User talk:BirgitteSB/2005 archive

Wikification

We are having a discussion on the pros & cons of wikification over on Wikisource:Scriptorium#Wikification?. Basically, we are trying to establish a standard for when a wikilink is appropriate. I notice that you have been working quite a bit on this in the past few days. So, I wonder if you might have anything to add to the debate? Wolfman 22:18, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I was just replying over in Scriptorium. Yes, as you point out, many of the links were more informative than I had supposed. Of course, it was not intended as a criticism of you; I like quite a bit of what you've done very much. As this is a much broader issue, I wonder if you have any guidance suitable for a help page. I've been wondering for quite some time if we had a policy, both because I've done it myself & because I've seen quite a bit of it done by others. Wolfman 23:45, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Fuzzy-Wuzzy

Thank you. My source was from a recent anthology of Kipling's works. This would probably be different from your version (or I just did a poor job of editing when I brought the poem to Wikisource--I added Kipling's works before I was too concerned about that sort of thing). Again, thanks for your work on the poem.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 02:40, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your user page is really nice. It's a nice compromise; people who don't like reading poetry with links don't have to, but we still have a copy with notes to explain the un-obvious aspects of the poem. It might be a tad bulky for longer poems, though, and we might have to adopt a different annotation/layout scheme, but for a good majority, I'd say, I think it should work fine.

I do have one question, though. Are we going to keep the text of the annotated version on the page itself (i.e., not contained in a template)? I think this would be best, because it would give people more ability to explain something (such as, if we missed an important word in the poem or an important event, they could easily add that for us). We could, though, still guarantee the accuracy of the poem contained in the template. So, in effect, we'd have a copy no one can touch and one that everybody can touch. Or, do you think it would be counter-productive to allow anyone to edit the annotated version, since we wouldn't know what their source(s) would be?—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 16:59, 9

November 2005 (UTC)

I agree. Its very well done indeed and a model we should all emulate. I have some doubts about there being open-ended ability to continue Wikification. So far we seem to have escaped major vandlism, but this is a case for locking the text once it is accurate. As far as I can see there is little need now for further Wikification of obscure terms here so I think this should be in the Template. As regards longer texts, this needs a bit more thought. I get very irritated at the kind of annotation one finds in some Penguin-published C19 texts, which even include definitions of the meanings of things like shillings and pence. Who is annotation/Wikifation aimed at? Is it school-children or is to a well-informed adult. There is a difference in need, I think, and we need to have some guidelines. Perish the thought, but even two versions of Wikification for each text :-)Apwoolrich 19:04, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

But also, I don't think it's WS's job to annotate/explain everything. A reader is going to know if he/she doesn't know what a shilling or a pence is. It should be our job to explain the things that a person doesn't know he doesn't know (hope that line's not too confusing).—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:07, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I was definatly think of leaving the Wikification open-ended. For one even we reached a perfect text which is debatable the wiki we are linking are changing. For example when I first wikified the Boers it led to a Wikipedia article on the Boer Wars an to the section on the first Boer War. The second day when I was checking everything the link took me to a disambiguation page on the Boer Wars. Someone had split the older article up into serperate article on each of the wars. These sort of things will need periodic maintance. As far as vandalism, the fact that you could so easily compare a protected text against the open one would help counteract it, although not prevent it.

I think the Wikification is aimed at pointing a reader to where more detailed information is located. The main point is saving people from having individually research the same information. I even link to the sub-sections of articles on Wikipedia that has the right info. Obivously the more obscure the words used the more valuable the link. As for shilling if it was just in the context of money in general I wouldn't link it. I expect a reader to understand a shilling is some sort of British money. However if it was in comparison to a pence, I would likely link them as I wouldn't exept the reader to know the relative value of each.--216.169.213.2 05:06, 10 November 2005 (UTC)This was me I somehow logged out--BirgitteSB 05:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I think your two-version solution works well for Fuzzy Wuzzy, but not for longer works. Though if we could only have one version, I definitely prefer your wikilinked one for FW. Someone pointed out that the "printable" page button on the left makes the links disappear. To me that's the ideal solution -- the best of both worlds. The problem is that it's not at all obvious to try that. Wolfman 03:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I am worried about longer works although most poetry would be fine in my opinion. The problem with the printable page button is that the first text the casual reader comes across would linked and that emphasis could be disruptive to the meter.--BirgitteSB 05:16, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for soliciting my comments. Here goes. I like the 2 versions, wikified & non, on your user page & I think this would work well for most works. Though if it is adopted for all poetry works (leaving aside all other literature & historical works) it would significantly increase the amount of computer storage space/bandwidth/server space needed for wikisource so it might not be practical in the long term if we expect wikisource to grow & grow. For long works (Eg The Rime of the Ancient Mariner) I see real problems with the 2 versions solution, at least if they are on the same page. If we used http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rime_of_the_Ancient_Mariner for the unwikified version & http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Rime_of_the_Ancient_Mariner/wikified & included a link from the non-wikified version I think this would work fine. I'd prefer this to having them on the same page, even for shorter works.

