Wikisource talk:WikiProject on infrastructural and guidance development/Archives/2006-01

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


I've come across {{author index}}, 26 related templates ({{Authors-A}} to {{Authors-Z}}), and categories Authors-A to Authors-Z. Particularly considering that the templates appear to be updated by hand, I don't see any purpose to them. The category structure is natively capable of the same feat using a single category and is updated simply by adding a standardised category tag to an article. For example, compare the 'D' listing by the category structure versus that by the seperate second category tag. The only difference seems to be that the secondary category shows only the 'D' list; however, each letter is very clearly marked and there seems little chance of confusion either way. Perhaps there's some reason these exist that I'm unaware of ? // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 16:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

The thing about the manual list is that they generally look nicer (you can choose how an author page name is actually displayed on the list of authors page--something you can't do with the categories), and they allow us to add extra information such as birth and death dates and any possible titles. Until/unless categories get a better-controlled system, older contributors will probably use those lists more than the categories (when I first started, we didn't even think of categorizing author pages, so I spent over a year working with the manual lists). This is quite a different thing that WS does which no other Wikimedia project does: we rely more on manual lists (which give us more freedom for what we need to do) than we do categories.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:56, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikisource doesn't have the near-infinite expansion problem of Wikipedia, so manual lists should continue to be viable as long as there are people working on them. Would you have any objection to adding category tags to articles as well? It's easier to add a new author category than update a manual list of contributions. We could perhaps create a step-by-step guide to help new users add texts; add the text, add a template which lists the text for proper categorisation and updating, et cetera. A more experienced user could then find the text through the new-text category, categorise and format it correctly, update the lists, create the author page, or add a specific problem template (ie, {{AuthorPageNeeded}} or some such).
I'd also suggest moving the author pages and author lists to category pages; for example, the list of A-authors could be on the category page for A-authors, and the Shakespeare page could be in the Shakespeare category. This would make it easier to compare the manual list to the automatic list, since they'd both be on the same page. It would also make it simple to categorise the authors by any other criteria we consider useful. I realise that this would effectively mean emptying the author namespace over a long time, so it's obviously something that'd need the consensus and planning of the community and be a long-term objective at best. PS: The page Modern_Fiction:Authors, for example, could be replaced with Category:Modern fiction added to author pages who meet that criteria. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 13:01 13:47, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I have no problems with adding category tags to pages, so long as the categories aren't like "Category:John Milton" or "Category:SOMEAUTHOR". This is not a very useful utilization of categories. The best way to use categories is to do themes (like, is it a hymn, what era in literary history is it, etc.), as this will be most helpful to the reader. And, truth be told, when it comes to adding works, one of two things usually happens: 1) the work is added but it does not have an author page, or 2) the work is added and is already linked by an author page. There is, really, very little updating manual author pages when a new text is added, so again, I don't think it's necessary to have the "Category:SOMEAUTHOR" placed at the bottom of the page.
There is, however, already a list of category pages for the author lists. Category:Authors Category:Authors-A, Category:Authors-B, etc. But, if people do housecleaning here (that's what I focus on most of the time nowadays), it won't be too hard to keep the manual authors list up to date--there are a number of tricks you pick up after a while. I'm very wary of moving author pages to categories, though. It'll flood WS with categories that aren't that useful, and will keep us from finding the ones that are (this is currently a problem we have with templates). It seems best to keep authors in the "Author:" namespace. I do think it would be a good idea for us to replace Modern Fiction:Authors, Modern Fiction: Texts, and everything else like that, with categories, though. These lists have never been worked on (partly because I don't know that much about literary eras). Since updates to those lists are so infrequent, categories might be best (and this seems to be in a category's field of use since it's not merely listing something like Wikisource:Authors buy listing a work according to a certain criterion it meets).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:17, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


This is a good idea, since writing for WS is more complex than working on WP. New documents should ideally always be accompanied by various navigation aids, but new users, (and some old ones, namely me) sometimes have problems locating the templates. Work has been started by various people at codifying templates and agreeing designs so we will have consistency across the site in terms of information and colour schemes.

I have been writing new Help: pages specifically for WS, since many of those on WP are not appropriate for the kind of work we do. What I would like to see is a kind of editing toolbox which an editor can call up when beginning a new document which lists all the templates he needs. On my talk page is a draft of a Help piece about editing WP documents off line using a text editor. I envisage having a document with the WS template codes that can be saved on the Editor's PC that can be used when coding a new document off-line.

