Wikisource:Scriptorium

Note: discussion also takes place on the official #wikisource IRC channel. Feel free to Add a new message to this page.

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6

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)

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)

Vatican copyright

A thread has started on Wikien-l today quoting a CNN story that the Vatican has claimed copyright on all Papal speeches and encyclicals for the past 50 years. Implications for us? Apwoolrich 18:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

This [London] Times report is very detailed.[2] looks as though it could be serious. Apwoolrich 18:55, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It seems that we might want to find any Popes within the last 50 years and discuss removing them. Do you know the link to the Wikien-l article? I'd like to see the CNN article myself. But if the Vatican is taking this approach, we might need to remove anything within the last 50 years. It sounds like they're very serious, and Wikimedia doesn't need a major lawsuit filed against them. Fortunately we don't have that many Popes here.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:40, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

We don't have any speeches by any Pope for the past 50 years, or any Pope for that matter. I don't know anything about Vatican copyright law (& presumably they can just write their own - don't know how valid it'd be outside Vatican City though) but can any organisation claim copyright on the works of their former employees (or leaders depending on how you want to define the papacy) after their deaths, doesn't some general principle of law prevent this unless copyright was assigned to the organisation before their deaths? AllanHainey 09:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think we have at least one encyclical. See also on User:Essjay's WP page. [3] Apwoolrich 19:50, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

Was there (before this news story) some reason to believe that works by popes was not protected by copyright? To me it just seems that the Vatican was not enforcing their copyrights as strictly as they intend to do from now on. Not actively enforcing ones copyrights is not the same as not owning the copyright. /82.212.68.237 22:53, 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)

Adding something to Mediawiki:Common.css

Can we add the following to Mediawiki:Common.css?

/* hiddenStructure from Monobook - allows selective hiding of markup in templates */
.hiddenStructure {
   display: none;
   speak: none;
}

Basically, it allows us to added optional parameters to templates but without any hit on the server. Great if you could add it! - Ta bu shi da yu 07:08, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Since the link above is a redlink, note Help:User style on the MetaWiki: "The defaults for all skins are in MediaWiki:Common.css. Other CSS pages are separate per skin". // Pathoschild (_editor / ^talk) 09:07, 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)

Free ? ... or not ?

This text ? Kelson 20:02, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

This seems to be effectively the manifesto & statement of beliefs of a political party/organisation. I doubt whether it is copyrighted as such as such documents are usually published with a view to as wide a dissemination as possible, at least in their own countries. I would expect fair use to apply to this document in any event, as with (mostly) all documents originally intended to be widely (& freely) disseminated or freely read/considered/acted upon by the public. I doubt Hamas would seek to enforce any copyright on this document (if it exists) in any event. That said if this is a translation of the original the translator is likely to hold copyright of it & we couldn't host the document in its English translation. Frankly I don't know if Hamas issued an English language version of their Covenant or not. If they did we can host it, if not not. AllanHainey 11:38, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

See the bottom of the page at this site where it mentions that this is Hamas' own English version. I take this to mean that they did write it in English. I did a cursory comparison of the two texts, and they seem to be identical. So, all things considered, I would imagine that it's a free text.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 22:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Hy, I don't want to be an Ayatollah, but for me a text without a free license is not a free text, consequently the Hamas Covenant doesn't have to be in wikisource. The problem is for me : people cleams that if the text is in wikisource, it's free, and so they can make a free translation of it on fr.wikipedia.org (fr.wikisource.org)... I'm definitly not agree with that. Best regards. Kelson 21:39, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New logo vote

I wanted to announce that there will soon be a new vote for a new Wikisource logo - please visit Wikisource:New Wikisource logo for all the necessary details. Please ask any questions on that article's talk page. Datrio 22:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Switched link on Main Page for this. Dovi 09:43, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Who decided that there would be a new vote for a new logo - didn't we have a vote some time ago & ended up keeping the existing logo? AllanHainey 11:49, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

There was never a vote, just lots of suggestions and comments. But the talk page at the new "vote" already has discussion as to whether there should be a vote at all, how it should be done, etc... Dovi 12:14, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe its a fait accompli and a vote is not needed. I have just seen the Zanumum design is in use on the Meta page about fundraising that is linked to WP's main page. Apwoolrich 16:40, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Oh, boy. This is going to turn out to be a mess; the multitude of users on other projects who have no interaction with WS will flood the vote and possibly overrule what we as a WS community decide to encourage the Board to adopt as a new logo. I hope it gets more structured in terms of voting procedure/method, or this will be a ride...—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:56, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I just looked, Apwoolrich. You're right, that was an interesting surprise... Actually, it links from "Donations" on every Wikipedia page, and every Wikisource page too... If people here would like the process to be done differently, the way to make that happen is to simply change its terms on the relevant page and state how you would like it done on the talk page. Nothing is engraved on stone. Go be bold! Dovi 22:06, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

New deletion policy

I propose the expansion of Wikisource's deletion policy (see proposal) 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)

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)