Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2006
|
Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index. |
The Act, as written and as posted, is almost unreadable, since rather than posting the law as amended, it just lists the amendments, with no context. I'd like to add some links to the USC sections to provide the context, but there are some policy questions.
There is a GPO version of the USC on the www, but it is ugly. There is a version at Cornell which is prettier, but the formatting is copyrighted. Can I still provide a link to it from the Wiki page? I notice that there is also a very incomplete USC here on the Wiki itself. To use that I'd have to actually copy over the GPO text and reformat it and then put the links on the Patriot Act page, which would be a much larger task.
So, is it OK to just link to the copyright Cornell USC pages?
hsfrey
- If the formatting is identical to how the USC was originally published/written/presented, then it cannot be copyrighted by anybody. Could you give links (post them here) to other versions of the USC so editors here can see it? Wikisource policy is not to do external links, as we collect source texts, not link to them on other sites, unless the link is only to be temporary while the document is uploaded here.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:10, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- In looking at the page discussing the Patriot Act (as opposed to its text) I see that that article ALREADY has external links to the Cornell USC site, (eg: 18 U.S.C. § 2331), so I presume that it is not against Wiki policy to use them.
hsfrey
- I'm not sure what page you're talking about. A page here or on Wikipedia?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
The OCRd version used here is missing section 5. If you have access to a printed copy, please add it. Thanks Apwoolrich 19:59, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
- Tagged with template:incomplete. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
The copy of Utopia I wikified, from a Project Gutenberg source, is missing some Greek text in the Introduction. I contacted the person at PG who transcribed the text, and unfortunatly he cannot find his hard-copy of the book to give me the missing Greek. Though other editions may have the missing Greek, the 1901 Cassell & Company Ed. is the specific edition which was used by PG as a source text; it will have the Greek for sure. Any help from the wikisource community could render be apprecated, thank you. —Wikijeff
I have found the Greek text for "Nusquama" (ονδποτε). However, I am still unable to locate the two Greek words that form the basis for the name Raphael Hythloday. —Wikijeff
- Tagged with template:incomplete with a link to the talk page, where I duplicated this discussion. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I have exported this from Project Gutenberg, but all the line breaks have disappeared when put into Wiki form. As this is a translation of a poetic play the line breaks are important. But there are 3000 lines and this will take forever for me to put in all the line breaks myself. Help would be appreciated, or let me know if there is an easier way to put in line breaks rather than typing them in individually. Thanks.--Konstable 13:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I've fixed the line breaks using indent syntax. I'll write a small tutorial on Wikisource:Tools and scripts on how to do this very easily. :) —Pathoschild 14:38, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Delete a contribution
I contributed (uploaded) a document to wikibooks, and after doing so I noticed that wikibooks suggests that you upload original documents to wikisource. So, I did that. However, I did this without reading first, and I noticed that wikisource wants only publications that have been published elsewhere. So, I guess we need to delete my upload, but I don't see how to do this. Can anyone help? The contribution link is: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Cacace
- I responded at User talk:Cacace--BirgitteSB 21:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
This needs to be completely reworked so that the page titling is consistent with our guidelines.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:41, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
- That was done at some point a few months ago; I'll fix a few remaining articles today. —{admin} Pathoschild 01:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Historical Documents, 'Civil Government Documents' subsection
Request that the following piece be placed in something resembling such a section; Aircraft Accident Investigation Summary Report Ref. No. V116/783/1047. --Chr.K. 13:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)
- It's already indexed on Wikisource:Historical documents; that is sufficient until someone decides to create such a subindex (if there are enough such documents on Wikisource). —{admin} Pathoschild 02:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
MORE?