I hope I shan't be accused of being a control freak, but I feel we should agree a set of template codes and stick with them. New templates shoud be added to the list only after testing and discussuion. Apwoolrich 19:11, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

That kind of standard is precisely what we attempted on Wikipedia with the WikiProject on user warnings, with mixed results. It should be much easier to do on Wikisource, with its far fewer templates and smaller community, and I think it could be accomplished by this WikiProject. We could also have a few pages that list these standardised templates so that an editor can easily scroll through them for the one he's looking for, instead of looking for a name that sounds like what he wants.
Concerning your editing toolbox idea, I already use something like that to manage the templates, form responses, and standardised edit summaries I use working on Wikipedia's infrastructure and as an administrator. A toolbar button pops up a sidebar which contains any text I use often (see a screenshot on my website). I can explain how to do that, if you're interested. There are also various scripts popular on Wikipedia that could be ported over to Wikisource with the help of an experience java scripter. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 13:01, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Please explain how to setup your toolbox it's looks very useful. --BirgitteSB 16:08, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
It's easiest to do with Firefox, and isn't too hard to customise if you have an example to work with. If you tell me which templates or text you want in it, I can create the file you need.
  1. Create the HTML page somewhere (on your desktop is best if you edit it often) with a bit of CSS and HTML. I posted the code I use in my third Wikipedia sandbox, although I've been meaning to make it prettier sometime.
  2. Open and bookmark the page in Firefox.
  3. Right-click on it in your bookmarks list, select 'properties', and check 'Load this bookmark in a sidebar'.
  4. If you want a button on your toolbar, add it to the Bookmarks Toolbar Folder folder, then click View >> Toolbars >> Bookmarks bar.
The above might be difficult to follow if you're not well-aware of FireFox's options, and it leaves out some extra customisibility that would be difficult to explain in a single comment. Perhaps we should have a Wikisource: page that explains how to use such tools; it's certainly easier to learn from a fine-tuned page than from one user's comment. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 07:11, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
If you do write a page explaining how this tool works. I suggest you make it part of the the Help: series. Maybe add it to the one on Editing tools - javascript and CSS. There are several sections there detailing tools which really need expansion with notes on bow to set up the user's PC. Apwoolrich 08:30, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

Standardised page infobox


I think a standardised box on top of every page would be very helpful, and would simplify the learning curve for both new users and new readers. I looked at several random pages to try to determine all the information that might be useful, and created the below possibility based on the style of {{chap simple}} . Any missing or unapplicable information could easily be hidden. The same mock template is applied to three widely different pages to show the possibility for flexibility.

As applied to a sectioned work:

< Part I Crime and Punishment (Part II)
by Fyodor Dostoevsky
Part III >
Other sections: Translator's Preface | Part I | Part II | Part III | Part IV | Part V | Part VI | Epilogue

As applied to a single-page article:

A Defence of Poetry
by Percy Bysshe Shelley

As applied to a single-page article with notes:

October Manifesto
by Sergei Witte and Alexis Obolenskii
Notes: What follows is the full text of The Manifesto on the Improvement of the State Order, written by Sergei Witte and Alexis Obolenskii in early October 1905 and presented to Tsar Nicholas II on October 17th. It was signed by on the 30th.

