Wikisource talk:WikiProject on infrastructural and guidance development

Add topic
Active discussions
(Redirected from Wikisource talk:IGD)
Note: Discussion also takes place on the official #wikisource IRC channel.

Older comments have been moved to the Archives.

Title format standardEdit

The current standard for dependant sections, as outlined by Wikisource:Style guide, 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? // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 19:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm don't prefer one way over the other in terms of title format, so long as it's site-wide consistent. With the use of the relative links, this would make linking a bit easier (and I don't quite understand your linking scheme, but I'll trust your experience with it). So, I'd be for implementing this measure should others desire or not mind it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:43, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
One quick question: will this relative linking work even though subpages are disabled for pages in the main article namespace? Can we still use them?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it will. The title format is currently in use at The Book of Martyrs, which I split before I found the title format page (now combined into the Wikisource:Style guide). // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 23:05, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
I think this sounds good to make page moves easier. But I don't understand the part about how it would change navigation. Do you mean you would put /Chaperter 2 in the Go box and that would work? Why would you need to that when you should be able to go to the next chapter from the link in the header. I just don't understand that part.--BirgitteSB 00:04, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Previous/next links in the header are currently written out absolutely (ie, [[The_Book_of_Martyrs - Chapter_I|Chapter I.]]). Absolute links are the exact location of a page, and must be updated manually if the target is moved.
Using this title format (and once relative links are activated here), the links would be written relatively ([[../Chapter_I|Chapter I.]]). Relative links will find a page based on it's relationship with the current version: for example, [[../]] means 'go up one level', which in the case of the example would be [[The_Book_of_Martyrs]]. This could be carefully explained where needed, and standardising this title format doesn't necessarily mean standardising the usage of relative links. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
After discussing with developers, it seems that relative wikilinks will not work in the article namespace if subpages are disabled. The title standard should be adopted for the other reasons cited and for future relative wikilinking. If there's community support, I am told subpages can be easily re-enabled on Wikisource. Apparently, Wikibooks already uses relative wikilinks for these reasons, and subpages are enabled there. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 01:13, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Do you know of any pages on WB that uses them? I wouldn't mind activating subpages for the main namespace, but that automatically generated link up at the top would seem to make the page (especially with our {{header}} template) look a bit ugly. Could we have that link disabled for the English WS if subpages were enabled?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:46, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Turning off the automatic backlink in the article namespace would be simple; it only requires a slight addition to the project stylesheet. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 20:45, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Great! I'm all for enabling automatic backlinks, then.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:53, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Can this system be used for indexing? As I read it we have a document built up of [[Title/Chap 1]] etc and concluding with [[Title/Index]]. If the page numbers of the original book are tagged, it might be possible to tag the relevant page numbers in the [[Title/Index]] so that hyperlink jumps can be made between them. This is similar to the system we already use for references and notes. In a day or two I shall be adding the index pages to Men of Invention and Industry which are missing in the PG version. I have scanned these from my own copy. It wouild be nice to make a proper job and make the index work in the WS version. I might add there is at least other document in WS which has been indexed, but I can't recall what it is. This is a single document, and not sections or chapters Apwoolrich 07:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Pagination standardsEdit

How to paginate, and at what chunk size? This is a technology-specific question. If you're archiving the rise & fall of the roman empire, do you make it one 50MB wiki page? Probably not. By chapter? that's still perhaps 1MB for many pages of many texts. Sj 12:44, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

It depends according to the text. In almost all cases, a text should be divided, and it should be divided according to "logical" divisions, e.g. chapters, parts, sections, volumes. I the case of (I'm assuming you meant History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire by Gibbon), it should probably be divided according to volume and then chapter).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Another policy projectEdit

Perhaps we should formulate a blocking policy. My view on how this should be handled can be seen at User talk:Logoboy95--BirgitteSB 20:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea how we managed without one; I'll draft a proposal within the next few days. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 20:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That sounds great.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:24, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested template for new textsEdit

There are several titles in the requested texts list which it would be simple to add to WS, but which will take time to properly turn into an acceptable document by way of sectioning, placing headers and the like.