Please advise, considering the server capacity required, whether Wikisource wants more Audio, an entirely different sequence, but similar to Wild_Weasel_mission_transcipts. I possess six more.----plumalley
- I'm unsure of what exactly you're asking. If you have audio, definitely please add them as they provide a great service to the accompanying text. And add as many as you can (or feel like adding); the more the better.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:23, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
Move to en.wikisource
I discovered that I have two wikisource user accounts, one under en.wikisource and one under wikisource. Is there some way to combine them? Both have the same name, and I copied the user page contents from wikisource to en.wikisource, so they more or less look the same, but have separate watch lists, contributions, etc. I have no idea whether I can fix this (if so, maybe someone could point me to the instructions), or whether some administrative type needs to do it. Any help would be appreciated... Mathsinger 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- No, the usernames can't be combined. As wikisource.org is still a fully operational wiki, it would be like trying to combine an account from de.wikisource with one on en.wikisource. They are, and will always be, separate accounts.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:27, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that answers my question. Mathsinger 17:48, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
2 more questions
1. I have somehow edited the Author template AGAIN...and don't know how to undo it. Is it possible to lock the template to avoid stupid errors by clumsy newbies?
- I figured this one out...I clicked the edit link in what I thought was the Works section for my author page...and it was really the edit for the author template...duh... Mathsinger 17:51, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
2. I have a formatting problem on Charles Henry Gauss Letter - 1898-12-21 There is a formula (I guess that is what you would call it) about half way down the page. It should look like the one on this page: [1]. I have no clue how to do this. Any help would be appreciated. Mathsinger 08:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- This is the best I can do:
| 123456789057182178039 |
| 3680824926969613857 |
| 123456789060863002965969613857 |
| x |
- It's not perfect. You will have to edit his section to see the markup code. It looks like the example I think. I does not add up though? I hope this is not too discouraging. Maybe someone else knows someway to use a non-proportional font. --Inge 09:30, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, Inge, I can manage it from here.Mathsinger 16:24, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
I have reformatted this, using a div tag, and am vastly more pleased ;), but, of course, want one more thing. I would like to use a fixed-width font for it. Any suggestions? Mathsinger 17:06, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- I have replaced the sum with a PNG image which is lined up as the letter says it should be, and the x is in the right place (did the sum, worked out what there error he made was). This seems like a neat way to prevent either 1) different fonts messing it up for different people and 2)avoiding that nasty blue box you get with the monospaced font that I can't get rid of. What do you think?
New Templates? - Wish list
How do new Templates come about? I would really like a header template for unpublished, or privately published(on my web site, e.g.) historical documents, like the letters, diary, deeds, etc. that I have in my collection. For letters, I would like to see the date, author and recipient information included, and maybe the locations of the author and recipient.
For unpublished historical works, edition is not relavant, but date and location of the material, who transcribed to softcopy, possible translation info (these could just be Notes:) are. And probably a few other things. Mathsinger 18:01, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
- The header template is standardized for all works, including unpublished works. Extra information can be added to the notes parameter. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Language templates
I use a language template which is one that doesn't yet exist on Wikisource. But Wikisource:Babel doesn't explain how to "copy them here." I may be unfamilliar with Wikisource to do such a copy-and-paste, but I did find the template on Commons (it's at Commons:Template:User fr-2). Any help would be greatly appreciated. — AnnaKucsma 20:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Simply copy and paste the code from Commons:Template:User fr-2 to Template:User fr-2. The category already exists. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Aesop's Fables
I'm thinking of reorganizing Aesop's Fables to a different structure than the one it currenlty is. I've found many different translations of the fables (one from the 1400's, one from the 1800's) I think would be nice to add to the more modern day translation we have.
My question, though, is since there is no official Aesop's Fables book, should I instead make each fable's title page the title of the fable (i.e., use Title of Fable instead of Aesop's Fables/Title of Fable).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- The current organisation strikes me as odd; "Aesop's Fables" refers to the presumed author, Aesop. It would be much more appropriate to place them on their own pages with the usual {{header}} information. Since the fables are short, we could easily place multiple translations on a single page similarly to O Canada. —Pathoschild 20:30, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
- So, I'm guessing titles like "The Tiger and the Lion" and "The Tortoise and the Hare" should be preferred?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:20, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
- That seems best. —Pathoschild 00:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Optics help
Copied from Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Reflection of Light
I have done the best i could to differentiate between a (A) and α (alpha) in 3., but i may have got some wrong. If anyone knows about optics, then thay should check this section for this.
