Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2006-02

Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in February 2006, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Please Vote link at the top all the pages

This leads to the old wikisource.org pages rather than en.wikisource. I clicked on it voted & only realised after noticing that I wasn't logged in & that my watchlist was empty. Does anyone know how to update the link to go to a .en wikisource page for the .en vote or if this is the general system for cross national votes (as it doesn't seem the best system due to having to log in on old wikisystem - some folk might not even have a userID for the old pages). Also how do you get your number of edits to show up with the signature (or get this information in the first place - I thought it was on contributions but it isn't). AllanHainey 08:21, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

the editcout link is provided at the top of the page. given the high degree of consensus among us, I did not bother to organize a vote in the best conditions, with deadlines and all the fuss. The point is only to show to developers that they can enable that feature without being criticized. ThomasV 09:12, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

My log-in failed too, but I can't recall my password and I was never on the old list to start with. Apwoolrich 10:34, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I can't find the editcount link, at the top of this or the old wikisource page. I may be missing something really obvious but can you please let me know specifically where it is as I'm quite interested to find out now. AllanHainey 10:37, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

http://wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Vote_on_enabling_the_ProtectSection_extension#Vote

WikiProject IGD

The WikiProject on infrastructural and guidance development will be doing it's best to document, organise, and streamline Wikisource. More voices are needed to help shape the WikiProject, so feel free to join if you're interested. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 15:42, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Scan Party for Pirandello and Grazia Delleda

For anyone who may have been planning to scan the works of an Italian author, you are hereby warned that the Italian law on copyright requiers that at least seventy years have passed after the authors death before any of his/her works can be reproduced. So you won't be able to post in Italian on the Italian wikipedia (just tried that). I don't know what the situation is with forein authors works translated into English and posted on the English Wikisource, however. --Lacatosias 15:03, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Adminship documentation

I wrote up a page talking about adminship here at WS (spurred by the confusion of the position and User:J.Steinbock's failed nomination. This is to clear up any possible confusion and is to be an overview of being a sysop. I consulted WP's, Commons', and Meta's policies and came up with this end result. If no one has a problem with this, I'd like to move this to Wikisource:Adminship and make this into a policy.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:05, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Congratulations - a fine piece of work. I see nothing wrong with it so I support adopting this as policy. Apwoolrich 21:20, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Looks great I also support the adoption of this policy--BirgitteSB 01:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Very well done, a good bit of work. Support. AllanHainey 13:36, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I moved the page to the Wikisource namespace; Wikipedia does this commonly using the {{proposal}} template to distinguish them from accepted policies. A template I want to propose had the administrator keyword which would ideally linked to the page. I apologise if there's a particular guideline or unwritten rule I missed against having proposed policies in the Wikisource namespace. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 02:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, no, that's perfectly fine. We rarely ever have any proposed policies, so there's nothing (written or no) that this goes against.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:07, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

There being no forthcoming opposition, I've updated to to policy status. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 18:57, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

Protecting Pages

When protecting pages like at [1] there is a link to Wikisource:Protected page which is red. Anyone know how to fix it to point to Wikisource:Protection policy? I know we can just do a redirect but I'd rather amend the Confirm Protection message. Also anyone know what is meant by "unlock move protections" and whether there is a specific reason protections don't show up on the history, I think this'd be quite useful (& in-line with every other change we do) as there isn't anything right now to tell non-admin users that the page is protected unless they try to edit it. AllanHainey 16:31, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I went to fix it, but Zhaladshar beat me. Those sorts of messages can be accesed through Special:Allmessages.--BirgitteSB 16:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I have corrected the link. It should now go to our protection policy.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:41, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, though, I wonder if it would be more prudent to wait to see if Brion will ever implement the ProtectSection. I've discovered that he's not too keen on making it a part of the MediaWiki system, so we're going to have to wait to see what he decides. But if it is implemented, we wouldn't want to have to go change a lot of pages to conform to the new feature.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:44, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

