seite auf englisch | deutsch | spanisch'
or 'This text in Italian | French | English'.
I completed the table for 8 languages: french, german, english, italian, spanish,
portuguese, polish, danish (with the help of ChristianS). Anyone who feels like
adding new languages to the table is welcome to do so. Russian, Greek or Chinese
are not within my grasp.
--
ThomasV
13:36, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)
More on author pages
edit
Discussion moved to
Help talk:Author pages#More on author pages
Wikipedia links
edit
This is something that I've seen used to good effect on Wikinews, and I believe it could be particularly useful in some aspects here. I'm trying to use the UN Security Council Resolutions as a means of really building Wikisource up as a resource for documents in this area, but as part of this, I'd like to be able to link references to people and organisations to their respective Wikipedia articles. It'd be an encouragement for work to actually be done on those articles (which are often need cleanup or creation), and I think it'd improve the quality of the resource, by making background information accessible with a click. Any thoughts?
Ambivalenthysteria
09:49, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Absolutely. The problem, as usual, is the amount of work involved. I don't think that there would be any significant opposition to doing this, either with direct links or with footnotes. I do occasionally make such links, but I will be the first to admit that his own efforts are scarcely more than haphazard.
Eclecticology
19:04, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)
About "CJK Compatibility Ideographs"
edit
I'm in trouble. Why does MediaWiki1.4b3 change CJK Compatibility Ideographs to CJK Unified Ideographs? see
狩獵免許稅徵收ニ關スル法律
. 免 changed into 免. --
Shin-改
04:11, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
This question goes well beyond my abilities, so I've posted it to the Wikitech mailing list.
Eclecticology
08:58, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Thank you.--
Shin-改
09:34, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Brion replied as follows on the mailing list. I can't say that I understand it. If you need further explanation, I suggest that you e-mail him directly.
Eclecticology
20:37, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
"MediaWiki normalizes input to Unicode Normalization Form C (canonical composition). Please feel free to double-check that it's working correctly (the normalization library is under includes/normal). -- brion vibber (brion @ pobox.com)
um...Thanks Ecleticology. I will e-mail him.--
Shin-改
05:52, 31 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Attribution / coyprights / correcting texts??
edit
Hi all; I followed a link into Wikisource whilst working on Wikipedia. I ended up with a few questions.
A) how do you track source copyright? I don't see any clear notice on the original.
B) how do you track attribution? I don't see a clear author on the original text.
The text I was looking at was
Sportpalast Speech
and I found an important chunk missing. I've left an explanation of the problem on the
talk page
. As I explain there, I'm not sure how to go about the correction.
Mozzerati
14:48, 9 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Hi, Mozzerati. Here are some answers to your questions. In terms of tracking copyright of the original texts, that really isn't done here. Of course, for most of the texts added, it is clear that the works are in the public domain, so it is not nearly essential to note the source's copyright status (although it still might be beneficial to do so).
But
for many other works that are added, the question of copyright comes up quite regularly. The things that concern me the most are translations of texts--the
Sportpalast Speech
being one of them. Surely Goebbels delivered the speech in German and what we have is a translation. Either way, copyright protection might apply to the work. It really would be nice for copyright tags to be added to works on this site, but it currently does not happen.
In terms of attribution, texts (virtually all) have a link back to the author's page, making it quite clear who wrote the work. I'm not sure what you mean by no clear author noted on the original text; if you look at the meta section (the italicized portion) of the text, it clearly says Goebbels is the author. Of course, generally we have a link at the top of the page that says "<
Author:AuthorName
"--this is our general standard.
About correcting the speech, I would not do anything until its copyright status can be established. If it is a violation (which I believe it is), then correcting the text would be pointless as it would be deleted.
Zhaladshar
01:30, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Author Pages Revisit
edit
Discussion moved to
Help talk:Author pages#Author Pages Revisit
Images
edit
Bonjour,
Il semble que les images ne s'affichent plus ? (cf.
La géométrie
, par exemple).
Caton
10:42, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Je confirme... --
ThomasV
13:06, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I don't know French, but I would imagine Caton is asking the same thing I am: what's with all the images not working on Wikisource all of a sudden? I know that the images are still here on the server, but for some reason the links aren't working.
Zhaladshar
01:53, 19 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Oui, je ne sais à qui l'on doit s'adresser.