86.128.247.115 20:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
- on the above
-
- Seeing the above, I looked this over very carefully down through section 4 (especial scrutiny to Fig 3 and related text) as request post on the help page. I'm an engineer, once trained in this, and such simple math, and this looks fine if Victorian in presentation 'style' <g>.
- I also scaled the images uniformly to 422px, the natural width of the first image, for both legibility and better presentation, as it was near impossible to read despite a 21" monitor.
- I can be reached easiest via email or wikipedia. Fabartus 05:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Changing username
Is there a page in Wikisource to request the above? -- Ianbrown 13:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
- As far as I know, you can't change the nick you registered with.
- What you could do, though, is register under another nick and start using it instead of the old one. -- Nevuchadnezzar 03:10, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Zhaladshar is the local bureaucrat; you can request that he change your username on his talk page. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Beowulf copyright
I was reviewing the lists of pages to be expanded. Beowulf was one of the ones requested. Two questions: 1) Is there any copyright concerns with using http://poetry.eserver.org/beowulf.html as the source for this?? 2) Is there any protocol for choosing to use a different translation? Thanks for the advice Banjee ca 23:28, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I can't access the page. Are you sure you've got the correct URL?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:28, 31 May 2006 (UTC)- Nevermind. The link works now. Stupid internet.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- In answer to your actual question, the translation of Beowulf (which in its original translation is in the public domain) was made in 1910, before the magical 1923 date, placing it, also, into the public domain. Have at uploading it. I'm unclear about what you mean for your second question, though.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:30, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- If you have another PD translation add it as Beowulf (19XX), Move the other to Beowulf (1910) and make Beowold a disambig. We should get the Anglo-Saxon version as well. --BirgitteSB 01:48, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure that there's at least two public domain translations of Beowulf... Project Gutenberg lists at least three translations: This one, this one, and this one. I believe that the last one of those links is also an English/Anglo-Saxon side-by-side. According to the dates on them, as well, they're both out of copyright. Jude (talk,contribs,email) 02:03, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Having an Old English version would be great.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- The Old English version is now at Beowulf; I've moved the translation to Beowulf (translation). Angr/Talk 13:48, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Two questions
First, what's the difference between Wikisource and en:Wikisource?
Second, I need to create an interwiki from an article on en:wikipedia title "Macedonia - The Constitution" to the actual source document "Constitution of Macedonia" on Wikisource. How do I do this?
--Richardshusr 18:16, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- In terms of the Wikisource projects, "Wikisource" will technically refer to the multilingual WS, while en:Wikisource refers to the English sub-domain. In context, though, (as in on the English WP), there is no real difference between Wikisource and en:Wikisource, as en:wp would not likely reference something on the multi-lingual WS.
- To create your link on WP, do
[[s:Constitution of Macedonia]]. That will create a link from the WP page to the respective page on the English WS.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:04, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Links in sources
Is there a policy regarding adding interwiki links to source documents to provide context? For example, linking a proper name or obscure term mentioned in a text to its Wikipedia entry. To me, this would be a good use of the wiki concept. Thanks, 70.65.195.170 02:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- I've found Wikisource:Style_guide#Wikilinks and answered my own question. A better question is, is this commonly done or encouraged? I get the feeling most docs are all plaintext. 70.65.195.170 02:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is not commonly done at this point, but it does not follow that it is discouraged. In my opinion it really depends on the work. I would expect novels to have the least number of wikilinks per word while I imagine treaties to be linked rather heavily. I do not like to see links to self-references, but rather links to background info. For example the novel Kim, I wouldn't want to link w:Kim's Game as these kind of articles are about what happens in the book and deriative uses after the book was widely read. However I think the first time The Great Munity is mentioned it should be linked to the WP article probably as I did there because if I remeber correctly the stories in the book are about what happened in the that city. I try to link pretty specifically. It is really a judgement call though. It depends on time periods and locations as well as type of work and whether the author decribes something in detail or expects the readers to already be familar. Kim probably should have less links to the Indian concepts than a similar book that takes place in England, because the sights and situations of India are decribed in detail to readers as if they are unfamilar while a contemperary book in England probably would assume the readers understand the subtext of a character living in one English town rather than another for example. In this hypothectical novel, it would be importanat to link to towns like this this rather than this. Although you usually need to work on the first paragraphs revealed in a link done in that fashion, especially to make sure Chester is named in the first sentance. Diffcult words could be linked to Wikitionary, but right know I have found that it is not up for the archaic words I have been looking for. An example of something I have which has a ggod numbers of links is "Fuzzy-Wuzzy". --BirgitteSB 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for the feedback! 