User talk:ThomasV/archive

Bonjour et bienvenue. Excellente initiative cette réorganisation. J'ai simplement replacé dans Wikisource:Histoire des liens (mémoires et thèses) placés là par la personne qui a crée cette page et qui ont manifestement leur place à cet endroit. Caton 20:54, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Bonsoir. A vrai dire, le but de mon ititiative était de rendre la page Wikisource:Histoire inutile, les catégories relatives à l'Histoire étant énumérées dans la page d'accueil

Oui j'ai vu. Mais je crois que le but de ce genre de page est de servir à élaborer un projet, ce qui fait que Wikisource:Histoire aura des fonctions sans doute différentes des liens placés dans l'accueil et qui permettent au lecteur de s'y retrouver. Caton 21:13, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

ok, ce type de page est en effet utile pour élaborer des projets. Mais on peut se demander si ça correspond vraiment au rôle de Wikisource...

Cela, c'est à voir avec les personnes concernées. C'est Archeos, contributeur à Wikipédia, qui a commencé cette page. Des questions de ce genre doivent être vues avec ceux qui s'y investissent pour savoir quelle peut être l'utilité exacte de ces pages. En ce qui concerne la philosophie, par exemple, cela permet d'avoir un index des philosophes uniquement, d'indiquer des sources, avec quels sites on peut collaborer, etc. Caton 21:52, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

pas de problème :-)

Il me semble qu'il y a un problème avec les catégories fr. Si pour chaque langue, on place une catégorie de ce genre dans la page de Homère, il va y avoir à la longue plusieurs dizaine de catégories dans un même article. D'où l'intérêt d'un index général. Ces catégories seraient utiles s'il y avait un Wikisource pour chaque langue (ce qui est mis au vote en ce moment). Caton 16:28, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

En effet ça risque d'être lourd... Peut être qu'il vaudrait mieux ne pas placer Homère et ses contemporains dans la catégorie "Fr:Auteurs", et remplacer la catégorie "Fr:Auteurs Antiquité" par une catégorie "Authors Antiquity". Qu'en penses tu? --ThomasV 16:42, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

En anglais, je ne crois pas que cela plaise à tout le monde... En fait, quel que soit l'avenir de Wikisource en ce qui concerne les domaines linguistiques, il me semble que l'on devrait créer des pages auteur: dans chaque langue. J'ai vu que tu demandais à quoi servait cette manière de titrer les articles. Au départ, je crois que cela permettait de faire la différence avec le titre des oeuvres (mais je ne suis pas sur). Nous pourrions les utiliser pour permettre les catégorisations dans chaque langue. Mais il va peut-être falloir faire une consultation des contributeurs sur ces points. L'organisation de Wikisource n'est pas encore très bien définie... Caton 16:55, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Je suppose que la manière de titrer les auteurs date de l'époque où wikisource était sur le même wiki que wikipédia, pour ne pas faire la confusion entre biographie et liste des oeuvres... mais ça n'est qu'une supposition d'archéologue arrivé bien après. Pour en revenir aux auteurs antiques, je propose de le mettre dans une catégorie "Authors Antiquity". Vu le nombre de catégories non référencées sur ce wiki, ça devrait pas poser de problèmes aux anglophones. Si à l'avenir il se produit un fork de wikisource en plusieurs langues, il faudra traduire les pages des auteurs, et ça sera le moment de rebaptiser les catégories concernées. --ThomasV 17:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Je ne sais pas, j'ai cru comprendre que comme certains titres sont des noms, cela permet de signaler la différence. Mais bon, il y a pas mal de choses à refaire et à repenser dans l'ensemble, et les classements actuels ne sont pas toujours très adaptés. Pour Authors Antiquity, c'est plus simple comme tu dis, pour le moment. Caton 17:30, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. I apologize for not being able to respond in French; I don't know any, and I am only going on the gist of what freetranslation.com could give me. But it has become a common practice here at Wikisource that authors be presented here according to their nationality. For instance, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, being a German author, will have an author page in German and will have "Autor:" affixed to his name since it is the German word for "Author." Likewise, a French author like Rousseau with have "Auteur:" affixed to his name instead of "Author:". This is just a courtesy policy we've adopted--that the author's own nationality be reflected. If you would like more information, you could talk to User:Eclecticology since I cannot currently find any conversations that talk about this. Zhaladshar 22:57, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And to append to what I said, the reason we add "Author:", "Autor:", or "Auteur:", etc., to the front of an author's name is partly to make organizing easier. If every author has "Author:" prefixed to his name, we know automatically that it is an author and not a work which happens to bear the same title. I hope I answered what you asked me. :-) Zhaladshar 23:02, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for taking the time to translate my question... I first thought you were french, so I wrote to you in french. Anyway, it won't hurt to state this in plain English. My point is that if we want to use the automated indexation capabilities of Wikimedia, then it would be better not to put these prefixes in front of the page names, because it makes them show up in the index. I guess those prefixes are now useless, they might have been used when wikisource was not separate from wikipedia. --ThomasV 23:06, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oui, au départ, c'est une erreur de ma part... Je vais d'ailleurs m'occuper de catégoriser la philosophie d'après ce que tu a commencé à faire. Caton 12:16, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Accueil et histoire

Salut Thomas

D'abord la page d'acceuil : elle est superbe. Bravo !

Et pour wikisources:histoire, elle sert pour l'instant dans mon esprit à compter ceux qui ont un intérêt pour l'histoire, de lieu de propositions pour ce secteur, et à centraliser les demandes futures des contributeurs qui voudront ajouter leur pierre. Rien que de passer par ce portail permet de se retrouver un peu moins en pays perdu (même si la page d'accueil oriente mieux qu'il y a une semaine). Sébastien Thébault 21:56, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merci pour le compliment. Pour le portail histoire, je suis tout à fait d'accord. Concernant l'indexation automatique, j'ai vaguement commencé à définir des catégories pour les textes historiques, mais c'est très incomplet...--ThomasV 22:04, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Oui, il s'agit de signaler d'autres aspects de Wikisource. J'en ai un peu discuté au bistro sur Wikipédia, et un travail de traduction au moins pour des textes d'une taille modeste pourrait intéresser quelques personnes (mais je ne pense qu'il y aura beaucoup de résultats dans l'immédiat). Je vais ajouter le lien que tu me signales. Caton 21:38, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Merci d'avoir corrigé L'Homme de cour. J'étais parti peu de temps après l'avoir enregistré. Plus que 130 pages à faire... Caton 15:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

j'ai pas tout lu, je suppose qu'il doit rester des erreurs...--ThomasV 15:06, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

it was mentioned on the page though, and precisely in the section you were editing ("Diese Seite auf English" means "This page in english") --ThomasV 18:03, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Yes, I did notice that. But Autor:Franz Kafka is not the localized page here on Wikisource. Author:Franz Kafka and Auteur:Franz Kafka are for they are not the German pages. And the note "Diese Seite auf english/französisch" also shows that this is the main page, for it is giving links to alternative versions. Regarding adding those biography links, it would have been superfluous to do so on the English or French versions, but not the German page (which is linked to from Wikisource:Authors-K). Zhaladshar 18:12, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think that at some point we will have author pages in the major languages like French or German or English, but I still do not think that the links will ever be not needed because I doubt we will ever move to put author pages in...minor languages, for lack of a better phrase, like Afrikaans or Arabic or Oriental languages. Or at least I do not see a move like this any time soon. So a person who natively speaks Arabic but also English/French/German will appreciate having a Wikipedia biography link to his own language on an author page, since it is unlikely there will ever be an Arabic author page itself. Zhaladshar 19:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Auteurs et français

Copied here from Ec's talk page, my first message to him:

Hello. Why did you replace "Auteurs d'oeuvres en Français" whith "Oeuvres en version Française par auteur" ? I do not think this is appropriate, because this is a link to a list of authors, not to a list of works. So it is a bit misleading...--ThomasV 18:43, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I replaced "Auteurs d'oeuvres en Français" with "Oeuvres en version Française par auteur" because it was misleading. The works of Nietzsche, for example, were not originally in French; he was not an "auteur d'une oeuvre en français". Eclecticology 18:53, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry but that sounds strange to the native speaker I am. I understand why you found it misleading in the first place, but "Oeuvre en Français" does not necessarily mean that a work was originally written in French. Now I find it even more misleading, for other reasons. "Version française" really suggests that these are foreign works translated in French. In addition, the first word, "oeuvres" suggests that the link leads to a list of works, instead of a list of authors. Finally, "Oeuvres par auteur" is not French: You would want to say, at the very least, "Oeuvres classées par auteur", but again, it means that we are going to display a list of works sorted by author, not a list of authors. Not to mention the fact that there is a spelling error in "Oeuvres en version Française par auteur": you do not want to capitalize the first letter of an adjective. --ThomasV 19:29, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The capitalization (rather than spelling) error is a minor point that can be corrected at any time. I don't particularly object to adding the word "classées" though a comma would probably do as well if space were a consideration. I can see the implication of "version". Perhaps a simple "Liste d'auteurs" without mention of "oeuvres" at all might be enough. I can accept the convention that listings in the form Category:Fr:... can refer to any page in French, but there is still a need to sort out the issue of authors who originally wrote in French, authors of French nationality, and works that are translations into French from other languages. Whatever agreement we achieve on this could largely serve as a model for other languages. Eclecticology 20:17, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry if I was misunderstood: I never suggested to add "classées", I just wanted to tell you that what you wrote is unclear and misleading. I really think that you should revert this to "Auteurs d'oeuvres en français". Note that I put it like that in order to differentiate it from the general index of authors, which is called "Tous les auteurs". If I had to follow your logic toroughly (but again, do not take this as a suggestion), I would have to rename this link too, as "Oeuvres par auteurs", which is absurd. It is not necessary to say "Liste d'auteurs" because "Index" is already the title of the box.