Caton
09:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
je ne savais meme pas que ws: avait des propres images... Il serait peut-etre mieux de place les illustrations sur commons, et de les lier de la? I just wanted to upload some illustrations and I don't know how to do it now. If nobody knows what's going on, maybe we should inquire on meta somewhere?
130.60.142.62
15:25, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
En effet, les images de Wikicommons fonctionnent :
Caton
08:33, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
J'aimerais bien revoir ces images, un jour...
Caton
22:50, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Could the person who caused images to disappear at least signal her(him)self? At this point we do not even know it it is a mistake, a dysfunction of the system, or something deliberately decided by some admin... I understand somebody might have decided that images should be in wikicommons instead of wikisource for organizational reasons, but if it is the case it would be good to notify us. Many books here contain images or figures, and I find it very sad that these images are gone. I am willing to believe it is a bug, since nobody claimed having done it. but it would be great to really know... --
ThomasV
07:15, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)
This happened before, last August. I raised the issue on the Wikitech mailing list, and received the following reply from Brion: "Should be fixed now. The symlinks were one subdirectory off, and files were being put in the wrong place."
Eclecticology
23:51, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Grec ancien
edit
Des pages en Grec ancien ont disparu.
Caton
09:58, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
lesquelles?
L'Iliade
est toujours la.
130.60.142.62
15:22, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Par exemple
Ἀπολογία Σωκράτους
, qui donne bien un lien bleu dans la page
Auteur:Platon
, mais sans texte.
Caton
15:35, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
De même :
Περὶ φύσεως (Παρμενίδης)
Ἀποσπάσματα
Ἠθικὰ Νικομάχεια
Caton
15:38, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
En fait, j'ai l'impression que des accents ont été modifiés, ou qu'il y a un problème à ce niveau.
Caton
15:44, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
quoi? Ce texte n'existe pas, tout court. Nous avons
Apologie de Socrate
, mais point de Aπολογία Σωκράτους.
J'ai moi-même placé ce texte ici.
Caton
22:48, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)
ok, je crois alors que tu aies un problem avec le codepage unicode 'grec polytonique', voir en haut, tu as mis un '?' au lieu de "sp. lenis+Alpha".
Il faudrait chercher la liste de tes contributions pour retrouver le texte...
62.202.241.89
09:41, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)
voir, par example,
Ἐγχειρίδιον
. Il faut bouger cette page. Les titres
Επιστολή προς Μενοικέα
Κύριαι Δόξαι
sont correctes, mais les textes sont foutus (plein de '?')
(tous les commentaires anonymes qui précèdent sont les miens)
Dbachmann
09:49, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC) edit: oublie, ces pages sont tout-a-fait bonnes.
130.60.142.62
External links on wikisource
edit
Hi I am in contact with liberliber.it an Italian project, similar to the Guthenberg project. They offer the texts for download while here on wikisource these texts would be online. LiberLiber-downloads of course are for free (they publish non copyrighted works from Italian authors and translations of works from international authors). Would there be a problem to add a link to liberliber.it (direct link to the download page) at the end of a page telling people that a pdf or rtf or txt-version is online there for download? I feel this could be a great co-operation as it would complement both projects. Thank you for telling me if links are possible or not. --
SabineCretella
13:17, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I think it is possible ; sometimes, I add links to a website (as
Le Prince
for exemple). (sorry if my english is bad)
Caton
13:21, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with this.
Eclecticology
18:11, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Go right ahead. I've never heard of the site (although I don't go looking for Italian works, either :-) ), but it would be great if we could help complement that site and vice versa.
Zhaladshar
19:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Languages and Subdomains
edit
Discussion moved to
Wikisource:Scriptorium/Language domain proposal#Languages and Subdomains
The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli
edit
I would like to work on The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli. Is is public domain? Or has some crazy person bought the rights to it. (published 1513, translated to english 1910)
--
Munchkinguy
16:42, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
1910 is public domain --
ThomasV
17:06, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
lyricswiki
edit
I went hunting and I just stumbled onto this cool site: www.lyricswiki.org
it is just what the name says it is: a collection of lyrics. And we cannot
have those lyrics here because, of course, it is a massive copyright infringement.
however, they claim what they are doing is fair use, because it does not harm the artists who are selling those songs.
I will be interested in following the evolution of this... are they going to
get shut down? maybe I'll propose them to add a french subdomain, because for
the moment they seem to only have texts in English.
I also thought we could link to their site, but I did not find a "lyrics" section
in the English wikisource.