That would really be shame is he doesn't it is so suited for the type of work we are doing here. As it is the protection log is only a few pages. Did he give any timeframe on his decision?--BirgitteSB 20:45, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, no. On IRC ThomasV said Brion's not thrilled in the slightest about activating it, because of the possibility WP will try to get it. And since there is rampant abuse of administrator power there, he doesn't want to implement it anywhere. (This is the general overview of the discussion on IRC.) But I don't know about any time frame for deciding what he'll do. I think if we can get as many people to vote for it as possible, he'll still do it. But the support has to be very strong.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:34, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia's de-admin process is absurdly bureaucratic, long-winded, and ineffectual. I wouldn't say that there's rampant administrator abuse, but the few problem admininistrators are very difficult to deal with without clear evidence against them. Section protection on Wikipedia would be a very useful thing indeed, particularly for freezing disputed sections while discussion takes place without freezing non-controversial portions of the page. Unfortunately, the potential for abuse is pretty high, and Wikipedia is already having trouble dealing with other growing pains as it is. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 01:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Speedy deletion

Wikisource's deletion policy states that "Pages other than those [that match Wikisource's criteria for speedy deletion] should be listed on Wikisource:Proposed deletions or Wikisource:Possible copyright violations for at least a week before they are deleted." However, the page made no mention of what to do with speedy-deletion requests, so they apparently went on proposed deletions as well. I created the speedy deletion tag {{sdelete|reason}} with the associated category Category:Speedy deletion requests, which is a direct subcategory of the traditional Category:deletion requests. Any thoughts?

I've been thinking that maybe we should move our Wikisource:Deletion policy to Wikisource:Speedy deletion policy (which it really is) and rewrite our current deletion policy to take into account how we handle other deletions.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:04, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

We lack Wikipedia's bureaucratic immensity, so we should be able to cover our entire deletion policy on a single page. I suggest that we expand our criteria for speedy deletion to match Wikisource's scope, such as speedy-deleting pages that are clearly not valid texts (example pages, descriptions of books, advertisements, et cetera). By setting clear guidelines for what is speedy-deleted, we can reduce the complexity of our deletion process and the accompanying pages. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 15:33, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me!—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:41, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The current proposal is my sandbox at User:Pathoschild/Projects/Deletion policy. Please discuss any possible changes at WikiProject IGD. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 02:43, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardised article header

WikiProject IGD is proposing a standardised article header template, which you can see in use on any of the pages in Category:Experimental header. Please take a look and comment so that we can make improvements. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 21:06, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

The proposal has been been put up for a vote; please comment or vote at the WikiProject IGD talk page. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Title format standard

The current standard for dependant sections, as outlined by Wikisource:Title formats, is Title - Section. This standard appears to have been adopted simply to standardise the title format; although there's nothing wrong with standardisation for standardisation's sake, I propose that this be changed to Title/Section. This format is more logical, since dependant sections would be subpages of the greater work instead of articles in their own right. Further, once bug 4727 (allow relative wikilinks on Wikisource) is addressed, navigation would be vastly simplified within a work. For example, instead of using [[Title]] and [[Title - Section]], we'd use [[../]], [[/Section]], and [[../Section]]. This method is title independant, such that we could move entire works quite easily. Brief help on relative links would be included where appropriate (such as Help:Adding texts, Template_talk:header, et cetera).

I'd also suggest standardising sections to use the section number, rather than the title. For example, [[/Chapter II]] instead of [[/The Ten Primitive Persecutions]]. This means that we could rename a chapter if we discover a more appropriate name without having to update any pages at all, and it would much simplify navigation templates that use previous/next links (such as {{header}} ).

Overall, standardising in this manner would mean that we could set up the navigation templates when we split the work, and never need to change them again. We could rename chapters, rename an entire work, totally reorganise the splits, and the links would still work perfectly. What say you?