More generally, my goal is not to upset you, and please note that I do not systematically oppose to what you say. For example, I do think that your proposal on Category:Français is a good one, and I think that you should go for it. However, I'm trying to be constructive. As a french native speaker, I will not object if you correct any sentence I write in English. In turn, I think that you could acknowledge that your knowledge of the french language might be not as good as your knowledge of English, and that not ignoring the advice of a native speaker might be helpful.

Concerning your last point (categories Fr:*), I agree with you (again!) that it could be interesting to sort authors by nationality, or to sort works by the language they were primarily written in. Note that Caton already did such a manual sorting for french translations of ancient greek and latin texts. However, although sorting by original language is useful, I think the primary goal of most users is to find a given work written in a given language, and that they do not care whether the author was French, Canadian or American. Please don't let me be misunderstood: I'm not saying that this is not important in itself. I'm saying that this is not the fastest way to search for a document. My goal in defining categories Fr:* was just to make the search faster.

One last point: Instead of looking for one single model of organization, and then applying it to all languages, one alternative could be to favor diversity: why not let each language choose the way it organizes itself, and let it copy from other languages what it finds good for it? This would favor diversity, and allow us to explore different models of organization. I believe this is the natural way a wiki works.

That's it for today. I apologize for the hardness of some comments. I do have a general tendency to complain when people do something wrong, and not to congratulate them when they aer doing good. However I do think that most of your contributions are useful ones. --ThomasV 10:08, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

As much as I still consider it ambiguous, that single phrase on the French Main Page is not a matter of primary concern. I would like to find something better, but your suggestion is as good as any until that can happen. It's only one short entry. If we keep trying different things we'll get there eventually.

I make neither apology nor defence for my French writing. Suffice it to say that although French was my first language, I have lived most of my life in English.

I have no problem with a diversity of approaches and category schemes. At an earlier stage of this project I certainly made it clear in the context of discussions about adopting various library classification schemes. Of course, I will continue to promote my own ideas, but the proof of whatever worth they may have will be in the willingness of others to use them without consideration of where they come from. I am encouraged by Shizhao's placing of the Chinese authors on the main author lists; that's something that would have been impossible for me to do.

I look forward to being able to work with you in a way that is less confrontational than it has been at the beginning. I apologize for whatever in my comments may have served to increase the tension. I do tend to be reactive when I feel attacked.

My general approach to Wikisource has been to take a "big picture" of things where I envision all the parts working together. The diversity that you mention is also important; the difficulty rests in the integration of these visions. Eclecticology 17:43, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, for me that single phrase is a matter of primary concern. As you could see from the logs, I spent many hours indexing authors of texts written in French. For this index to be useful, it needs to be linked to the french main page in a sensible way. So if somebody comes and renames that link into some cryptic phrase, nobody will ever use that link, for they will not understand what it is about. The consequence is that the many hours I spent indexing authors are lost. So you can understand that I feel a little bit like if somebody was trying to sabotage my work. It does not encourage me to further contribute to this site... I feel like you are trying to encourage users to use the other index, the international one, in which you were involved, and the link to which you did not feel necessary to rename.

I apologize if I am wrong to write that (and I hope I am). I want to believe that you did rename that link in order to make it more useful. However, I wrote this so that you understand why this link matters a lot to me, probably more than to you. I too feel attacked. And you would certainly feel attacked if you were in my position.

From the discussion on the german page, I understand that it is rather difficult to make you change your mind on something you find important. I do not wish to enter that debate here, but I hope that for something that is not a matter of primary concern to you, it is possible to convince you. --ThomasV 11:13, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I wrote the above message before I noticed that you modified the text of that link. So now you replaced it with "Auteurs, textes en Français". I find it much better now. Perhaps most of the original confusion was due to the word "oeuvres", because "oeuvres en Français" does suggest that these works were originally written in French, while "Textes en Français" does not suggest that. Sorry if I annoyed you with my complaining, and thank you for having changed it. --ThomasV 11:54, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm just happy to hear that we could find something to agree on. Eclecticology 23:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Somme théologique

Some little points have arisen around this. Several of these pages have the title "Somme Théologique". Should we not be using the lower case throughout? On the Latin: Is there any authority among the sources about whether the title should be "Summa theologica" or "Summa theologiae"? I see both being used, and sometimes even the cliarly wrong "Summa theologia". Some comment may be needed. My final point may seem a little picky. I've been trying to restrict the use of parentheses in titles to situations requiring disambiguation. Admittedly, I have not thought through the ways in which other punctuation might be used, but if we could adopt at least that convention it would be a big help in developing common rules. Eclecticology 23:58, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not know about the correct latin name. All I did was splitting this 2.7Mo file into parts, because it was insanely large (it is the first one in the list of long files). I asked Caton to delete the original file, but maybe you can do it too since you are there now. Concerning naming conventions, sorry if I did it wrong, I just reused the name that was already used, adding a suffix to it. As a bureaucrat, maybe it is possible for you to run a little script to change the name... --ThomasV 00:06, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with beaking up such monster files. The first two parts of the Summa were partly broken up, but I think that the division into questions that you have used is better. The first and second parts probably need to be brought into conformity. You have nothing to be sorry about around naming conventions; it wasn't promoted very strongly since I was still trying to figure out what kind of other punctuation conventions might be best. There are a number of possibilities. I'm not a computer geek, so scripts are not within my grasp. I'll change the first couple questions, and wait for feedback before I go ahead with more. Eclecticology 04:44, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I put the first two chapters in the form Somme théologique - Troisième partie, Question 1, but then started to think that perhaps Somme théologique - Partie 3, Question 1 might be better to avoid awkwardnes over the fact that there are two second parts. Eclecticology 08:33, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I do not have an opinion about the best naming convention for these files... Just do as you want. Please do not forget to update the links, these files are referred to in Somme théologique (Sommaire général). --ThomasV 08:47, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I did see your message. I was just waiting a couple days after doing those first 2 in case anybody raised any objections. I'm usually careful about updating links in this kind of circumstance. With so many linking from the same place I would first change all the names, then edit the Sommaire général, and only after that delete all the redirects. Eclecticology 22:45, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

all right. but you will waste your time doing it manually. editing the 'sommaire general' is something that can be done easily with emacs or sed. Concerning the filenames, if you have a shell access to the directory where they are stored I can send to you a bash script that does the renaming. --ThomasV 09:25, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I don't have shell access. I agree that making the change manually will be a tedious process, and would certainly be glad to find a way around that. I can use MSWord to edit the "Sommaire Général" without any difficulty. Beyond the current issue it looks like even I will need to figure out how to write and use bots and scripts. There are quite a number of files that are excessively big that would benefit from such processes, including one which at the very least would insure that some internally consistent scheme of naming would be followed. Eclecticology 22:52, 28 Nov 2004 (UTC)

---

Pour le lien vers Wikiquote, c'est q:fr: Caton 20:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cool, merci --ThomasV 20:17, 13 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Author Pages