70.65.195.170 00:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
- It is not commonly done at this point, but it does not follow that it is discouraged. In my opinion it really depends on the work. I would expect novels to have the least number of wikilinks per word while I imagine treaties to be linked rather heavily. I do not like to see links to self-references, but rather links to background info. For example the novel Kim, I wouldn't want to link w:Kim's Game as these kind of articles are about what happens in the book and deriative uses after the book was widely read. However I think the first time The Great Munity is mentioned it should be linked to the WP article probably as I did there because if I remeber correctly the stories in the book are about what happened in the that city. I try to link pretty specifically. It is really a judgement call though. It depends on time periods and locations as well as type of work and whether the author decribes something in detail or expects the readers to already be familar. Kim probably should have less links to the Indian concepts than a similar book that takes place in England, because the sights and situations of India are decribed in detail to readers as if they are unfamilar while a contemperary book in England probably would assume the readers understand the subtext of a character living in one English town rather than another for example. In this hypothectical novel, it would be importanat to link to towns like this this rather than this. Although you usually need to work on the first paragraphs revealed in a link done in that fashion, especially to make sure Chester is named in the first sentance. Diffcult words could be linked to Wikitionary, but right know I have found that it is not up for the archaic words I have been looking for. An example of something I have which has a ggod numbers of links is "Fuzzy-Wuzzy". --BirgitteSB 11:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
Image policy
Is there a Wikisource image policy written down? I added an original illustration to the Sherlock Holme's story Silver Blaze. Is this frowned upon or not? Since this is an original illustration by Sidney Paget, I assumed it was OK, and not the LEGO version. Thuresson, July 12, 2006
- We do not have a current image policy, although we probably should. But what you did is fine, as all of Paget's work is PD. And we do really love to add pictures to our works.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Collections of short stories (specifically The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon)
For collections of short stories, should each story be listed as a separate article, or as a subpage of the collection? In other words, since The Voyage was published in The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon, should it stay where it is (http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Voyage), or be moved to The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon/The Voyage? In this specific situation it appears that the stories were first published in the collection, not published individually and then combined at a later point in time. Koweja 22:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- IMHO The Sketchbook of Geoffrey Crayon/The Voyage, if anyone disagrees then this needs to be debated in the Scriptorium. -- Nevuchadnezzar 03:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
- Honestly it depends how connected the short story are. The Jungle Book is all on subpages, but if the stories only connection is they were written by the same guy and at one time bound together it should just be at The Voyage. If it is boderline, leave them however they are.--BirgitteSB 15:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Division of The Hunchback of Notre Dame
I've looked around on various help pages, but I can't find the info I'm looking for...
The Hunchback is divided into books and chapters. Instead of the chapters being continuous numbers divided into books each book starts the chapter numbers again: so there are six "Chapter I"s. Should I title the chapter pages "The Hunchback of Notre Dame/Book 1/Chapter 1" or should I make the chapter numbers continuous?
Also, I seem to remember reading somewhere that chapters numbered using Roman Numerals are supposed to be changed to numbers. Is this true?
Thanks in advance. --Editor at Large 23:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Hi, Editor at Large,
- I suggest you do it the first way—i.e., do The Hunchback of Notre Dame/Book #/Chapter # instead of making them continuous chapter titles. This is standard with how we've done titling for works of the same period, and how all the editions I've ever seen do it as well.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 00:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Great, thank you! --Editor at Large 14:22, 9 August 2006 (UTC)