I personally like the layout, but I think the colour scheme might use a little tweaking. Any thoughts on this proposal ? // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 15:27, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I think the layout look great! Will it also be able to mention the translator on single page articles where appropriate? What do you think of an article like Gettysburg Address which is mulitple versions and notes on a single page? Regarding the colour scheme check out Wikisource talk:Template messages and Wikisource talk:Template messages/Sandbox for an on going dicussion. --BirgitteSB 16:07, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
Layout is fine, but several admins, User:BirgitteSB, User:AllanHainey, User:GregRobson, etc, have all been active in the past couple of months thinking about this. There is quite a lot dotted about on various user pages, and the Scriptorium archive, as well as on the Votes for Deletion page where a lot of jink was listed and decisions made on what to keep. On colour, personally I favour matching the pale ochre we have in the picture box (gent up the ladder) on the main pagem but Bigitte and Allan have been working this as well.
The templates required for each new document are, in my opinion.
  1. Bibliographical one about the origin of the piece, date, details of scan/ocr used, author etc
  2. Text quality showing the stages of WS editing (this has gone on the piece's discussion page).
  3. Chapter/section navigation like the one you have used here.
  4. Reference and note templates.
  5. Page marker. This is used to enable readers to locate the page in the printed work, and also as a marker for indexing in WS. For the later it should work like the Reference and Note templates above.
  6. End of chapter template which duplcates the chapter/section one. Alternatively a 'Go back to top' template. Thbis is to avoid scrolling.
In addition I would like to see another template created which can go on the top of text dumps pointing out out the need for proper navigation. aids. (Admnins tool box though, to be used very often, I fear).
A number of our existing templates are boxey, and very much prefer those designed to go page-width as we have here. So may be a redisign might be needed
There are also special templates used on projects like EB1911 which allow navigation to the next and previous articles as well as the WP article of the same name.
Regarding notes, there is the need to distingiush between notes accompanying the original text, and WS notes. I have in the past urged this is in the form Wikisource editorial note: blah, blah, to mark thee difference.
It is, I feel, most important that we are consistent in the presentation of texts, and try to evolve a distinct 'house style' in regard to templates. I might add that my day job is a freelance publishers' editor, as well as a writer, so I feel stongly about such things, for different design conventions and colours make the whole site look scrappy, and dare I suggest it, not very professional. Apwoolrich 16:51, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the other pages, I think it'd be best to have a centralised discussion on this. I think the WikiProject on infrastructural and guidance development is the natural place to have such a discussion, but any other page we agree on suits me fine. I personally dislike the brown colour scheme; a gray scheme with brown outlines may be more appropriate, I think. Regarding templates for cleanup, we could perhaps create a small series of templates similar to {{cleanup}} for specific lacks, and a template for new text that needs to be properly integrated with Wikisource.

I assumed that notes accompanying the text were part of the text and formatted appropriately. If there's a need to distinguish the source's notes from the text, though, I think we could keep it simple; perhaps italicised with a horizontal rule seperating it from the text. The notes in the box should be left-aligned, which I didn't do above. To allow for long commentary with easy legibility, we could perhaps go with a yellow/gray box colour scheme. The below is an updated example of it's use on Gettysburg Address.

Gettysburg Address
by Abraham Lincoln
About this text: The Gettysburg Address exists in several different versions, of which the original is displayed just below this box. You can use the table of contents below to navigate to the different versions.
The Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln's most famous speech and one of the most quoted political speeches in United States history, was delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 1863, during the American Civil War, four and a half months after the Battle of Gettysburg.
—Excerpt from Gettysburg Address on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

This would be the formatting in use for notes present in the original text, but the text didn't seem to include any.

This would be the formatting for the text itself, which is to say plaintext. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 07:38, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I created an experimental version of the template proposal above and added it to Angutivaun Taina (why is the title in quotes?) and Hard Times: Second Book: Chapter II. I tried to make the parameter names obvious, so that a user can copy and paste the block of text into an article and use the template without reference. Ideally, once placed usage should be obvious to new editors as well. The template can easily be changed to accomodate discussion here. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 13:22, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
Angutivaun Taina is in quotes because that is how it was written. Should we then remove the title within the text? Because right now it repeated three times in a row. Altough in works with formatted title pages we will probably be stuck with the repitition. The notes that are part of the text should reproduced how they appeared in the original if we can find out. I feel besides that we need a style for short notes (a sentance or two) and long notes (a paragraph or more) and I dislike boxing up the short ones. It makes them seem more important than they are. --BirgitteSB 16:01, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

As the notes template reads, is does not distinguish between a note or comment actually printed with the poem and one we have added as Wikisource editors. Hence me prefacing my version with Wikisource editoral .... Should we also think about including in this template means of recording the origin of the text we have used. This is important for users who might need to be able to distinguish between different editons and printings, specially of novels and poetry, where the texts might have been revised by the writers. Or might such information be added in a template at the top of the discussion page along with the text quality template~ Apwoolrich 16:35, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I agree with BirgitteSB on both points. Any notes that are part of the original text should be formatted similarly to their formatting in the original text, as they're essentially part of the text. Wikisource editorial templates should be placed in the notes section of the header template, I think. I've unemphasised the boxiness of the notes section by lightening the background and removing the border on three sides. The template below is as it exists at the time of this comment (subst'd for future relevance), modified with my own initiatives along with suggestions here and in #wikisource. Does this look better?