Another possible solution (& I don't know if this'd work as part of the template or not) would be to apply a printable version link at the top of each poetry page, named something like non-link version (possibly with a wee explanation saying if you don't like blue links click here). This would give everyone the option of links or not & would save server space.

Generally I would prefer to read poetry without the blue links as I find it distracting &, as you say, breaks the meter & flow of the poem.

I like the idea of the templates as this would save a lot of trouble checking for & reverting vandalism, though for the linked version it would complicate link-maintenance a bit. AllanHainey 12:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Templates

To create a template for text is very simple: You start a new page at the location "Template:Pagename", such as Template:Fuzzy-Wuzzy.

Whenever the template is "called up" is will appear exactly the same way at that location. To call up the template, you put its name (without the "Template" namespace) between double brackets like this:

{{Fuzzy-Wuzzy}}

If the template has already been created, it will appear when the page is saved.

For instance, on the "real" Fuzzy-Wuzzy page (in the main namespace) you could type {{Fuzzy-Wuzzy}} in edit mode. The text itself could be saved in Template:Fuzzy-Wuzzy. But it would show up in Fuzzy -Wuzzy.

Good luck.Dovi 05:54, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please check out a new Help page

Hi, I have just written a new help page - Guidelines for adding a new document to Wikisource. If you have time can you check it out please and say if I have missed anything out. Kind regards and many thanks. Apwoolrich 19:33, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

The Rime of the Ancient Mariner (1798)

Hi, I see you added the archaic version of the rime of the ancient mariner. I spotted what I think are draft versions The Rime Ancyent Marinere (1798) & Template:The Rhyme of the Ancient Mariner (1798) still on the system. I just wanted to check before listing them on Wikisource:Proposed deletions as I'm not sure if you're using the template or not. AllanHainey 13:25, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I took care of it thanks--BirgitteSB 02:55, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

How about adminship?

Have you thought about this? If so I shall be happy to propose you. Since you are keen to revert vandalism you ought have some more tools. Also you are very clued up on things Wikiwise - just the kind of skills we need, I think. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 08:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Delete boxes on Talk:Main Page

Those are part on an example by Wolfman to show how to transclude a page in another one. I will either remove the transclusion from the talk page or correct the sandbox. Thanks for pointing that out.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 15:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sysop

Hi, Birgitte, you are now a sysop.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 21:17, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Proclamation of Amnesty

The article that was here already has identical text, but is filed under Proclamation of Amnesty rather than the full title of Proclamation of Amnesty and Reconstruction. Rogue 9 19:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Wanted pages

Darn it, I was hoping this would have been fixed by now. We should file a bug report over at Bugzilla. One of the developers would probably know what's going on.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 20:56, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetry Portal

Keep up the good work! :-)

J.Steinbock

I'm also really like idea (see my comments at the Scriptorium). GregRobson 14:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

template

do you know how to use templates with named fields in general, or is there something different about author? i've never used it specifically. i believe the generic style for named templates is {{templatename|fieldname1=whatever|fieldname2=whatever}} Wolf ^man 03:24, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Poetry Portal

Your poetry portal is outstanding! Let's move it into the main namespace and onto the Main Page! Dovi 16:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

script

I don't think it's gone in yet, but I was away for a few weeks. I'm getting pretty good at the scripting thing now, so I'll have a look at it. The page layout is different for each skin, so the existing version probably won't work without tweaking.

You might want to try the monobook skin with a different font. I think what happened is that 'classic' specifies a certain font -- I haven't figured out which one. In contrast, monobook suggess a font-family, sans-serif. Your browser then picks a particular font. You might want to adjust the font your browser chooses.

If you use FireFox, go to Tools/Options/Content/Fonts/Advanced/Sans-Serif. I use Verdana, which seems to work alright. Or, you could use a serif-face such as Georgia or Times New Roman as your 'sans-serif' selection. I don't know about IE though.

Anyway, I'll try to get the script perfected/installed over the holidays for monobook & classic skins.

Wolf ^man 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Portals

Thanks for the link Brigitte, I already had it from your links on the Scriptorium & wikipedia links. I was trying to get a different colour scheme from wikipedia(should be easy enough as it's just a matter of changing the 6 letter coding for colours) but I don't know if its worth going with it or not, it can always be changed. I tried playing about to create a standard box-header for all the portals but it doesn't look like this is possible once they move onto the separate Portal:poetry & Portal:speeches, etc pages, so it looks like it'll have to be separate boxes for each portal.

By the way I noticed that on your poetry portal the edit link in the top right hand of the boxes doesn't let you edit the template. I don't know if this is intentional but if you want the edit link to work you need text along the lines of

{{Portal:Scheme|Abridged Speeches|Template:Portal:Speeches/Abridged Speeches}} {{Portal:Speeches/Abridged Speeches}} {{Template:Portal/box-footer|}}

really just insertion of Template: before the Portal on the top line. AllanHainey 17:00, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Linking to the Multi WS

Yeah, to link to the Multi WS, use the prefix "oldwikisource:". So, oldwikisource:Main Page will link to the multi-lingual main page. Until Hungarian gets its own language, this should suffice.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 19:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)