If we don't already have it, and I have not found it, I propose we devise a new template to be added when a new text is adopted with a message along the lines of the following:

This is a new text, and it needs bringing to Wikisource standards. Please read and follow Help:Adding texts for the procedures.

If this could be in the Antique white/tan form it would be nice. Maybe call it {{New texts}}?

This is not the same as {{cleanup}} which I envisage being used on a text after it had been edited. Many thanks. Apwoolrich 09:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  This source text has recently been added to Wikisource, and may need to be conformed to Wikisource's style guidelines. If you'd like to help, feel free to review Help:Adding texts and format this page.

That's a good idea. The proposed template above automatically adds texts to the existing Category:New texts, points to two pages of guidelines, and invites users to do it themselves; this initiates new users to the guidelines we use and encourages more active participation. I think icons add a lot of visual appeal to templates and help distinguish their general meaning at a glance. Although I prefer the icon as used above, since it fits into the colour scheme, here are a few possibilities:

// Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:43, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

This is BRILLIANT!!! Very many thanks. I like the icon. So long as we never ever have icons, animated or otherwise of little men digging holes!
Icons should be good, providing they relate to the work WS does and are tasteful. Screwdrivers and gearwheels are out IMHO :-). I suggest we add a bit to my survey of template colours - see Talk@ Wikisource:template messages a section about possible icons. Where can we see any, please.
Another point is that many of our templates are in curly-bracket form. Others are chunks of code like this one. Will the latter ever be converted to the former format? Its easier to add to a document without cut and pasting. Apwoolrich 20:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
To make chunk of code a template, just copy and paste the code into {{newtext}} and voila! it's a template.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'll create a template for it as soon as we have general agreement. I don't think we should use this template until we have the style guide up, though. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 21:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
This looks great!--BirgitteSB 04:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding two new goals to our tasksEdit

I'd like to add two more goals to the task of this WikiProject:

  1. Convert all pages to the {{header}} standard
  2. Convert all page titling to the subpage standard (if and where applicable)

Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's fine by me; I standardise pages as I come across them. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 17:55, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Bibliographic informationEdit

Do we currently have a standard way of entering bibliographical information regarding the source text? Information such as the source (scanned, website...), where and when it was originally published, and which edition the current text is from. -- Quoth 12:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Not exactly. I saw you found Template:Textinfo . That is basically the standard form. Mine way of filling it out even varies diepending on what info is easily available. If you would like to sugeest something more standard you might want to put it at Template talk:Textinfo. --BirgitteSB 03:13, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


I think our learning curve is too steep for new people coming to the project. Our help pages are greatly improved but the entire site is not very easy to navigate and I wonder if we have all the style guides up to snuff. What does everyone else think are the most important things to have done before we would have a big influx of new people?--BirgitteSB 03:18, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

I think the Index is one of the most important projects. The Index comprehensively organises every category, index, portal, and page on Wikisource, but is still incomplete. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:22, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
In terms of helping to get new users up to speed here, the Index is probably the project we want to focus on completing. Partly because it will show us what we as highly active users who know our way around this project still have to get done to help with the infrastructure, and will present to new users an easily navigated set of pages explaining the basics to them.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)


My Assement (please give yours!):

The Index looks to me to be quite complete as far as project pages and Help pages. The alphabetical list of authors is complete. Alternate navigation for authors is weak. Some sections of works like Portal:Speeches are in good order, and others practically non-existant. The index does handle catagories very well, which is probably due to the fact catagories are a mess. Portals of course do not yet exist.

I don't believe we have ever settled the list vs catagory issue. After looking through what we have, I think we should emulate what has been done at speeches across the board. Use lists to navigate over time and categories for topical navigation. Lists could also be used for any other inherently linear navigation, but I cannot think of any besides time at the moment.--BirgitteSB 19:02, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

The Help pages are completly indexed but there is more than a little work to be done with Wikisource: pages according to this--BirgitteSB 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)