Please discuss at the WikiProject IGD talk page. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 20:13, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Message for people coming to the wrong language domain

Could someone add a note to MediaWiki:Noarticletext, that the requested article may be at an other language subdomain? The old link [[wikisource:...]] now links to en.wikisource from other projects. Many not updated links will go to en.wikisource and people might think, the articles have been deleted. --Jofi 19:20, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I will take care of it, I forgot we could change that. I thought I fixed all the links in the English and Spanish Wikipedias, what wikipedia are you still seeing bad links at? And do you want some tips for fixing them? :)--BirgitteSB 19:26, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the fast reaction. I've forgotten where I saw the links. But it could happen at any Wikimedia project. I you have some tips, I would like to know them. --Jofi 21:28, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

First if you are in the German WP log out of all WS accounts except German. Then in the WP do a search for Wikisource. I use Firefox so I have Wikisource put in the F3 find on this page function. Go into the first article and find the Wikisource and follow the link. Look up to the right to and if your username is there (i.e. You are logged in the german wikisource) that link is good. If not fix it. Sometimes wikisource isn't actually on the page so hunt through the external links to find the one that points to Wikisource. Leave the browser open with you search so you can tell which pages you have already visited because they will show up multiple times in the search. When you get to the end of the search go back through hitting the previous page as some articles you didn't visit will show up. It took a long time by the way--BirgitteSB 22:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, thank you. There are a lot of bad links at de.wikipedia. I should have fixed this a long time earlier. --Jofi 23:34, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia search doesn't work (never worked?!). On the first search page it tells it found 599 results, on the second page 241, but it display only 61 results. Google finds 27,100 results using "site:de.wikipedia.org". I now used http://www.wikisign.org/ and got much more results than with Wikipedia search. --Jofi 00:30, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The other thing is the templates. Some will point to the german wikisource looking for latin, greek, etc texts. And those will have to be switched to a template with language parameters--BirgitteSB 09:26, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Missing Scriptorium button

Where has the Scriptorium button gone from the navigation box on the top left-hand side of the pages? It used to be above Recent Changes. Apwoolrich 21:22, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Its been renamed Current Events, and is a blank page as there is no content. I can't work out how this was done or by whom. Apwoolrich 21:28, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

That is really wierd I couldn't find anything in the recent changea to Mediwiki. --BirgitteSB 22:29, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Zhaladshar made the opposite change to MediaWiki:Sidebar on the 18th of September 2005, and the message hasn't been changed since then. The message seems to be using variables of some sort; for example, scriptorium-url becomes Wikisource:Scriptorium when the message is used. Perhaps a page of these variables was edited? Edits can be hidden from the recent changes list, if one has sufficent access. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 23:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

The current 'variables' are unchanged; see MediaWiki:Scriptorium-url and MediaWiki:Scriptorium. I'm not sure why the message is apparently parsing an older version. Perhaps we could try modifying MediaWiki:Currentevents-url and MediaWiki:Currentevents to point to the Scriptorium as a temporary solution until we figure out what's going on. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 23:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

I asked Brion (developer) to take a look and he fixed it. We don't know what was causing the problem, but Brion assumes a cache problem. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 00:43, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

We had a similar problem on Wikibooks, so I think it is a more general MediaWiki error. I'll try to make sure a bug report gets posted about the incident on Bugzilla. --Robert Horning 21:26, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Language Translation Project

I've been considering a move from Wikibooks for b:Where There Is No Dentist, and Wikisource may be the best place to put it. This is a project to take an existing text document, in this case something about basic Dentistry, and translate it to Hatian Creole so it can be published in Hati. While this is a neat project, I'm not exactly sure where to proceed with something like this. It is not really annotated text, but rather a full translation into the target language from English. As there is no Hatian Creole Wikisource at the moment (I'm not even sure if there is a Hatian Creole Wikipedia for that matter), dropping this onto that project may not be the best route.

BTW, I'm still trying to track down copyright issues, but I believe that the copyright is likely to be resolved with a formal permission to republish with the GFDL. These are people new to Wikimedia projects, so I don't know how far ahead they have thought this through. It looks like they have a number of original source texts that may be of value as well for a language that has comparatively little actually published in that language. Based on this web page it looks like they have invested quite a bit of effort to put this whole thing together. --Robert Horning 00:15, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This project is for English source texts only. The multilingual Wikisource may be perfect for your needs. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 00:46, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Help needed to delete/change user name by the logged in user

I have newly registered but accidentally included my full email address as my user name. I would like to amend it. I have searched all the help pages but cannot find any way of making this change. Please would someone help me to change or delete my user name by posting advice here? 13:12, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

A bureaucrat can change your username. Leave a message on my talk page (or email me if you'd prefer), requesting what you want me to change it from to what you want me to change it to.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:44, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Publishing a diary