Hi! I really like the templates and the way the author pages are working out! They're really good. But I was wondering: should we wait a little bit before we started implementing this new plan? What we're proposing to do is a drastic change to the way Wikisource currently handles author pages--we're doing numerous translations of author pages and we're using templates (which is likely most people will not know how to use them). Would it be best to wait a few days to get more input from the community (I know they weren't a part of our discussion at all yesterday, but if we tick them off, they'll really skin us alive)? I propose we wait just a couple days for some more heavy contributors to give their input before we begin a project we might possible have to undo. Again, though, wonderful job making the templates--I'm dying just as much as you are to begin using them! Zhaladshar 14:23, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

it might be worth waiting before translating all pages. However, I think what we are doing is sensible, so Ec should like it. If it turns out that a majority expresses itself against it, it will not be a big deal, because older versions are never lost, all changes can be reverted. So I think applying the scheme right now to a few more authors will allow us to check if there are problems that did not show up with only Karl Marx. Also, it is good to tinker, and for that we do not need to wait for any approval. As you might have noticed, I defined author templates: Template:Author or Template:Auteur. those templates make it really easy to write author pages. --ThomasV 14:34, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Good point. For experimental purposes I think we should work with authors that have at least one work translated into one other language. Although preferrably more, so there will be better results we can look at. Tell me, since I'm still new at templates, is it possible to add a parameter to a template but not use it? I ask because some authors have pseudonyms, which our current templates don't have a space for. But since not every--in fact, most--do not use them, we would need to leave that parameter space blank. Would such a thing screw up the display if we did that? And speaking of other contributers, where is Ec? He's been active over at Wiktionary, but he hasn't showed up here for day. But I've seen Caton, Christian S, and Moverton around lately. Do you think we should leave messages on their talk pages and physically pull them into this conversation so we can just speed the process up? Zhaladshar 14:44, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I would like to find a way to add a parameter and not to use it, but I have not found. In simple cases, what you can do is not to give a parameter, or give an empty string. but unfortunately, it nothing allows you to test its value if you do so (check here). this means that in the case of pseudonyms, it will work (empty string would leave a space blank), but the drawback is that you will need to pass this empty string in all author pages, in order not to screw up the display. for more elaborate things, such as using a variable number of parameters, it will not work. or at least, I have not found how to do it.--ThomasV 14:58, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Okay, that's kind of what I thought. Oh well, we'll figure something out when we need to. I'm going to find a few authors who have translated works and redo them, then post everything we've done in the Scriptorium, and hopefully others will get involved in the discussion there (besided Dovi). Zhaladshar 15:05, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I turned Template:Translations-en-2 into a template on the right side of the page. Its being right in the middle looked a bit weird. It's still noticeable (I wonder if we should change the colors to something that will stick out more, like the colors used for the deletion notices template--but we can do that later), and it looks better on the side of the page--at least, that's what I think. Someone can always change it back, of course :-). Zhaladshar 15:12, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

actually, the reason why I centered it is not that I want to have it centered, but that it interfers with the alignment of titles when it is right aligned. for example, if the title is centered and uses more than one line (that was the case of the communist manifesto in french), then some lines of the title might be shifted to the left because of the template, and some other not. I guess it is possible to ensure that there is no text at the same height as the template and to have it right aligned, but I do not know how to do that.--ThomasV 15:24, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Just using returns between the title and the template will shift a centered title down so it doesn't interfere with the template. Or (which I'm more of a fan of) we can just get rid of those centered titles; after all, it just seems a bit extraneous because the name of the book is right there at the top of the page. To me, adding title just seems to be a waste; I highly doubt people will NOT know they are reading the Communist Manifesto in French since they, one, clicked on the French link, and two, since they can read the French title the moment the page loads. Zhaladshar 15:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Copyvio template

Thanks. I've thought that the Copyvio template has been ugly ever since I saw it for the first time, so after our discussion about meta material in the Scriptorium, I decided to make it look better. When you say "For some reason, however, it does not seem to work here (maybe some cache has to be updated)," I'm not too sure what you mean. Template:Auteur doesn't show up in [[Category:Fr:Auteurs]]; is something else wrong with the template? Zhaladshar 15:57, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

in fact, I created Template:Category in order to prevent Template:Auteur from showing up in [[Category:Fr:Auteurs]], so that is fine. what does not work is that Template:Copyvio still shows up in the category copyright violations.--ThomasV 16:04, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I can't figure it out. I'm trying to make sense of m:Help:Template but it's not written very well, and I can't figure out what it's saying about caching. More than likely there is some cache that has to be cleared, but I don't know how to do it. Zhaladshar 16:16, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

The errors in the proposed extension were typical errors in word-by-word dictionary translation. You used the words for "italian person" and "portuguese person", respectively :-) --Christian S 19:11, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

More on author pages

I've been carefully watching the progress on the author pages to see what develops, and a couple of concerns have already appeared that have me more strongly favouring a formal author namespace. We already have two separate entries for the French and English pages in the list of "A" authors. The possible problem there is that these index pages will grow much faster than they probably should. With Karl Marx if I go to the German page, take the link to the Wikisource:Authors-M page then try to link back to Marx from there, I end up at the English page.

I would still like to find some sort of relatively language neutral way of expressing "Author:" Eclecticology 19:43, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

sorry if I did not work very much on author pages after our discussion in the scriptorium... Zhaladshar and I thought it would worth waiting for more opinions to be expressed before changing everything, and I spent most of my time on the php extension. so I guess the current state should still be viewed as experimental...

Maybe a localized author page could link to two lists of authors: one that contains author pages written in the same language (like the Category:Fr:Auteurs for french), and one that is comprehensive, ie the full authors index. However, one issue will be how to organize this full index, especially when chinese/greek authors are in there. my opinion is that it will not be possible to mix different alphabets in this index, so it will have to be somehow localized. but I won't complain if it is in english, because monolingual french users will still have access to a french index.

concerning the namespace, I still believe the most neutral way of expressing "Author:Karl Marx" is to drop the prefix for the 'main' author page, just calling it Karl Marx. I think this will make things easier for editors of other wikipedia projects. Another possibility, which would fit well with the extension I'm working on, is to call it "Category:Karl Marx".

--ThomasV 10:47, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Sorry

I made some mistakes on the italian version of the author pages, and I was also not logged in :-(. Thanks for correction, now I understood the mechanism (I think) :-D --Civvi 10:53, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Uhm...i read through the pages and all sounds a bit chaotic...Since i really don't have enough time to partecipate in the discussion I think i will drop the matter waiting for a better (and definitive ;-)) definition of naming conventions. The italian side of wikisource is really depressingly empty but I don't want to start a chaos and then do things double (or more) to correct the chaos. Anyway I'll keep an eye on the Scriptorium in the time coming to see if there are some decisions. Bye :-) --Civvi 11:15, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

LOL All right, I'm quite good in moving and/or creating redirects (if and when it will be the case) ;-D --Civvi 11:21, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Entretien d’un philosophe chrétien et d’un philosophe chinois

Est-ce que tu peux me préciser ces fautes ? L'orthographe du texte original est très variable suivant les éditions, mais il est possible que certaines fautes ne soient dues qu'à moi, d'autant que je n'ai pas fini de recopier le texte et que je n'ai pas encore fait de relecture. Caton 11:20, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Bernard de Ventadour

Bonjour. En effet ; je ne suis pas très bien réveillé, je devais partir en voyage, mais il neige... Caton 08:03, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Liens

Oui, je comprends, je m'étais fait les mêmes réflexions que toi (à part pour les notes en bas de page, je ne pense que cela soit comparable), mais, après hésitations, j'avais finalement pensé que la facilité de navigation d'un texte à l'autre pouvait être assez similaire à une lecture sur papier, car, en lisant un auteur, même s'il n'y a pas de référénces explicites dans un texte, on lit toujours un ensemble de textes (par exemple, quand on lit Malebranche, on lit aussi Descartes). Dans mon idée, les liens ne doivent offrir qu'une facilité pour un rapport lecteur/texte qui existe déjà quelque soit le support dont se sert celui qui lit. Maintenant, il est vrai que cela paraît inutile, surtout parce que ces liens pointent vers des pages d'auteurs, et je vais me contenter de lier les seules références précises lorsqu'elles sont données, ce dernier usage me semblant plus approprié. Caton 20:41, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Vote

J'ai voté ici. Il doit y avoir normalement, si je me souviens bien, des critères de base pour qu'un projet puisse être lancé. Il faut que je retrouve la page. À partir de là, fr.Wikisource pourra être crée. Caton 18:48, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

cool! merci. --ThomasV 19:13, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Reply

Hi Thomas. Got your note. I did notice that there was some renewed discussion of this on Scriptorium but I decided to stay out of it. After all, I've certainly made my views clear already, and it is more important now for other people to have their own say.

I was recently going to post an idea on Scriptorium for something non-controversial, namely a first-time effort to do some linking between a group of texts on he: and their parallel translations in the main domain, chapter by chapter. This is actually something that Ec had initially requested, and rightly so. But it will take some more time to sort out some technical issues before I can describe a viable suggestion on exactly how to do it, and I haven't had that time yet. Hopefully sometime soon. Dovi 00:55, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

There is a tool for that: Interlanguage links: [1]. But I suppose Ec already knows about this :-). --ThomasV 06:48, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I obviously agree with you that the interwiki links are a nicer tool, but I wasn't going to get into that. The technical problems I'm pondering have more to do with the non-controversial area of page titles, how to divide texts, and especially how to set up the links most conveniently when there is more than one version/translation in each language (sometimes several). Dovi 09:21, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Emile Chambry

Bonjour,

Je ne crois pas que ces traductions de Platon soient dans le domaine public. J'en avais placé de ce traducteur, mais je les ai effacées depuis. Caton 16:00, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

désolé, je n'avais pas vu... efface-les toi si elles sont protégées, je ne suis pas sysop.--ThomasV 16:01, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Édition des textes

J'ai crée Template:Édition afin de faire un pas vers une édition définitive des textes. Ce modèle (qui reste une ébauche à améliorer) pourrait être une première étape pour signaler des textes convenablement relus. On pourra par la suite envisager différentes procédures pour bloquer une page (du moins si ce bloquage est accepté). Et ce modèle donnera aussi bien sûr au lecteur une idée précise de la fiabilité des textes (ce qui est essentiel, par exemple certains des derniers textes que j'ai placés seront consultés par des étudiants de ma faculté). Si tu as des idées d'amélioration... Caton 19:53, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