Gettysburg Address
by Abraham Lincoln
About this text: The Gettysburg Address exists in several different versions, of which the original is displayed just below this box. You can use the table of contents below to navigate to the different versions.
The Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln's most famous speech and one of the most quoted political speeches in United States history, was delivered at the dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, on November 19, 1863, during the American Civil War, four and a half months after the Battle of Gettysburg.
—Excerpt from Gettysburg Address on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia.

// Pathoschild (editor / talk) 18:14, 22 January 2006 (UTC)

I'll be slowly adding the template to articles per agreement on the IRC channel. This will let us see how it works outside controlled tests, help us tweak the layout and appearance, and decide if we should add in any new information. I'll add pages it's used on to a temporary category so that pages can be quickly null-edited when we update the template. The category can easily be removed from the template when it's no longer needed. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 20:36, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
I like this a great deal better! It really looks nice. I really don't have a strong color preference, besides that we need a basic pallette of complimentary colors. Many templates might appear on the same page together and I think it important that the look comes across as planned.--BirgitteSB 16:22, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


I don't have long so I'll just add a few quick comments on the standardised box headers. The thing that strikes me is that for new users & infrequesnt contributers (which make up the majority of our users) the use of templates is more complex & harder to do than simple back links. I think we may get the case that the only people who add these box headers will be admins & 'dedicated' wikipedians amending other users added works. That may be well enough but I take the view that we should make things as simple as possible for new users to add texts & get them to wikipedia standard.
That said I do like the layout of the boxes & they look a wee bit more professional than the back links we currently use. My main concern is the ease of adding them as they'll be necessarily more complex than just <Wikisource:Blah. If we are going to use a box for a text introduction or notes I don't think we need to say About this text as it'll be self explanatory. Currently I just put intros to texts in italics to distinguish them from the text & for notes in the text print them as they appear in the text or use [square brackets & italics]. I don't think we really need to say "—Excerpt from XXXX on the free online encyclopedia Wikipedia. " for all of our texts (or even any) as most won't have an exert from wikipedia & in any event we should be able to write some intro just from the source (& the publication/author/etc info we already have) where we need one.
I don't know whether we need the title of the text in the box header as we have it as the page title anyway, unless there are some texts for which this would differ - but I can't think of any offhand.
On colours I don't have a preference. We're going to have to either sort out a proper colour scheme for main page/templates/portals/etc or just continue to go with the various colours that have been chosen over time. Personally I'm happy enough right now to go with any colour for this & don't feel we need to standardise it. When we see different templates on the page together we can see how they look & what the most common ones are & amend the colours at that point if necessary. Generally they're all pastel shades so I don't think any combinations will be particularly jarring. AllanHainey 08:30, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I think usage is actually simplified with this. Backlinks require knowledge of our Author pseudo-namespace and piped wikilinks. A new user is most likely to either see how we add the headers in other texts (in which case they'll copy and paste), or they won't add a header at all. In the more likely case of copy & pasting, usage is very simple. Fill in the information you have, ignore the rest. This standardised header would undoubtedly be addressed in future introductory help pages, and is much more helpful than a link to the author.
| previous=
| next=
| title= Gettysburg Address
| section=
| author= Abraham Lincoln
| notes= About this text.
The 'about this text' lead to editorial comments isn't part of the template, so it's entirely up to the person who uses it.
I personally favour using excerpts from Wikipedia. Wikisource should not contain information about the text (beyond brief editorial notes); if information about it exists on Wikipedia, a brief excerpt explaining what the text is with a link to Wikipedia's article complements the text. 'This is the text, here's a link to information about the text.' But again, the excert from Wikipedia isn't part of the template; it's added to the notes section in italics with the template {{wikipediaref|source}}.
I personally think having the title in the template is very helpful. Compare the legibility and immediate information gained between these two formats, particularly from the view of an inexperienced reader.
The Wealth of Nations (Chapter I. Of the Expenses of the Sovereign or Commonwealth)
by Adam Smith
The above versus the page title "Chapter 1:Of the Expences of the Sovereign or Commonwealth". // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 13:02, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm not saying it isn't readable or useful just that there is more work involved in doing it this way (find somewhere you can copy the tight template, paste it, edit it against just typing a back link - assuming you knew to do all that anyway) & that it may put off new or occasional users or, more likely, just be ignored.
I don't agree that an intro shouldn't contain 'information' about a source. Using the example of speeches a speech intro needs to contain the author, any position the author held at the time which is relevant(EG Prime Minister), where and when it was given & the subject of the speech. We also try to either give a wikipedia link or a brief bit of info on if the subject is obscure. (see User:AllanHainey/SpeechesPortal/Read for rough guidelines I drew up for the Speeches portal)That said the intro should remain brief. Giving a link to a wikipedia article on the document has one major limitation, most of the sources we have don't have wikipedia articles, certainly most speeches, poems, press releases, fiction & non-fiction texts don't.