--
ThomasV
07:07, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Their disclaimer page does ask people not to add copyright material. The fair use status is highly debatable, but if they are willing to accept that risk any problem is their own. An individual who wants to contribute to their site needs to be aware that at some point the whole site will be put off-line and his work will be lost. One significant lyric site is at
What helps to keep them alive is the fact that they are based in Brazil. The site at
also has links to other site. There have been efforts to shut these down.
I don't object to linking to these sites as long as our users are told what the situation is. I'll look to see what might be a good place for such a link.
Eclecticology
00:20, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
New language
edit
I wanted to add a link to Asturian in the Main Page (ISO CODE "Ast"), but the main page is locked. The link is this:
Antoxana:Asturianu
And the text the next:
Bienveníu a Wikisource. Esti sitiu ye un depósitu de testos orixinales escritos en cualesquier idioma y que seyan de dominiu públicu o tean espublizaos baxo la llicencia GFDL. Esti sitiu forma parte de la fundación Wikimedia y ye un proyeutu hermanu multillingüe del proyeutu Wikipedia pa crear una enciclopedia de conteníu llibre completa y exauta.
Thanks.
Llull
22:30, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lista Wildsteina
edit
The material on this list appears to be a list of alleged collaborators with the former regime in Poland. We have no business dealing in this kind of disgusting practice. Unless someone can find a convincing reason to keep it, I propose to begin deleting it all tomorrow.
Eclecticology
08:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm not too sure what these pages contain. It's a list of some sort, but I don't know what kind of information it is conveying. I agree that if it is that bad of material then it should go--the quicker the better--but before it is deleted, could someone tell me why we would be getting rid of it?
Zhaladshar
14:41, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Actually, I just read the talk page for
Lista Wildsteina
, so now I know why it's on the docket for deletion. I would agree with Ec that this is not something we should keep on Wikisource at all. It should be deleted as soon as possible.
Zhaladshar
14:48, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Moved from now deleted Article talk page
edit
Hi! I'm a Polish Wikipedia user. I have a big favor to ask you. Please remove all
Lista Wildsteina
subarticles (the ones I marked "remove!") - they are now empty - before they contained either one name or test edits by unregistered users. "Lista Wildsteina" is a hot subject in Poland these days - it's a list of people who used to collaborate with former secret service agencies or were their victims, that's why it provokes various unwanted reactions - it can't be exactly stated who was a secret agent and who was a victim. After it is published here, possibly by Ausir - a registered user - you should put a protection log on all its parts so that people won't modify it. Consider it, please. With regards,
Selena von Eichendorf
12:32, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The above description leaves me very concerned about whether we should have this kind of material at all. My first impression is that it is a list of people who are alleged to have participated in certain kinds of wrongdoing. In the absence of further evidence I would consider this material a defamatory and libellous attack on the people listed. It is effectively a long series of personal attacks, and contrary to Wikimedia policy on that basis. The Wikimedia should have no role in the spreading of this kind of thing. I cannot comment at this time about what implications the material might carry under United States law.
Secondarily, there is no indication about who produced this list, and whether the author has released the material under GFDL.
Eclecticology
07:31, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Personally, I agree with you. The list is causing lots of confusion, can't be verified in terms of who was actually a victim, and who collaborated with the secret services. However, the list is circulating in altered forms over the net and if it was published here, provided that it's not modified by unregistered IPs, it might serve as a reliable resource. But - it's up to you to decide. I'm a Polish Wikipedia sysop and I understand why you're hesitating, and I won't be surprised if you decide to delete the list from Wikisources. Maybe the best idea is to discuss the matter with Ausir, who just requested for Wikisource adminship and is "in charge" of loading the list here. On Polish Wikipedia we can't reach the agreement whether it's good or bad to have external links to the list or to load it on Wikisource. Anyway, the problem is that it should have been revealed long ago by the authorities, as it was eg. in Czech Republic... Sorry for the fuss. Bye,
Selena von Eichendorf
09:24, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After the whole debate, I think maybe we should delete it after all (at least for now).
Ausir
10:23, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
10,000
edit
The article
北海道舊土人保護法
by
User:Shin-改
to-day brought our total count to 10,000 pages.
Eclecticology
21:53, 4 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Organization of Wikisource
edit
I find Wikisource very hard to navigate. For example, in the
Texts
link at the front of the English main page, I expected to be taken to a list that included the
Charter of the United Nations
. I'm not sure how to get there from the
Texts
link.