A mon avis, si on décide de bloquer une page, il faudra qu'une ou plusieurs personnes se portent "garante(s)" de sa fiabilité (la personne qui l'a saisie, et/ou de préférence quelqu'un qui possède une version papier)... Mais je suis d'accord pour essayer un tel système, car il est indispensable de donner une garantie au lecteur. Peut-être qu'on pourrait créer plusieurs templates, de couleurs différentes, selon que le texte est ou non certifié. En tout cas, une fois qu'on aura mis tout ca au point, je pense que ca vaudra le coup de poster un message sur profs-l, pour avoir plus de contributeurs. --ThomasV 20:24, 18 Feb 2005 (UTC)

L'idée des différentes couleurs est intéressante. Tu as pu constater que MG essaie de contribuer de manière constructive. Peut-être ne connais-tu pas ce contributeur ? Il a été bloqué plusieurs fois sur la Wikipédia, parce qu'il ajoute des logos partout, et ne fait que cela (il a commencé par faire de même sur Wikisource). Mais s'il s'essaie à des contributions plus intéressantes, je préfère le laisser faire et voir. Caton 09:30, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Dans un premier temps je pense que ce genre de modèles doit pouvoir servir pour les textes scannés, ou obtenus à partir des images données par Gallica, puisque l'on a ainsi une référence (ce qui n'est pas néanmoins un critère infaillible, j'ai par exemple relevé des erreurs dans l'édition du dernier texte de Leibniz que je suis en train de relire). Pour ce qui de profs-l, en fait, je ne sais pas ce que c'est... est-ce que tu peux me préciser ? Et pour ce qui concerne de nouveaux contributeurs, j'ai parlé de Wikisource à Lyon 3, et certains étudiants sont très enthousiastes, l'un d'eux est même sur le point de s'acheter un scanner rien que pour placer des textes ici... Caton 09:48, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

profs-l est une liste de diffusion de profs de lettres, ca permettrait de faire de la pub pour wikisource. Mais c'est à utiliser avec précaution: il vaut mieux éviter de faire de la pub pour un projet quand il est encore dans les limbes, car on risque de laisser une image de projet inachevé, ce qui fait plus de mal que de bien (les gens ne reviennent pas voir une deuxième fois, le jour où on leur dit "ca y est, maintenant notre projet est bien mieux qu'avant, revenez voir..."). --ThomasV 09:54, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour,

Merci pour toutes ces précisions. J'ai commencé à faire du nettoyage dans les textes de philo, et j'ai pensé que l'on pourrait reprendre le système des petits carrés de Wikilivres. Ces carrés seraient placés uniquement dans les pages d'auteurs ; un carré indiquerait un texte lisible, mais pas corrigé (par exemple, après reconnaissance : fautes de typo, etc.)  ; deux indiqueraient des textes provenant d'autres sites, donc sans doute valables, mais pas relus ; trois seraient pour les textes relus et corrigés par une personne ; et quatre, pour les textes relus par au moins deux personnes. Ces niveaux de lecture pourraient être signalés dans un tableau en page de discussion, un modèle où un correcteur ajouterait son nom, avec des cases à cocher : simplement relu ; relu avec édition de référence, etc. Caton 13:15, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je trouve que c'est une très bonne idée. Ces carrés sont suffisament discret pour ne pas rendre les pages d'auteur illisibles. il faudrait faire en sorte que quand on clique dessus, on obtienne une explication de leur signification, plutot que la page de l'image, qui risque de devenir énorme puisqu'elle donne la liste de toutes les pages qui y font appel. --ThomasV 14:34, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

je suppose que le niveau 4 devrait correspondre à des pages gelées. --ThomasV 15:02, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Oui, ce niveau correspond à ce genre de pages. Pour le moment, les différents niveaux ne sont pas bien définis, je cherche d'abord comment faire pour diriger, comme tu l'as suggéré, vers une page d'explications à partir des carrés. Est-ce que tu as une idée ? On pourrait aussi envisager de créer des catégories correspondant à ces différents niveaux, mais pour les textes eux-mêmes cette fois, afin de voir plus facilement le travail qui reste à faire. Caton 15:31, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

J'ai crée un modèle, une page d'explications. J'arrête là pour aujourd'hui, et j'attends tes remarques. Caton 17:28, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok. désolé mais j'ai pas le temps de vraiment me plonger dedans, trop de boulot ce week end...Thomas

Page générale

Bonjour,

L'édition de Platon en bilingue, je pense que cela va intéresser du monde (un professeur de philosophie contribuant à la Wikipédia m'a parlé de son désir d'avoir une telle édition).

Je te remercie pour ta contribution à L'Homme de cour, c'est un travail vraiment pénible.

Que dirais-tu de regrouper tous les index et les principales catégories dans une seule page, et rangés dans un tableau de manière thématique ou chronologique, et de donner un lien dans les outils de navigation à gauche de l'écran ? La navigation me semble en effet en général trop difficile, et je trouve un peu absurde d'avoir un lien une page au hasard (je propose de supprimer ce lien, mais je n'ai pas regardé si c'est possible), et rien pour se retrouver facilement à partir de n'importe quelle page. Caton 13:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je voudrais aussi changer le message Un article de Wikisource, l'encyclopédie libre., mais je n'ai pas d'idée ; Un texte de Wikisource,...? Est-ce que tu aurais une idée ? Caton 13:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

pour Platon, j'ai trouvé quelques typos (je parle de la traduction), mais je ne les ai pas toutes corrigées, n'ayant pas le texte original. il y a aussi un passage du texte grec avec ce qui semble etre une reference à un livre, ainsi que des incohérences au niveau des balises, entre le grec et le francais.

pour l'homme de cour il y a pas mal de typos, il faudra relire avec l'edition de reference sous les yeux, avant de pouvoir certifier ce texte.

pour la navigation, la page principale joue un peu le rôle que tu décris. On aura un lien à gauche vers cette page, une fois qu'on aura un sous domaine fr. L'idée d'un tableau chronologique me semble bonne.

pour supprimer 'une page au hasard', je crois qu'il faut modifier le fichier DefaultSettings.php, ce que nous ne pouvons pas faire nous même. Il faudrait demander à Brion Vibber. Quoi qu'il en soit, les autres risquent de ne pas apprécier... --ThomasV 13:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pour le tableau chronologique, que dirais-tu de ceci: Nous avons déjà des catégories chronologiques, pour l'Antiquité, le Moyen-Âge, et certains siècles. On pourrait mettre ce tableau en tête des pages des catégories chronologiques, avec un template, comma c'est déjà le cas pour les auteurs de chaque lettre de l'alphabet [:Category:Fr:Auteurs-A]]. --ThomasV 14:25, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Cela me semble une bonne méthode. Pour une page au hasard, je n'insiste pas, je disais cela parce que, en général, je ne lis pas des livres au hasard... Caton 14:31, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

ok je te laisse faire pour le tableau (je dois partir), ou alors je le ferai plus tard. moi non plus je ne lis pas trop au hasard. ceci dit, la lecture e l'homme de cour est un plaisir. --ThomasV 14:47, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Pour l'Homme de cour, j'ai l'édition en version papier ; je le relirai quand je pourrais. Caton 14:56, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sources

Je me disais bien qu'il y aurait un jour des problèmes de ce genre. Même s'il n'y a pas de licence sur les textes de droits, je crois qu'il faut maintenant tracer une démarche claire, afin d'éviter des conflits qui non pas lieu d'être. J'ai ajouté une section en ce sens dans Wikisource:Respect du copyright ; peut-être faudrait-il rendre obligatoire la mention de la source en page de discussion ? Je crois qu'il y avait déjà eu une discussion similaire à propos des textes de Gutenberg, et il ne me semble pas que les contributeurs avaient jugé cette mention indispensable (mais il faut que je retrouve la page). Qu'en penses-tu ? Caton 16:29, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

J'ai moi-même importé plusieurs livres depuis Gutenberg, et en enlevant la licence Gutenberg. Je pense qu'il serait bon d'expliquer quelque part pourquoi il est parfaitement légal de faire cela, et pourquoi nous le faisons.

Ceci dit, je trouve que c'est dommage de se priver de contributeurs... Si Djapipol tient absolument à ce que la licence ABU soit apposée aux textes qu'il ajoute, et qu'il en fait une condition sine qua non pour participer, je serais prêt à m'engager personellement à ne plus enlever cette licence des textes qu'il ajoute. Je pense que le plus important est d'avoir des contributeurs que de se disputer.

Le problème, c'est que je pourrai pas lui garantir que quelqu'un d'autre ne le fera pas à ma place. Et ça arrivera forcément. Suppose que quelqu'un ajoute un texte avec une licence abu. Puis imagine que plus tard, quelqu'un d'autre ajoute le même texte, mais sans la licence. Nous aurons alors un doublon, et il sera légitime d'effacer une des deux versions. Je pense qu'on aura tendance à garder celle qui est la plus libre de droits... Bref, la revendication de Djapipol est un peu illusoire...