AllanHainey 12:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it does not matter which approach new users find most simple: For a host of reasons more experienced users need to check all articles as they are created. Adding a template or an info box where it is omitted would be just part of that process. Similarly, in my opinion, every source here should have an associated wikipedia article even if that article is only a redirect to a more general article. —Theo (Talk) 13:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Untitled letter
by Thomas Lindsay
This articles does not have a Wikipedia entry. Notice the fact that there is thus no reference to Wikipedia, because this is added manually.
Theoclarke brings up a good point; even if new users neglect to add in the template, users reviewing the RC feed can easily do it themselves. If there is community consensus to standardise this, it could even be added to the insert lists or some such. Concerning information, again the Wikipedia reference isn't part of the template; if there's no Wikipedia article, you don't refer to it.
Wikisource is a collection of texts, not an encyclopedia about texts. Relevant information is usually succintly summarised by the introductory paragraph of Wikipedia's article; if it exists, this should be quoted and linked to. Wikipedia is clearly superior to Wikisource in it's ability to provide information, rather than text. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 14:31, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
We 'must' also have the means of also including bibliographical information about the origins of the text. Many users will need to know the source, where and when it was published and which edition. It need not be in the header as such, but part of the operation of writing the header should include writing a companion infobox about it. This is akin to the prelims page on the verso of a book's title page. I am still not happy that we are making the difference clear been Wikisource editional notes, and notes that might be part of the text. If these pages are printed there is no difference typgraphically. We need, IMHO, to actually spell it out in words so there can be no mistake. Apwoolrich 14:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
The notes parameter (In the example above, "This articles does not have a Wikipedia entry...") provids the means to add any editorial notes you feel necessary. Notes that are part of the original text should never be placed in the header template. If necessary, one can further distinguish it from the text simply by adding "About this text" or some such. However, adding it directly into the template is impractical; the phrase shouldn't appear when there is no notes, and programming it to appear conditionally places an unnecessary strain on the servers. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 16:30, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Wow, I've missed a lot. Okay, here are my two cents:
  1. I'm pretty sure a majority of the new users will not be adding this due to the added complexity of the template. However, since the number of new texts is relatively low, anyone who's currently doing RC patrol can simply add it, especially if we add a script that will automatically insert the template (similar to what some users have done with the {{author}} template).
  2. If we agree to this, it will take a while to get together all the pages that need to have the template added (a bot could do this, but then we will need to check it, right, since the bot can't know what values to add to the parameters?) This will be a major growing pain for quite some time (we've still got Category:English floating around!), added to the ones we've already got.
  3. Will this work with stand-alone pages? For like national anthems, will our current scheme handle this?
I'll come up with more suggestions/concerns once I've had more time to think.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:58, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Assuming we standardise on this, it's not necessary to immediately add it to every article. We can slowly phase out the other templates and add it to any new articles or articles we work on. It will simply become part of the process of properly formatting texts.
The template is already designed to take into account every type of text we could think of. A good example is the Nazi national anthem Horst Wessel Lied, which is a standalone text and has no associated author page. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 22:23, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see, you're right. I've added the backlink to it. Another thing concerning the template is coming to mind. Any link (whether backlink or just links between previous and next chapters/sections/parts/etc.) of too great a length (which isn't really all that long) get wrapped. Could it be possible for us to decrease the size of the middle table cell, the one with the title in it, a bit to get rid of this problem, or even not set a size at all to any cell? Or would that mess with the display of the the template?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
That would off-center the title, unfortunately. I've encountered a few long titles (See Declaration of war against the Americans occupying the land of the two holy places (Expel the infidels from the Arab peninsula) for a ridiculous example). At the moment the template is divided up as 40% to the sidelinks and 60% for the title; I think that's a pretty good ratio in most cases. Perhaps we could change that to 50/50 instead? // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 00:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Eh, it's not that important. I'll get used to the new display, it just looks a bit...different right now that it's new.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Straw poll