Anomaly
16:31, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I agree that it might be hard to navigate the
Wikisource:Texts
page. One of us should probably reorganize that section of the site. To find the UN Charter, try
Wikisource:Historical documents
. It would contain a list of documents relating to the UN Charter and such. I'm not too sure what exactly you are looking for, but that might be a place to start.
Zhaladshar
17:18, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
The
Wikisource:Texts
page was put there a full year ago without so much as a single amendment since. I haven't yet traced the links from it, but my guess is that they are hopelessly out of date. Other techniques have since been developed for finding things, but saying that doesn't help newbies very much. Unless I discover something startlingly usefull in the links, I'm inclined to eliminate this path.
Eclecticology
20:10, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
That probably isn't a bad idea.
Wikisource:Fiction
Wikisource:Texts
Wikisource:Non-Fiction
, and
Wikisource:Poetry
are horribly out of date. And with the number of texts/poetry/etc. we have and at the rate we are getting more, updating these pages will take a very long time. Not to mention keeping them up to date; it will be even worse than trying to keep the author pages current. Usually
Wikisource:Authors
or
Wikisource:Historical documents
work well, or the search function, if a person is trying to find a particular work. But we don't really have a decent method to allow users to actually browse documents on the site (I'm specifically referring to literary works like poetry or novels). As great as it would be to have something like that, we just could not keep everything up to date on these pages. Maybe eliminating those paths would help keep confusion down for new users since they would no longer be able to use an out of date page but will instead be browsing the author lists.
Zhaladshar
21:30, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Is it possible to switch the positions of the "Index" and the "New texts" boxes? Also, instead of keeping these index pages up to date, it would make sense to have the equivalent of Categories in Wikipedia.
Anomaly
07:09, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I'm indifferent about the order of these two. If we are to keep the "New texts" sect ion it would be nice if someone were to take on the task of maintaining it. Much of what is there now has been new for far too long. Before we do any switch though, let's wait until these indexes have been cleaned up so we can see what's left.
Eclecticology
10:05, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Good. I've started disassembling the
Wikisource:Texts
part of it while being careful to clear up cross-links, and avoiding turning articles into orphans. The best hope of maintaining subject listings may be through a thoughtful use of the category system.
Eclecticology
00:32, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Lectures audio de livres en creative commons: servez-vous!
edit
Bonjour,
C'est la première fois que je poste un message ici, j'avais déjà écrit sur wikipédia et on m'a indiqué que wikisource serait plus approprié, j'espère que c'est bien le lieu pour ce type d'annonce.
J'ai ouvert il y a peu le site
(audioblog de lectures à voix haute) sur lequel nous avons commencé l'adaptation du livre de Florent Latrive "Du bon usage de la piraterie". Nous avons comme ambition de poursuivre la lecture d'oeuvres librement adaptables car sous license appropriée ou car issues du domaine public (les siècles passés étant une source inépuisable de chef-d'oeuvres libres de droits!).
Je voulais en faire part à wikisource en proposant à tous de réutiliser autant que vous le souhaitez les lectures qui seront publiées sur IncipitBlog et d'autre part aussi car très souvent quand nous lisons un auteur nous faisons un lien direct vers l'article wikipédia correspondant, et que désormais nous lierons également vers wikisource qui sera une formidable source d'idées de lectures!
Cordialement,
à bientôt!
Liseur
C'est une idée assez interesante, surtout comme service aux aveugles. Ça prendrait tout simplement des gens qui veulent s'en occuper. Ailleurs, il y a déjà eu des discussion apropos d'un Wikipédia en signes pour les sourd-muets.
Eclecticology
21:16, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Google et le défi de l’indexation
edit
un article intéressant pour ceux qui contribuent à wikisource:
--
ThomasV
21:03, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wikisource pourrait donc avoir un rôle à jouer dans la diffusion de textes français ?
Caton
22:33, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
je pense que oui... si le projet se développe, il pourrait devenir une ressource majeure. actuellement, quand on tape un mot en francais dans Google, l'entrée sur fr.wikipedia apparaît en bonne place. C'est dû au fait que les scores de Google sont calculés en fonction du nombre de liens hypertexte qui pointent vers une page, et du texte placé dans ces liens. Wikisource pourrait aussi devenir une référence, puisque les robots comme Google y ont accès (par opposition à Gallica)--
ThomasV
17:41, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Je posais cette question parce que je n'ai pas bien compris tous les enjeux exprimés dans cet article. Je me demandais si l'on pouvait sérieusement envisager de faire de Wikisource une ressource de premier ordre, ce qui est mon but, surtout en philosophie. Mais s'il y a des projets tel que celui de google, je me demandais si Wikisource ne risquait pas de devenir inutile.