Concernant la mention de la source, je pense que c'est une bonne chose, car ça permet d'avoir une idée de la qualité. Mais je ne vois pas comment on pourrait rendre cela obligatoire. Tu ne proposes quand même pas d'effacer toutes les pages pour lesquelles nous ne connaissons pas la source? Je pense qu'il vaut mieux utiliser ton système de petits carrés, et n'apposer la note 75% ou 100% qu'aux textes dont la source est identifiée. Progressivement, on finira par avoir, à défaut de la source originale, la garantie de conformité à une source.

Autre remarque: note que si la source est une source internet, cette source peut très bien ne plus exister du jour au lendemain. Par exemple, peut-être que poesie.webnet.fr, qui est privé, fera faillite et disparaîtra d'ici peu. c'est pourquoi il me semble qu'il vaut mieux certifier la conformité à une édition papier, plutôt que celle à une source internet.

--ThomasV 16:56, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Il vaut mieux en effet laisser la licence, et ne pas perdre de contributeurs. Pour le reste, une explication dans la page de copyright, et c'est suffisant.Caton 17:19, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

En lisant le code de la propriété intellectuelle pour compléter la page Wikisource:Respect du copyright, j'ai lu qu'une base de données est soumise à des droits d'extraction, et je trouve à ce propos ce commentaire sur un site :

« Les bases de données

Les bases de données, définies comme des « recueils d’oeuvres, de données ou d’autres éléments indépendants disposés de manière systématique ou méthodique et individuellement accessibles par des moyens électroniques ou par tout autre moyen » (un catalogue de bibliothèque, une encyclopédie, un annuaire de téléphone, sont des bases de données au même titre que la base Electre), constituent des oeuvres dès lors que le choix ou la disposition des matières constituent des créations intellectuelles.

À l’éventuelle protection par le droit d’auteur s’ajoute une protection spécifique au bénéfice du producteur, pour protéger l’investissement.

Ce droit sui generis dure 15 ans et soumet à autorisation toute extraction substantielle du contenu de la base ainsi que l’extraction non substantielle mais répétée destinée à une réutilisation (par exemple l’extraction de notices d’une base bibliographique pour les intégrer à un catalogue). »

Cela semble de nature à poser de problèmes et, tel quel, je trouve cela en contradiction avec la définition du droit d'auteur. Mais je ne suis pas juriste.Caton 20:37, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC) D'ailleurs, si on lit attentivement la licence ABU, elle s'applique à la base de données, qui, elle, est effectivement soumise à copyright (mise en forme de textes). L'application de ce copyright au texte dans Template:Abu licence n'est même pas conforme à la licence donnée. Caton 21:41, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Je pense que ce texte vise à interdire de recopier automatiquement une base de données vers une autre. A mon avis, "extraction substantielle", dans ce contexte, veut dire extraction automatique, par un robot. Par exemple, on pourrait écrire un robot qui recopie automatiquement tous les textes depuis Gallica vers Wikisource. Pour écrire un tel robot, un programmeur aurait besoin de tenir compte de la manière dont les textes, et les liens qui y mènent, sont organisés sur Gallica (il faut aussi que cette organisation soit régulière, homogène, pour qu'une machine puisse le faire. si la disposition des textes changeait à chaque page, il serait impossible d'écrire un tel robot). C'est ce qu'ils entendent par "disposition des matières". C'est en protégeant cette "disposition des matières" que les auteurs de cette loi (si c'en est une) espèrent protéger le contenu des bases de données. En d'autres termes, on peut recopier à la main, mais c'est "de la triche" d'utiliser un robot.

En pratique, je trouve que ce texte est quand même très flou. En effet, il est impossible de prouver qu'un robot a été utilisé pour fouiller dans une base de données. Et puis à partir de quel degré d'automatisation peut on parler de robot? un aspirateur de site est un robot, et pourtant c'est un robot qui n'utilise pas la "disposition des matières", puisqu'il peut aspirer n'importe quel site, quelle que soit sa structure. Donc je suppose que l'utilisation d'un aspirateur de site n'est pas prohibée par ce texte. Bref, la limite est floue, c'est pourquoi ils s'en tiennent à "extraction substantielle", qui ne veut pas dire grand chose. bref, si c'est une loi, c'est encore une loi inappliquable, où le degré de subjectivité est immense, et donc où la raison de celui qui a le plus d'avocats risque d'être la meilleure.

--ThomasV 09:33, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Admin

Your appointment as a sysop has been processed. Eclecticology 09:14, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

thanks. sorry for not being reactive, I was away for a few days. --ThomasV 17:13, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour au nouvel administrateur ! N'oublie pas de donner ton email sur Wikisource:Administrateurs. Caton 21:18, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

bonsoir Caton. J'ai déjà indiqué mon email sur Wikisource, mais il n'est pas visible, pour éviter le spam (il suffit de cliquer sur "E-mail this user") --ThomasV 21:22, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

C'était pour suivre la règle de la Wikipédia, mais ce n'est peut-être pas une bonne idée.

Je reviens encore une fois sur la question du copyright : d'après ce que dit Eclecticology, il est possible de placer des textes d'avant 1923, même si l'auteur est mort il y a moins de 70 ans, parce que les serveurs sont aux Etats-Unis. Néanmoins, d'après un texte que j'ai lu sur l'encyclopédie, le droit du pays du contributeur s'applique à ce contributeur... donc, en toute rigueur, il faudrait que j'efface le texte de Bergson que j'ai placé, et que quelqu'un (par exemple Eclecticology peut-être) le replace... Voilà, c'était pour te prévenir sur ce point, qui reste en fait à éclaircir. Caton 21:30, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

les lois sur le copyright sont ubuesques... a mon avis c'est pas la peine de te torturer pour ca. --ThomasV 21:37, 8 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource:Qu'est-ce que Wikisource ?

Je viens de trouver cette page, par hasard... Si tu veux y jeter un œil, histoire de la mettre à jour. Ce texte confirme ce que tu disais au scriptorium ; en principe, il n'est pas prévu d'éditer des auteurs qui n'ont jamais été publiés.

Il y avait aussi une page sur les droits d'auteur... Caton 13:15, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oui, je pense que ça n'est pas plus mal de se fixer une limite. --ThomasV 14:31, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)

New domains vote

Thank you for the invitation to participate in organizing the new vote. Of course, my philosophy on the subject has not changed, and is not likely to change before Wikimania in Frankfort. I am hoping to attend, though I have yet to book my plane tickets. There are probably a number of issues around this that should be discussed in an open forum that relate to where we want Wikisource to be heading.

In declining to participate significantly in the organization I have more pressing reasons. The months of March and April are for me the busiest ones in my work year, and it is generally unwise to take on new organizational tasks during that time. I have read the vote proposal, and will be commenting about the details on the relevant talk page in the newxt few days. The only specific comment that I will make at this point is that that page should be in the Wikisource namespace rather than in the main namespace since it is about Wikisource rather than about some particular source content. Eclecticology 02:01, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it would be nice to provide the elements gathered previously on why it should or should not have subdomains. Whatever your perception of the quality of the previous vote, I do think the arguments given were probably wise, so we should have benefit of them. Anthere 07:58, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

sure. thanks for providing the correct link, I was gonna do it anyway. atm this page is still a draft...--ThomasV 08:28, 13 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Kipling

I made no error in regards to Rudyard Kipling. There is no reason why there cannot be properly formated Hungarian author pages. None of the words that appeared in the online Hungarian dictionary for "author" (okozó, szerző or író) involve any conflict. It's up to them to decide which is the most appropriate. I would appreciate it if you did not choose to be so fucking confrontational in your attempt to link this with your sub-domains obsession. Eclecticology 21:02, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry if you took this as an attack, but I was not trying to be confrontational. I was only trying to convince you, because I believe what happened really illustrates why subdomains are needed. I am astonished by your reaction. I do apologize if I wrote anything hurting (but I dont think I did).

It seems that those hungarian contributors have decided that the most appropriate is to have no prefix at all for author pages. I happen to share this point of view. I think author pages should be localized and have no prefix (in order to be compatible with wikipedia, wikiquote, etc). The only way to achieve that is to have separate subdomains.

Concerning what to do now with Rudyard Kipling, I do not think that the page should be included in the proposed deletions just because it lacks a prefix. You could explain to these hungarians why you think their author pages should have a prefix, and ask them to move those pages.