I propose that this template be standardised across Wikisource, eventually replacing other equivalent header templates. This poll is intended to determine community support for this proposal. Please indicate whether you support or oppose such a standardisation, and feel free to leave comments. Please note that the template can easily be changed during or after the poll. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


  1. Hai, per all the discussion above. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 03:31, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  2. This brings an air of professionality to WS which only helps improve the integrity of the project. And it can be easily edited to change the presentation of the pages should a better layout/color scheme be devised.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  3. This looks great and quite variable to suit our needs. I am looking forward to widespread implementation.--BirgitteSB 03:45, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  4. Support I will add it to the chapters I am working on in Men of Invention and Industry to replace the right-flush chunky box I have used there. Will it be Ok if I fiddle with the colour, as I don't like green? I suggest we have in here somewhere a page of colour samples we can play with. Just a simple box and border template - no text,unless we want something different to black, with a note about what the codes are and if they match schemes we have talked about - Birgitte's ideas, the WP Maths portal, our speech and poetry portals for example. Apwoolrich 07:57, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
    As a follow up I will draft a Help: page on using headers, listing the variations and how they casn be used. Apwoolrich 08:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
  5. Support as recommendation per Dovi's comments below. Even though I feel we'll end up with Admins doing most of the application work. AllanHainey 16:10, 26 January 2006 (UTC)


Standardization: I think the process being described here is wonderful, useful, and could also help increase the overall popularity of Wikisource among new users. It is an important idea that should be pushed.

Nevertheless - and I hesitate to write this given the strong support above - I think it would much better be standarized through action, adding the template text by text, rather than enforced as a rule:

  • There will always be unusual texts or especially complicated texts for which the templates above are not the best solution.
  • There will be users who would like to design something specific for a particular text, without being forced to get community permission to change a template used throughout most of the library. If the alternative is a quality one, should we really forbid it?

In other words, what I'm trying to say is that the great ideas and templates above should be implemented as recommendations, even strong ones, but not enforced as rules. At we go through texts we can add them, and eventually they can "take over" most texts, making Wikisource a much more user-friendly place and becoming the de-facto standard. But that still doesn't mean they have to be enforced for each individual contribution. Dovi 13:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I assumed that to be true. As Wikipedia:Ignore all rules declares, "Wikipedia has a lot of rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause you to lose perspective, so there are times when it is best to ignore all rules." There's no analogous page on Wikisource that I know of, but I think this logic is applied de facto on most wikis. This header would be much more like a general guideline than an actual rule; we'd hardly block a user for daring to use another header. // Pathoschild (editor / talk) 14:21, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
I also approached this with the idea this would be put into a Style Guide without any forced implementtation. I think it will be great for most text, but not neccessarily the Data tables or Source Code.--BirgitteSB 15:15, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
Dovi, feel free to say what you like! Other viewpoints/concerns are a great thing, since it helps us think things through. I, too, had taken it to be just a strong suggestion, something that users don't have to follow (and what will likely be the case is anyone who RC patrolling will add it themselves), but would be encouraged to do. Because you're right, there will always be that "one" text that doesn't fit anything and wouldn't work with the header. And then such projects as EB1911 WikiProject would look terrible!
I was thinking that this would be put into a style guide, as Birgitte said. We need to standardize all that stuff into one nice collection of documents, so that it's easier to refer people to our styling guidelines. But this will always just be a guideline, of course, even though I see it taking on the status that our {{author}} template takes on: a "use this template because it looks very nice and it's being used on everything else."—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:32, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

OK, I guess I misunderstood. So let's just call it a "recommended template" or something like that. Dovi 20:00, 26 January 2006 (UTC)