Wikisource talk:WikiProject References to Wikisource

Templatisation

I am working on a template to standardise the list items in Wikisource:References to Wikisource. It's mostly done, I just need to add a few features and work out the inevitable bugs. I should have it ready in a few days. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:34, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Almost done. The template {{cited}} is finished (I think) but I haven't tested it outside of my sandboxes, I haven't written the documentation yet and it is therefore not yet implemented on Wikisource:References to Wikisource. It shouldn't be long now though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:10, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I like it; I was wondering, how do you feel about putting a top icon (like with Featured) on top of cited works, and also, to semi-protect these pages? The only reason I think we should semi-protect them is that since they are referenced, we want to make sure that if someone visits to check that the work is stable. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

A top icon could work, although the featured icon seems to sit in the header for me rather than in line with title (as it does with Wikipedia top icons). Semi-protection sounds good if they're finished. Some of these texts aren't in the best possible state so limiting the ability of editors to fix them would be counter-productive. A validated or 100% text should be fine though. Suggest it on Scriptorium and see if there's any consensus there.

NB: The template is still missing a few bits. It will work for most, but not all, of the current entries. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I just made a proposal to change something about featured: Template talk:Featured. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I made a simple top icon for this at Human Immortality: Two Supposed Objections to the Doctrine; let me know what you think. Right now it's linked from my user space, but I think I can move it to Template pending some support. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Back to {{Cited}}, this should be ready for most entries now. I'll gradually implement it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Current work

Industrial Society and Its Future seems like a good candidate for a first project. Manuscript scans would be rad but unrealistic, scans of the WP/NYT publication would be good if it be acceptable under our copyright policy, some sort of authoritative source to be proofread against is what's most important though.

I say pass on that one and move on to something else. From what I've gathered, that "article" does little more than serve as click-bait for some search engine or similar to drive people to click on paid ads or something -- bringing them here only to have them bounce in the process. Its among the handful of articles that artificially inflates our traffic every month the best I can tell. — George Orwell III (talk) 07:41, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't wholly understand what your argument is, but from what I do I don't see how it touches on the fact that five books and one thesis cite it, and that this creates an obligation for us. Prosody (talk) 00:41, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Never mind that, the questionable fidelity, the missing license tag, etc., etc. - in 2008, a federal judge ordered the seizure & auction of ol' Teddy's "possessions" rather than return them to him. They even kept him from freely donating his writings to university collections or libraries. If he ever did have copyright protection (& I doubt publication by threat of murder via the U.S. mail ever allows for such protections but I'm not a lawyer), he sure doesn't anymore. Either some private individual already acquired the(se) work(s) or ownership is still tied to the families of the victims of his crimes (something like 10 million is still owed to them in restitution). This work probably should have been removed around the time of that ruling against him. — George Orwell III (talk) 13:06, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Resolving those textual issues is the very point of this project. The copyvio concern you've raised is interesting though. You may want to take it to WS:COPYVIO. Prosody (talk) 20:38, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

All I could find on this was at best a pdf form of the text, not attributed to anything reliable and presumably un-free. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:15, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

However, this self published version exists: [1] - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:22, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

That does look pretty good, given that Kaczynski appears to have been in contact with the publisher, adding some authority. I'd be concerned about the lack of copyright information on the additional material though. If you're interested, I made a section on Talk:Industrial Society and Its Future earlier to discuss the subject further. Prosody 23:27, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Speeches and recordings

There was a recording of Eisenhower's farewell address on Commons, so I added that to the work here. In this and similar situations, I think the recording can take the place of a DjVu as a source. Recordings are, after all, the primary sources while third party transcriptions in DjVu would risk bringing in errors that are meant to be avoided by proofreading. I have tried to do the same for other speeches but there are problems. I can't find any recording for Barack Obama's Iraq Speech while there is a recording of Salvador Allende's Last Speech (which I've noted on it's talk page) I can't really transfer it to Commons without a licence. I understand a little about US copyright laws but I'm not sure about a political speech given by radio in a foreign country in 1973, shortly after which the author committed suicide (which means he probably couldn't publish it under copyright in the United States although his estate might have been able to to so). Anyway, 1) are recordings acceptable alternatives to DjVu and 2) does anyone have any idea about Salvador Allende's copyright status? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

In 2002, Barack Obama was only a State Senator and thus, not a Federal employee --> not a work of the U.S. Federal Government --> not exempted from copyright protections --> probably not hostable under current WS policy and guidelines. — George Orwell III (talk) 21:11, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I was going to {{copyvio}} the article but it's protected. I can do it anyway but I'm not sure if that's appropriate for a protected page. I've started a section at Possible copyright violations anyway. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:30, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Source problems

Just Information: While The Alchemy of Happiness is on archive.org, all of the actual texts instead appear to be State of New York: Messages from the Governors. I've had no luck with Google Books or HathiTrust. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:00, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Lol, I almost uploaded that a week ago without noticing what it was. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:11, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

The last 2 on that list seem correct. For example http://www.archive.org/details/alchemyhappines01homegoog — George Orwell III (talk) 12:27, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

Well spotted. I've added the other one as the scan seemed to be cleaner, otherwise it looks like the same book: Index:Alchemyofhappiness en.djvu. As it is a different translation than the one we currently have, Henry Augustus Homes rather than Claud Field, it will end up at The Alchemy of Happiness (Homes) when it's done and the other version can be moved to create a disambiguation/version page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:19, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikiproject:Wikisource

I just made Wikiproject Wikisource; not exactly sure what we could do with it but I feel like we should have some presence on the other side. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:43, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