ThomasV 23:24, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Nouveau pseudo

Bonsoir,

C'est juste pour signaler que je change de nom (User:Marc). C'est une manière pour moi d'en finir avec l'encyclopédie, à laquelle je ne crois plus. De mon point de vue, Wikisource est incomparablement supérieur. Caton 23:42, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

que s'est-il passé avec l'encyclopédie? ThomasV 23:47, 15 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ça devient trop arbitraire pour moi, surtout les discussions qui finissent souvent mal, ou qui prennent un tour surréaliste (il y a bien sûr tout de même des contributeurs qui savent rester mesurés). Et depuis un an que je contribue, je crois bien que les choses ne se sont pas arrangées, d'autant que l'on voit maintenant de plus en plus des individus un peu... étranges (troll, vandalisme, insultes, etc.). Donc, comme j'aime la tranquillité, j'ai décidé de laisser tomber. Caton 00:01, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Sysop

excusez ma ignorance et mon française. Nous, (la wikipedia spagnole) veulons un nouveau subdomain mais nous ne savons pas si LadyInGray peut etre notre Sysop. ¿pouvez-vous nous aidez?--FAR 15:20, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

see my answer on the vote talk page. ThomasV 15:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

IRC

Bonsoir,

J'apprends que des questions sur la légitimité du vote ont été posées sur IRC. As-tu des précisions ? Marc 18:39, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non. sur quel channel? J'ai décidé d'organiser ce vote suite à une discussion avec Tim Starling. D'après lui, n'importe qui a le droit d'organiser un vote, mais le board se réserve le droit de décider quoi faire à l'issue du vote. Un vote n'engage personne, et ne sert qu'à mesurer le consensus. "votes are only a way to measure consensus, they're not binding".ThomasV 18:48, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je vais me renseigner (mais j'ai actuellement un problème pour me connecter à la Wikipédia) ; il y a peut-être un malentendu. En tout cas, je vois mal comment on pourrait mettre en cause la légitimité de ce vote. Marc 18:59, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je viens de poser la question sur le bistro. De toute façon, je ne pense pas que ce genre de propos soit en fin de compte à prendre au sérieux. Marc 19:52, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

pas la peine, j'ai posé la question sur irc. c'est Anthere qui a lancé le sujet, semble-t'il. mais elle est trop occupée pour en parler en ce moment. ThomasV 20:05, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Est-ce que tu crois que cela vaut la peine de lui laisser un message sur sa page ? J'aimerais avoir une explication pour que les choses soient claires, car je ne comprends pas ce qui fait problème. Marc 20:33, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

J'ai laissé un message à FAR, pour demander que les contributeurs espagnols soient avertis de l'importance de l'organisation du vote et pour essayer d'avoir plus de participants, mais il semble qu'il croit que je parle du vote pour la candidature de LadyInGrey. Est-ce que tu pourrais lui expliquer. Mon anglais est-il aussi nul que ça ? Marc 22:07, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

non, c'est lui qui ne lit pas l'anglais. il a posté ton message dans le café en espagnol pour demander aux autres de le traduire. je ne me hasarderai pas à traduire en espagnol... c'est quand même dingue qu'on en arrive là! ThomasV 22:14, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oui, cela devient ingérable ! Je crois que les faits commencent à démontrer la nécessité des domaines. L'expression d'Hégésippe était assez appropriée. Marc 22:17, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Je te recopie le message d'Anthère sur le bistrot de fr :

A noter, je n'ai pas le moindre souvenir que le board est publiquement dit "Ceci est conforme à la décision prise par le conseil de "Wikimedia foundation" d'autoriser un domaine linguistique dès que celui-ci aura obtenu assez de soutiens.". C'est effectivement écrit, mais quand avons nous dit cela ? Mystère. J'ai pu oublier, ce qui m'étonne un peu quand même. Cela étant, cela n'est pas grave. Ce qui m'ennuit d'avantage est que je ne vois pas de discussion sur les différents mérites et inconvénients de la séparation. C'est tout. Anthere 18 mar 2005 à 23:19 (CET)

c'est une phrase initialement écrite en anglais par Dovi sur cette page, assez maladroitement traduite par Semnoz (il n'a pas rendu le 'may'), puis recopiée sur la page du nouveau vote par un certain Caton. :-) (en ce qui concerne les traductions de cette phrase en es et it, je suppose que le telephone arabe a joué son rôle). Je suppose qu'on devrait l'enlever? ThomasV 22:41, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Au moins provisoirement. J'ai le souvenir qu'une personne du board a effectivement dit quelque chose de ce genre. Je ne suis pas sûr. Marc 22:45, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Non, après vérification, ce n'est pas le cas. J'ai bêtement recopié cette phrase en croyant que sa place en haut de cette première page de vote garantissait sa validité. Marc 22:55, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ok je l'enlève. ThomasV 23:03, 18 Mar 2005 (UTC)

User:FAR/Lista de artículos que todo wikisource debería tener

FAR me demande de traduire cette page. Qu'en penses-tu ? On pourrait proposer cette liste en français dans la page principale pour guider les contributeurs, et en même temps pour élaborer un projet à long terme d'une bibliothèque universelle ? Sinon, il semble qu'il n'ait pas compris ce que je disais pour les discussions... Je crois que nous ne sommes pas prêts d'avoir une telle discussion communautaire sur les règles de vote. Marc 18:14, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

pour la liste: fais-le si tu en as envie, moi ca ne m'intéresse pas trop... je pense que les gens ont plutôt tendance à ajouter les textes qui leurs plaisent, et qu'à la longue on finira par avoir toute cette liste. Pour les règles de vote: le problème est que pour qu'une discussion communautaire ait lieu, il faut maitriser un langage commun, et en pratique ca veut souvent dire l'anglais... de toutes facons je me fais pas trop de soucis pour le vote, je pense qu'il sera positif. il faudrait peut etre faire des annonces sur les pages des principaux langages, comme tu l'as fait pour le francais. ThomasV 18:59, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bon, pour la liste, je l'ai faite au moins pour moi, cela me permet de m'y retrouver plus facilement. En ce qui concerne les annonces, je pense que l'on devrait les placer sur ces pages.

J'ai vu que tu avais supprimé la catégorisation pour Maupassant ; je ne sais pas dans quelle catégorie on pourrait le placer. Qu'est-ce que tu penses de ce que j'ai tenté de faire pour cet auteur ? Je n'ai pas continué, car je ne sais pas encore s'il vaut mieux une liste, ou tout catégoriser, ou les deux à la fois. Marc 20:56, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

je n'ai pas tres bien compris ce que tu as tenté de faire (une sous-catégorie de la catégorie auteurs?), je l'ai enlevé car je croyais que c'était une erreur. a mon avis l'index des auteurs ne devrait contenir que des auteurs, non? le but c'est que quelqu'un qui recherche un auteur puisse s'y retrouver rapidement, et l'index ne contenir qu'une seule fois maupassant. ThomasV 21:35, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bonjour

J'ai vu que tu avais demandé à Wolfman s'il pouvait enregistrer son robot. Il ne semble pas tenir compte de cette remarque. Pourrais-tu insister, et lui dire que pour ma part je vais finir par le bloquer (le robot) si ça continue ? Je préfère ne pas essayer de lui parler en anglais pour éviter les malentendus. Il faudrait simplement qu'il comprenne que la page de changements devient illisible, qu'il y a normalement une fonction pour éviter cela, et il faudrait qu'il voit comment on doit faire. Merci si tu lui dis. Marc 07:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Bot

Sure, I'll look into it. I didn't know there was a special bot tag. Wolfman 16:57, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

See Scriptorium#bot Wolfman 18:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Auteurs

Bonjour,

Merci d'avoir écrit un message à Wolfman.

Je voudrais avoir ton avis sur le point suivant : il me semble que Wikisource est destiné à accueillir au moins idéalement toutes les œuvres de l'histoire. Dans ce but, je pense que l'on doit pouvoir commencer par créer des pages d'auteurs pour établir des bibliographies. Ainsi, à partir d'une encyclopédie de la littérature, il serait possible de faire ces pages, même si nous n'avons aucun texte encore à éditer. Cela représente des centaines d'auteurs. Pour l'avenir de Wikisource, je crois que cela peut avoir son intérêt. Néanmoins, cela ferait beaucoup de pages sans aucun texte proposé, et ces pages encombreraient les catégories inutilement. Mais on pourrait créer une série de catégories parallèles (ou une seule du type : category:Fr:Auteur-Bibliographie), utilisables dans ce genre de cas, et il suffirait ensuite de modifier la catégorie de la page pour la faire entrer dans l'index utilisé par les lecteurs. Voilà, qu'en penses-tu ? Marc 14:06, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

c'est difficile de répondre... c'est un projet extrêmement ambitieux, mais il est vrai qu'à long terme rien ne s'oppose à la création d'une bibliothèque "universelle". si quelqu'un est motivé pour créer des pages d'auteurs, je ne vois pas pourquoi il faudrait l'en empêcher, même si les textes ne sont pas encore là. D'un autre côté, si on a plein de liens en rouge sur les pages d'auteur, ça ne va pas faciliter la lecture...

je ne pense pas qu'il soit utile de créer des catégories parallèles, ça risque plutôt d'embrouiller les gens...

peut être que sur la page d'un auteur donné, on pourrait ne lister que les textes que l'on a, et ajouter un lien vers une autre page, contenant les textes que l'on n'a pas encore (liens en rouge). mais cette solution n'est pas idéale, car ça compliquerait le travail de quelqu'un qui voudrait ajouter un texte...

à mon avis, on devrait attendre que le problème se pose vraiment avant de chercher à le résoudre. si tu as envie de créer des pages d'auteur sans textes, ajoute-les, et on verra après si ça pose vraiment un problème...

voilà pour ma réponse. désolé si c'est un peu vague...

