Wikisource talk:Scriptorium

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikisource talk:Scriptorium
Note: This page is for discussion of the page titled "Wikisource:Scriptorium" only. General discussion or questions about Wikisource belong on the Scriptorium itself.


This page is long. It should be archived fairly soon...


Archived (By Dovi) -- J.Steinbock

Aaahhhh where's the archive? Shouldn't there be a link here? Wjhonson 18:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

Good question! Hmmmm... ah, found it (well, found them -- this page has apparently been archived many times):
The archives are here.
NCdave 07:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


Why is there no table of contents on the Scriptorium? I think a TOC would make it a lot easier to navigate and would help people who are new to the Scriptorium figure out what is where. At Wiktionary's Beer Parlour and Tea Room there are TOCs. There is also a TOC at the Wikibooks Staff Lounge. Therefore, I suggest that we add a table of contents to the Scriptorium. --Think Fast 05:44, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't understand. There is a table of contents on the Scriptorium.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Well, I see the list of recent proposals, but that doesn't give the list of current proposals, announcements, discussions, etc. --Think Fast 02:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Maybe you have not checked the box in preferences to automatically show TOCs. Can you see the TOC on other pages (Wikisource:Proposed deletions does also have one)? If not, then go to the Misc tab in your preferences and check the show TOC option. 09:25, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Look right below the template on the Scriptorium. There's a list of recent/current proposals, announcements, questions, and other discussions.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:40, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It was my preferences. I checked the box and now I can see it. Thanks for your help. --Think Fast 21:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I love the recent proposals summary, but I think we need to have all recently archived proposals listed there. It will give everyone a chance to know what is settled or not and prompt them to speak up if they feel the assesment of consensus is wrong. The status could be expanded to include "Moved to Talk:Foo" for proposals that are not neccesaarliy implemented but not no consensus either. The rethink categories disscusion for example. Also the anglic languages. Anything that should not end up in this box should be moved out of the "Proposals" section while the discussion is still "live" (i.e. the annoucment of policy change at de.WS). Does anyone object to these ideas?--BirgitteSB 13:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The proposals box currently lists discussions that have reached a consensus leading to some action. Many of the proposals, such as the tag-based category system, simply question whether a particular concept would be useful. A future discussion concerning the implementation of that concept, with consensus measurable by a poll, would be listed in the box. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:14, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Yes but I wonder if it would be better to move disscusions where there is interest shown but nothing exactly decided. We are currently losing track of these threades. For example the Category disscusion could be copied to Talk:Category:Categories or Talk:WS:IGD and a note put in the archive and the box that disscusion would be continued there. Currently when it will be brought up again it will be completely sepereated from previous discussion. Of course when the moved discussion come to a final proposal it should be mentioned in the Scriptorium, but probably more like Dovi did with the Labled Section Tranclusion. --BirgitteSB 13:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)


Can someone give a very breif plain english overveiw about what this is about? Im a low level wikipedia member, and I understand most of the articles to a degree there, but I still dont understand exactly what it is and isnt we are supposed to put here. Is it stories already published? Personal works? Thanks 12:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi, please see our inclusion policy for the kinds of texts we include.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 17:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Plagiarized Wikipedia article for inclusion in Wikisource?[edit]

Moved to Wikisource:Scriptorium. —{admin} Pathoschild 02:52:26, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Archiving error?[edit]

My comment removed here was less than a week old.--Pharos 04:36, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to move it back; it's in the August archive. —{admin} Pathoschild 05:15:13, 06 August 2007 (UTC)
By the way, your announcement is cited in the upcoming edition of Wikisource News. —{admin} Pathoschild 15:28:16, 07 August 2007 (UTC)

<a name=...> labels within wikisource articles?[edit]

Is there a way to put <a name=label> HTML labels into a Wikisource article? I can't figure out how to add the HTML labels to the Wikisource article. I want to do that so that I can link to the individual paragraphs in a Wikisource text from elsewhere. But I can't figure out how. NCdave 08:21, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Try {{section|section_name|visible text}} (see code), which creates an anchor named "section_name". If there's no associated text, just {{section|section_name}} will also work. —{admin} Pathoschild 14:34:15, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you! I've done so. —NCdave 10:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
I have been using <div id="whatever"> and <span id="whatever"> for this. It that deprecated? Hesperian 12:34, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
No, that's essentially what {{section}} does. —{admin} Pathoschild 17:27:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
The {{section|section_name}} syntax is working fine for me. I used it in George Washington's Farewell Address so that I could make an outline of it elsewhere, with clickable paragraph number hotlinks. NCdave 20:50, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Template on Scriptorium[edit]

We need help!
Texts requiring scans
Die Liebe und die Befehrung
Books requiring illustrations
Alice's Adventures in Wonderland
Five Children and It
The Railway Children
The Story of the Amulet
The Wonderful Wizard of Oz
Texts requiring transcription
Czolgosz letter #1image
Czolgosz letter #2image

A discussion came up on PD about the possibility of trying to remove our "short term requests" off the "Requests for Assistance" and "Requested texts" pages and adding a carefully monitored template at the top of the Scriptorium, running down the right side. Not only will a lot more people then be shown what works we desire (or need wikifying/subsectioning/whatever), but each person who sees it is also a lot more likely to take the ten minutes to remove something from the template as "completed" than they would be to go remove an article from the same tucked-away corner of WS where people ask for the Star Wars scripts. This isn't really a question "Is this template good?" but "How could we make this template better?" Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Alfred Nobel 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)