Wikisource talk:Wikilinks
Some material has been copied form Wikisource talk:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2013 (UTC)
WikiLinks[edit]
I was going to try and create a list of the types of wikilinks, with 3rd or 4th level headers and Base it on all the possibilities and types that are developing in the discussion. The task is greater then I would care to attempt on main page. So I am going to attempt start it here. Please feel free add that I missed, We can move it the main page for discussion after we have captured them all.
I am indecisive on if red links for each should be a separate header, sub header, or combined discussion. OK, this is a start, it is open for expansion. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Classes of Wiki Links[edit]
A list of types of wikilinks for individual consideration as appropriate annotations on Wikisource.
Main Direct[edit]
Example: The Prince and the Pauper
Main Piped[edit]
Example: That story written by that tugboat guy
Author Direct[edit]
Example: Isaac Asimov
Author Piped[edit]
Example: best known science fiction Author ever
Category Direct or Piped[edit]
Example: Category:Early modern authors
File Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Index Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Mediawiki Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Page Direct[edit]
Example:
Page Piped[edit]
Example:
Portal Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Help Direct or Piped[edit]
Example: Help:Maintenance tags
Template Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
User Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Wikisource Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Module Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Special Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Media Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Translation Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Cross Wiki Direct[edit]
Example:
Cross Wiki Piped[edit]
Example:
External Direct or Piped[edit]
Example:
Internal to the work[edit]
i.e. Index Example:
Questions relating to above[edit]
- Wondering whether there is value in adding whether a link is factual or interpretative. Noting that some direct links will still be interpreted as for any reference to Author:John Brown which is not more specific, or contextualised.
- I am presuming that we are talking specifically about links are from the main namespace, and are we talking body or header, or what?
— billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- I would think only from the main (or translation) space, as it relates to annotations of published works. I would also think just the body, we can address header if needed another time. Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
- "factual or interpretative", so easy to say so hard to define. Clearly we would have the same concerns as w:WP:V, and we don’t really have a comparable policy here. I would think we would want to have a standard expectation, it is not black and white, there is a lot of grey in the middle. In my work on The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks), I discovered there are two options for Author:Socrates, and it gets more complex in more modern times. Actually I would offer that work, and my links in it, as fodder for discussion. Pretty much every potential range of verifiability/clarity is available in it and I am not too shy to discuss any perceived errors in linking I made. I believe all the links are to Author, Portal or main space. Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)