I am trying to publish the source content of a diary. I did a test at Image:John_Long_diary_ch2_p1.jpg. Is this the recommended way to publish the source or should the derived typed-out version be published as the source instead? (Obviously it couldn't have been typed out digitally in 1890 when it was penned). Also, I haven't posted much on Wiki Source before. Any other advice? Donama 07:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel the typed version is the way to go, since it allows editing and commentary. However the page scans should also be uploaded with page by page links to them from the typed version. The work will also need some sort of editorial intro about the writer of the diary, with a link to any WP referenes about him. This promises to be interesting. Apwoolrich 07:39, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Apwoolrich. The editorial intro you suggest is a good idea. We will make it brief and try to avoid anything like an opinion about the diary itself.

I still need more advice/mentoring on this whole process though. We are arranging for the writer's son (ie current copyright owner) to sign a release for the diary under creative commons attribution non-commercial license (since the existing written permission is probably not good enough for Wikipedia). Where does Wikipedia enable agreements like this to be lodged for Wikipedia's protection though?

Also if the diary has hundreds of pages (I actually don't know how many it has) then is there a bot account I can use to automate the uploading of the images?

Thanks for any advice. Donama 01:31, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure where the Foundation files this stuff (assuming they do). You might want to get in touch with Angela for that question.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I urge we amend our rules about this kind of material if there is a problem. Diaries and letters are hard to get published conventionally, and they would add great value to the Wiki Empire. They can readily be Wikilinked to places like WP and be a resource for editors there. Apwoolrich 09:44, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

If you look at the Wikisource copyright page you will see that it got amended recently to clarify the licensing issues. I asked for comments on foundation-l and here and as it currently stands the rules here are not the same as at Wikipedia. All original contributions of the users of Wikisource, ie things like here and talk pages, and, in the unlikely event this happens, a source written by a user of Wikisource are automatically licensed under the GFDL. However, source documents by copyright holders other than the person putting the material up on Wikisource are not automatically licensed under the GFDL. They are licensed under an appropriate copyright licence, which means that non-commercial licences, whilst discouraged, are permissible here. After all it's not like we're trying to write an encyclopedia that others can use, we're putting complete source documents online, which is a totally different kettle of fish. If you do have something that's other than GFDL then please use the appropriate licensing template on the page to make clear what the use conditions are. David Newton 14:15, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

New deletion policy

I propose the expansion of Wikisource's deletion policy (see proposal[2]) per the discussion on this page and on #wikisource. Please indicate whether you support or oppose here; if support is unanimous, I'll move it over the current deletion policy. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 05:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC) Support Apwoolrich 07:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Overall looks quite good. I think the main reason it is so much better than the current one is that the present one was written with Wikipedia in mind. Minor suggestion: Would be better if proposal were not in personal user space, so that people will feel free to make changes (even very small ones). Dovi 09:45, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support - AllanHainey 12:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I've moved it to Wikisource:Deletion_policy/Proposal per Dovi's suggestion. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 15:42, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Support.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:32, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There being no forthcoming opposition, I've implemented the expansion. // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 18:37, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I linked to the proposal text next to "proposal", since the user redirect was later deleted. —Pathoschild 19:57:40, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Translation Project

This is a follow-up to a message received from Robert Horning and a similar message posted here. We are working on a project to translate the book, Where There Is No Dentist from English into Haitian Creole.

We would like to use the WIKI space as a collaborative workspace, plus leave the resulting final document on the site in both English and Creole. We have written copyright release and I don't think there would be any issues in this regard.

I believe the primary issue is where the project should be placed. Any help you can give in this regard is appreciated.

John Rigdon Current site

There is a clear, official place where things like this belong, so there should be no problem. Since Haitian Creole does not have its own Wikisource language subdomain, the thing to do is open a "local" Main Page for that language at the www.wikisource.org website (e.g. Main Page:Creole or something like that). The translation of the book into Haitian Creole should then take place at www.wikisource.org, while the English original should eventually be kept here at en.wikisource.org. (All of this assumes the book poses no copyright issues.) Good luck!Dovi 12:22, 1 February 2006 (UTC)