A few suggestions: you could post on Scriptorium to catch the attention of any other interested parties here, and it may be a good idea to leave a note on the talk pages of pertinent WP Wikiprojects such as Literature and Books. Prosody (talk) 22:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

I've added a comment at Wikipedia but, in brief, I would suggest making "Template:Cite wikisource" the parent template on Wikipedia but recode it to use "Template:Citation" as do the standard Wikipedia citation templates. The remaining wikisource citations can then be made to pass parameters through Cite wikisource (which is the most obvious title for the base version). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 07:43, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Spanish Constitution

Not too long ago, I uploaded an edition that was translated by the Ministry of the Presidency. As far as I can find, it is the only translated into english edition available for us to use (I have found three others, none which fit our licensing needs...) The dab page, above, was created because the edition I uploaded is different from the 1978 original by a sentence or something; its counterpart at en.ws is unsourced, unlicensed, unknown translator, and non-scan. I kind of want to delete this one. What do you think? - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:12, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

In light of your own admission that differences, however slight, exist between versions hosted, I don't see any justification for deleting the original (source or no source) right now. The "official" English version is peppered with non-translated Spanish terms so that version is far from perfect as well.

Also, minutes ago, it just dawned on me (and is really my fault cause I should have noticed it the first time I peeked in a week or two ago) that the list-item/defined-term format used in the original was not followed throughout in the Page: namespace transcription. A more simple wiki-code format was used that doesn't quite reflect the original's exact presentation. Not a big deal, especially to the average reader, but I've edited Section 1 and 2 to illustrate what the approach should have been to mirror the original correctly and for a more accepted legal context needed for interpretation. George Orwell III (talk) 22:43, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Yea, the 1992 version has many errors unfortunately, I will keep looking for something to back up the original. Regarding the formatting you noticed: damn. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:18, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm probably missing something here, but why are we maintaining a 1978 and a 1992 edition when the supposed 1978 incorporates the 1992 reform (Section 13.2)? Prosody (talk) 22:09, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Is Section 13.2 really the only difference between the two or not? I saw several non-translated phrases and words but I guess those aren't as key as any amendments would be. If there was only one amendment since 1978 (in 1992) and that is the current version in force today, I guess it would be okay to dump one. I suppose what I mean here is if there is no reason to show the progression of changes over the years by hosting each individual amended version then it makes semse to host only one copy as long as that copy is the current one in force (much like we don't host the U.S. Constitution as a progression of separate versions for when later Amendments were each ratified to it over the years either). George Orwell III (talk) 01:31, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the reform, yes. I can't find any good English articles about it, but [here's http://www.congreso.es/consti/constitucion/reforma/index.htm] a page in Spanish about it from the Congress of Deputies. On a more general tack of differences between the two, I ran a diff on the document and compiled my findings to the following:

• 1992 uses roman numerals for chapter numbers, 1978 indic
• 1992 uses lower case letters for subarticles, 1978 indic numerals
• 1992 omits the royal promulgation
• 1992 favors spaces to hyphen compounds, which manifests throughout
• 1978 omits the number of section 17 article 4, appears to be a typo (represented by indentation and period which normally follows number)
• 1992 has section 19 as two paragraphs rather than one
• 1992 substitutes for section 25 article 2 what is probably the catalan translation of the same
• 1992 features typo 'lawi' for 'law' on section 27 article 7
• 1992 has section 48 as two paragraphs rather than one
• 1992 has typo 'Communit' for 'Communities' in section 61
• 1992 has typo 'Go vernment' for 'Government' in section 64
• 1978 was modified by an anonymous editor changing the text of section 90 article 1
• 1978 section 95 article 2 lacks a final period
• 1992 slips back into the Spanish for the title of section 110
• 1992 substitutes for section 115 article 2 what is probably the catalan translation of the same
• 1992 substitutes for section 115 article 3 section 115 article 2; section 115 article 3 is omitted wholly
• 1992 has section 116 article 5 as two paragraphs rather than one
• 1992 substitutes for section 151 article 2 subarticle 4 what is probably the catalan translation of the same
• 1992 has section 159 article 4 as two paragraphs rather than one
• 1992 enumerates the additional provisions lexically, 1978 by indic numerals
• 1992 has additional provision 1 as two paragraphs rather than one
• 1992 has additional provision 4 proceded by a period and space
• 1992 omits 'pre Self government assembly' from the end of transitional provision 2
• 1978 has typo 'electon' for 'election' in transitional provision nine
• 1992 has transitional provision eight article 2 as two paragraphs where 1978 has one separated by three dashes
• 1992 omits signatories
• 1992 has superscript 'a's strewn about

A lot of those are really trivial. I don't like the complete lack of anything representing section 115 article 3. Dunno what call to make. Prosody (talk) 03:53, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It occurred to me that I should probably clarify: 1992 and 1978 are misnomers, these are two editions of the same document. Probably more or less contemporaneous, just keyed in from an original physical text separately. The '1992' version which we're currently working on is actually more problematic, but it's from a known source with a clear copyright waver [however, if they're all (including several other digital editions provided by various Spanish government sources) just different digital editions of the same source, it'd stand to reason they'd all have the same copyright status as the original, to the extent that they aren't creative transformations??]. Prosody (talk) 04:26, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Oh wow, just found Help:Official texts#Spain. And the page linked explicitly exempts official translations. Welp. Prosody (talk) 05:29, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Cite wikisource

At Wikipedia I have updated {{cite wikisource}} to use the standard citation format and template. If this works (I have tested it but this is the live version now), I will feed the other, specific citation templates through {{cite wikisource}} to maintain a standard reference format. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:23, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Looks great Adam; template {{w:tl|Cite WS}} can redirect now. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:29, 16 July 2011 (UTC)