ThomasV 10:21, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Merci. Aussi vague que puisse être ta réponse, cela me permet de prendre un peu de recul relativement à des idées que je voudrais appliquer. Dans ce cas, c'est vrai que c'est un peu compliqué, et on peut attendre. Pour revenir à cette idée de bibliothèque universelle, qu'en penses-tu ? C'est peut-être trop ambitieux ? En tout cas, en ce sens, j'ai mis en place quelques pages de sommaire pour Goethe, afin d'éditer ses œuvres complètes. Il y a ainsi une très grande quantité d'œuvres qui pourraient être éditées depuis Gallica (toutes les œuvres de Byron, de Shelley, etc.) dans des traductions qui semblent souvent acceptables. Par rapport à l'ampleur de la tâche, je remarque que ce n'est pas si long que cela de lire et corriger des textes, et on arrive rapidement à éditer un ensemble d'œuvres difficiles ou impossibles à trouver même sur papier. En ce moment, j'ai le temps, mais plus tard, j'espère voir des contributeurs participer à ce travail. Marc 16:32, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Une autre idée

Sur la page : Talk:Auteur:Johann Wolfgang von Goethe, je lance un projet Goethe. Je pense qu'il serait bien de créer une page Wikisource:Projets d'éditions, listant tous les projets de ce genre, et de la placer sur la page d'acceuil. Dans le cadre de ses projets, on pourrait définir des outils, telles que des pages de brouillons, par exemple : Les Années d'apprentissage de Wilhelm Meister/Brouillon/livre I, etc. Marc 17:31, 27 Mar 2005 (UTC)

ça me semble une bonne idée, si ce genre de sous-projet arrive à attirer du monde (j'avais aussi cette idée en proposant des faire des "scan parties"). désolé d'être aussi passif, mais je n'ai pas beaucoup de temps pour participer ces jours-ci... trop de travail. ThomasV 09:22, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Couleurs

Salut,

Ben essaie un rose clair alors... ;o) Yann 20:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Protection des textes

Je me demande où en est l'idée de bloquer certains textes. Crois-tu que je puisse bloquer quelques pages ? Il y a par exemple les pages de sommaire des recueils poétiques, et un certains nombre de poésies (en tout cas celles que j'ai relues à partir d'une édition papier) qui ne devraient plus avoir à être modifiées. Marc 15:26, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

oui, il faudrait rendre la procédure plus facile. ne te gênes pas pour bloquer les pages que tu as relues. Je pense qu'il faudrait donner le niveau 100% aux pages bloquées, indiquer pourquoi la page est bloquée dans la page de discussion, et ne pas bloquer la page de discussion, si c'est possible (ça permettra de signaler des erreurs si il en reste) ThomasV 15:39, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Pour le moment, je n'ai bloqué qu'un seul texte (Salut), mais je pense que je vais bientôt en bloquer un grand nombre.

En ce qui concerne le droit d'auteurs, je compte profiter de la loi des Etats-Unis ; j'ai commencé avec Valéry, et je vais continuer avec Gide (et bien d'autres). J'espère que cela ne posera pas de problèmes (surtout pour moi !). Marc 10:01, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Question

I was checking some italian authors and noticed that on the page of an author somebody copied a poem, so I would like to move and rename the page and use the old page for the author, the correct title of the new page (title of the poem) would be "S'i' fosse fuoco" but before doing so I was wondering if all the special fonts ( ' ) in the title are a problem? Could you help me? :-D Many many thanks and have a nice day (If you prefer to answer in German it's all right for me :-)) Ciao --Civvi | ¿? 09:26, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I do not think these characters are a problem. just go for it. ThomasV 11:56, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. Done :-) Ciao --Civvi | ¿? 07:00, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Titres

bonsoir Yann, quand tu déplaces les tags de catégorie en début de page, il faut tenir compte du fait qu'il y a des retours chariot avec, qui sont aussi déplacés. ça change l'aspect de certains titres. ThomasV

OK. c'est noté. Il faudrait faire un joli modèle pour les titres. Yann 17:29, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Comme l'heure est UTC, et qu'il n'y aura peut-être pas beaucoup de monde à ce moment pour le faire, je crois que l'on peut dès maintenant annoncer un peu partout l'ouverture du vote. Marc 20:22, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi! It's not an edit war between Ausir and me. We can't agree to license in view of Polish law. Niki ♣ 21:29, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

all right. please don't forget to vote! ThomasV 21:31, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It's not an edit war. I just oppose the candidature of Niki for now, since she submitted some copyrighted works to Wikisource (i.e. by authors not dead for 70 years). By the way, some of the Category:Auteurs du XXe siècle authors also died after 1935, so submitting their works (some of which were even edited by you) to Wikisource is a copyright violation as well. Ausir 21:33, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Well, I didn't have enough votes for the main vote (I do now, but mostly because of adding the copyvio templates to some articles, but it's almost nothing anyway...) Ausir 22:05, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

---

Hi. I am worcking bifort in Wikisource, but I don't remember my User. Tu day I am login agein, I'm sorry, end Tenkhs. Gorann Andjelkovic (〠ꒌ) 13:15, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Too bad the voting period is so long. We already know the outcome of the vote, but we have to wait until 12 May... Ausir 16:23, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Hi Thomas, I added my name to the list , but I don't understand the log. I tried to calculate it but I forgot completely how I have to do. Can you help me, please? I have 1717 edits. Thanks. LadyInGrey 01:41, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Export/import

I´m sorry, but that is now impossible. It was an upgrate in the wikimedia software, but problems do difficult to work. here it is the explanation Comae gave me some time ago (in spanish).

Excelente pregunta la tuya, tanto, que no sé si sabré la respuesta. Resumo la historia:

Los desarrolladores del software empezaron a implementar la importación/exportación de artículos, con historial incluido.

En esta wikipedia llegamos a tener un enlace "exportar", sólo disponible para bibliotecarios, que funcionaba. Lo malo es que, como no funcionaba el "importar", era bastante inútil.

Me suena que llegamos a tener por un tiempo el "importar", pero no llegué a probarlo, así que quizá ni siquiera funcionaba.

Actualmente, el botón de "exportar" ha desaparecido por completo y, cuando introduzco la dirección directamente en el navegador, me dice que no existe.

Rebuscando por meta:, encuentro meta:Help:Special page#Currently unavailable special pages, donde dice "Import pages Special:Import : Sysop only. Imports a page from another wiki. Currently disabled.". Me huelo que es una de tantas ideas que se programan, se les ve un grave defecto, y se tienen que tirar a la papelera; o eso, o no hay nadie que se anime a terminarlo (una pista: meta:MediaWiki roadmap#Version 1.3.x). Tiene pinta de ser algo especialmente complicado, por ejemplo, se me ocurre que no debe ser fácil importar un historial a un wiki en el que no existe ninguno de los usuarios que aparecen en él; y ya no digamos si hay dos usuarios con el mismo nombre, uno en cada wiki: uno acabaría llevándose el mérito del otro.

En resumen, me temo que tendréis que hacer esa copia, y podar lo que sobra. Imagino, de todas formas, que si se hace una lista de las páginas que sobran, se podrá automatizar bastante la tarea; y tampoco es la primera vez que se hace, así que, si hay suficiente interés, seguro que se acaba haciendo. Eso sí, tendréis que demostrarles que vale la pena; a nadie le hace gracia perder un montón de horas de su tiempo en una tarea realmente compleja para luego tener un wiki sin colaboradores. --Comae (discusión) 21:37 12 mar, 2005 (CET)

If something happens, I´ll notice you--FAR 16:51, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote

Bonjour Thomas,

Maintenant que le vote est terminé, je voudrais savoir quelles démarches tu vas faire, notamment pour la demanche de création : à qui faut-il s'adresser, aux membres du board ou est-ce qu'il faut encore suivre une procédure comme celle qui doit exister quelque part sur méta-wiki ? Et est-ce qu'il y a du nouveau pour la méthode de création elle-même ? Marc 08:30, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

je propose de demander la creation de en.wikipedia.org, copie conforme du wikisource actuel. je ne sais pas encore trop à qui m'adresser. je crois qu'il faut laisser une requete qqpart sur meta. pour le moment je suis sur irc ThomasV 08:49, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism Attack

Hi, I there was a page move vandalism attack, and it seems you attempted to revert it (unsuccessfully). I've taken a look at Recent Changes, and I've determined what you missed.