Caton
18:02, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
le propos de l'article est d'inviter Gallica à ouvrir ses contenus aux moteurs de recherche, afin qu'ils aient plus d'impact. Je ne pense pas que le projet de Google risque de rendre Wikisource inutile, car le travail d'organisation, de liens et de découpage fait ici ne pourra pas être automatisé.
A mon avis, il est possible de faire de Wikisource une ressource de premier ordre. J'y crois beaucoup plus que dans le cas de Wikipedia, car la qualité des articles sur Wikipedia dépend des contributeurs. Au contraire, il est possible sur Wikisource d'être 'objectif' dans la mesure où on ne cherche qu'à être fidèle au travail d'un auteur. C'est une différence importante, et je pense qu'il sera peut-être possible un jour de certifier les pages de wikisource comme étant "terminées et relues", et de les protéger du vandalisme.--
ThomasV
18:15, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
J'ai l'impression que Jeanneney se plaint trop. Donné sa position avec la BNF ça ne me suprend pas que son article dans
Le Monde
ne considère pas la possibilité que Gallica aurait mal-choisi le format pdf. Ce que propose Google est un peu ambitieu, et je trouve difficile à croire qu'ils pourraient l'accomplir sans ignorer la correction des épreuves. Le projet de Google n'est pas le seul de son genre. Internet Archive s'est aussi trouvé des grands partenaires. (Voir
Wikisource peut toujours avoir un rôle dans ce millieu. Je suis d'accord qu'il faut devenir "une ressource de premier ordre" où il y a beaucoup plus que des sélections choisies au hazard. Ce genre de contributions sera bien entendu toujours là, et il ne faut pas empecher les gens qui le font. Mais il faut aussi considérer faire des collections de tous de textes d'un auteur, ou faire des liens-wiki entre un texte et ceux cités par l'auteur.
Eclecticology
22:27, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Need help with a speech
edit
Seeing that we have political speeches at Wikisource, I was thinking of adding a speech
Jello Biafra
gave to the Green Party in 2000 when he attempted to run for their candidate. However, I'm not sure whether or not his speech counts as being public domain. I'm sure he wouldn't be bothered by it being shared online (given his positive opinion towards sharing information), but I'd like a second opinion first. Everything2 has a copy of it at
this link
, so it might be ok, but I want to know if Wikisource is willing to accept it. If you can, please get back to me at my Wikipedia talk page, since I am at Wikipedia more often than Wikisource. --
LGagnon
08:01, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
General information and help system - RFE
edit
I've some trouble when searching 1) what wikisource is. Yea, I was searching, around 30mins. But still no idea 2) what exactly is desired, 3) what shall not be on wikisource, 4) what's the relation to project gutenberg, etexts.org, wikibooks, ebook scene etc pp, 5) how to organize/split longer texts like (lyrical) books or charters. That's all I'd like to learn at the moment ;)
IMHO there shall be some very brief info like at
[1]
and some longer like "About Wikibooks" at
[2]
. Moreover, the help shall not only refer to editing text but some stuff like scanning, OCR, how to insert texts including all indices etc.
I guess everything what's neither a teaching book (-> wikibooks) nor an enceclopedia article (-> wikipedia). So lyrics, novels, charters, lists, FAQs, manuals,... are left. Do we want all that?
Manuals may not be that interesting.
We shall cooperate with them (have direct access to their databases) or copy those texts if license allows it. Why? Because some of them might lose the sponsor and thus become unavailable. Because their formatting is sometimes very nasty (only 60 lines per page - try to print/download this!) In case anyone is inside the ebook scene please inform them of this project - power points are simple linking, big audience + review mates, enough webspace, long term availability, hard facts reputation possible (how many scans and the like) and avoiding redundant scans.
Any best practices from wikibooks which work for other tings than books as well?
--
80.140.106.164
00:02, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Admin request
edit
User:Ausir has requested adminiship. Please comment at
Wikisource:Administrator
Eclecticology
19:58, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)
on what exactly shall we comment?--
ThomasV
21:10, 6 Feb 2005 (UTC)
on whether you support or oppose this person's becoming an admin.
Eclecticology
20:30, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "
Wikisource
Scriptorium/Archives/Oct 2004 - Feb 2005
Add topic