• XUTMKYM_PROJECT contains the history of the Wikisource:Community Portal before Ninetnine messed things up, move it back to Community portal (which I can't do because Community Portal is no longer a redirect with no history).
• The following pages must be 'speedy deleted' and their talk pages too:
  • XUTMKYM PROJECT
  • Wikisource:Community Portal - X U T M K Y M PROJECT
  • Wikisource:X U T M K Y M PROJECT
  • Wikisource:DSK (Diploma Sains Komputer)
  • X U T M K Y M - DSK (Diploma Sains Komputer)
  • XUTMKYM - DSK (Diploma Sains Komputer)
  • XUTMKYM - Diploma Sains Komputer
  • XUTMKYM PROJECT - Diploma Sains Komputer
  • XUTMKYM PROJECT - Diploma Pengurusan Teknologi (Akaun)
  • Wiki page

Maybe there's a rollback entire user feature, if so, use that on User:Ninetnine (although your changes may mess things up). I'd clean it up myself, but I'm not a sysop (at risk of sounding pompous, would it be possible to grant me sysop perms in order to clean this up?). Thanks! Page move vandalism is really icky. Ambush Commander 22:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

hi,

thanks for your indications. unfortunately, I cannot give you sysop permissions, because I do not have the rights for that. I would need to be a bureaucrat. (I guess I might apply for that, because we have no bureaucrat anymore at the moment).

concerning those pages, are you sure they are spam? it might just be somebody who did a mistake. I cannot read the language they are written in. it looks like a list of names, though.

ThomasV 05:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You might want to have a talk with the creator. He seems really confused (he just moved his user page to another place) User:Ninetnine. I don't think he has any clue what the Wikimedia projects are about.

To be honest, I can't read it either. However, about half of them are redirects (remnants of his page moving spree) and the other half are the same things. From what I have found out from Ninetnine, they seem to be endorsements for another project (some sort of list, as he cited w:List of University of Southern California people alumni ) I've also notified User:Zhaladshar about this by email, and he has placed them on proposed deletions, with the comment "What in the world are these pages?"

I don't think he's a vandal, but being clueless can also cause some problems. Maybe we should direct him to Wikipedia (more,better documentation, bigger community, etc) Ambush Commander 21:13, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sandbox

Hi Thomas, can you look at Wikisource talk:Sandbox, please? I can't find this text in Google and I don't know what it is. Thanks, --LadyInGrey 01:40, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

the history says it is a google translation, I guess from a text in wikisource. ThomasV 06:00, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

Bureaucrat

Hello, are now a bureaucrat.

You can make sysops using the Special:makesysop page. There are instructions on using this at m:Bureaucrat. If you have any problems, let me know on my talk page, or leave a note on m:Requests for permissions. Good luck. Angela 14:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you very much. Concerning the split of Wikisource, I definitely buy your method (Special:Import), and I hope the upcoming version will be available soon. I spent the last few days working on User:ThomasBot, a bot that generates lists, so that the split will be (hopefully) painless. ThomasV 14:42, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

My help

Congratulations new bureaucrat!! I'm doing a list of articles in spanish. I am using your lists (User:ThomasBot/spanish and User:ThomasBot/unknown) and the result is here, but unfinished. What kind of help do you need with the list of unknown? Can I include in my list the current category or must I create them in the new domain? --LadyInGrey 17:10, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

thanks. concerning the 'unknown' list, if you find articles in spanish there, you can add category tags to them, so that the bot will recognize them next time it passes. Any tag of the type [[Category:Es:*]] will do it. If you find articles that are in the 'spanish' list and that should not be there, please report them (note: at the moment, some of theses pages are in Catalan, but I'm going to fix that). ThomasV 21:49, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Concours

Bonjour,

félicitations au nouveau bureaucrate !

Je voudrais savoir où en sont les discussions à propos des sous-domaines. J'ai cru comprendre qu'il y avait quelque chose de décidé. Merci de me renseigner.

Que penses-tu de l'opportunité de créer une page concours agrégation philosophie ? Le programme vient de paraître (et sans doute est-ce la raison pour laquelle quelqu'un a placé ici un des textes de Heidegger), et j'ai pensé qu'une page réunissant les liens vers les textes du concours pourrait être utile. Cela pourrait être une autre manière de se servir de Wikisource, en dehors des divers index déjà existants, qui intéressera sans doute quelques lecteurs. Marc 12:30, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

merci. pour les sous-domaines, je pense qu'il vaut mieux attendre la sortie de la version 1.5 de Wikimedia, qui permettra d'importer des pages avec leur historique, et d'utiliser les listes faites par mon robot. ca sera plus simple que ma proposition initiale, qui consistait à copier/effacer un tas de pages. a part ca, rien d'autre n'a été décidé, du moins à ma connaisance...

pour l'agreg de philo: pourquoi pas?

ThomasV 12:43, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

D'accord. En fait de décision, je pensais à la méthode de déplacement ; j'avais vaguement compris, mais sans être sûr. Merci pour l'information. S'il y a besoin d'aide... Pour la philosophie, j'ai commencé la page. Marc 12:56, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

pour ce qui est d'aider, on peut ajouter des categories aux pages non reconnues par le robot (ou bien aux pages mal reconnues). J'ai fait une page d'explications ici: User talk:ThomasBot. J'ai vu que tu as corrigé la categorie des 24 thèses métaphysiques, qui était erronnée. je ne comprends pas pourquoi il s'obstine a dire que c'est du francais alors que maintenant la categorie fr a disparu. je suppose que c'est un problème de cache. ThomasV 13:02, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Bot

I found that the bot has a problem with articles in spanish, catalan, interlingua and italian. Articles are mixed. I am adding categories to repair it. Give me one or two more days and i will finish the trouble. I was categorized some of the list of unknown, but there are a lot. --LadyInGrey 16:12, 23 May 2005 (UTC) Something more, I created the Category:Redirect and i am adding when i find one.

Stop the language bot?

Perhaps we should leave the unknown articles untouched. It might be more work to add the category tags and remove them after moving the articles to the subdomain, than to look in the list of the bot when a new subdomain is created. Every minor edit increases the history and so it will make the moving of the pages slower (more data). If you are good in programming, maybe you could write the "comparison bot" and the "protection bot" I supposed at talk:Language_domain_requests? --Jofi 22:41, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The only problem, though, is that if we stop the bot, there will be nothing to categorize the newly created pages. I really don't want to stop adding pages and wait for the newest wiki version to come out (does anyone know when that will be?), and I know most users won't stop. Without the bot, any newly created pages will not be put in an easy-to-find list. Zhaladshar 22:49, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I didn't want to say that the bot shouldn't be used anymore. I think that it is better not to edit more articles manually and run the bot to reduce the unknown articles to 0 in the end. But certainly the bot should be run to recognize the new articles. --Jofi 23:20, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Ah, I did not understand what you were saying. Personally, I don't think it is possible to run the unknown articles to "0;" too few people work on the project to do that, in my opinion. But I do like the fact that it picks up new articles (like disambig pages--I would hate to have them not move over to Wikisource) which have too few words to be categorized. I find them and flag them. But yes, leaving most of the unknown articles untouched is fine by me; it'll be someone else's work to make sure they get move to the right sub-domain when the time comes. Zhaladshar 23:27, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC)

when it comes to moving pages to a subdomain, the list that we will use can of course be different from the list provided by the bot. the goal of the bot is just to facilitate the creation of such a list, but I guess a manual verification will not hurt.

I am well aware of the fact that every minor edit adds a lot of data to the history of a page. this is really a bad feature, that deserves to be called a bug. the point is, the mediawiki software was not written for books in the first place. one way to reduce the size of the database could be, for big books that initially were on a single page and that have been split into chapters, to delete the main page and then re-create it. but I prefer to wait and see if the size of the database really becomes a problem. according to developers, it should be ok. (they also said that 1.5 would be out 'in june', yayay...)

ThomasV 10:03, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, technically, it still is June. They were hoping for "June 1." (Yeah, right.)  :) I'm not too concerned really about the database load (I know, that probably sounds horrible)--I just want the dumb subdomain created and all the English articles moved over there. I think it'd be a shame if we couldn't move everything over... Zhaladshar 12:25, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The articles can be moved anytime. If some articles are forgotten when creating the subdomain, they can be moved later. I think waiting for 1.5 some more days isn't a big problem. Wikisource didn't have subdomains for years. Nearly all programs need longer to be ready than it was planned. When I heard that we should wait for 1.5 and that it should be ready in June, I instantly thought: "O.K., then we will have the subdomains in July or August." We don't have to hurry ;-) --Jofi 22:01, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Any news?

Hi Thomas!

Now that the conversion to 1.5 is finished for all wikis, any news on languages for Wikisource? Maybe we should ask Angela if she wouldn't mind "staying in touch" and being involved in the process.Dovi 5 July 2005 08:13 (UTC)

hi Dovi, it seems that Special:Import does not really work with 1.5, so I do not know if we should wait longer until this is fixed... sorry but I did not have a lot of time to spend on the project recently. ThomasV 5 July 2005 08:23 (UTC)

ok, I just mentioned the issue on irc. Brion said that Special:Import will be fixed soon. ThomasV 5 July 2005 09:08 (UTC)

Hi, just checking back... :-) Know if anything has happened? It would be cool if the people working on this would give updates now and then. Dovi 10:07, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

Bot

Hello Thomas. Unfortunately I don't have a linux system running. I have Python installed but don't know anything about it, and I didn't manage to get any pybot running. So it's rather unlikely that I'm able to run the bot. But maybe you can publish the source, so that anybody can try it? --Jofi 2005-07-06 21:33:51 (UTC)

ok, I'll go on doing it myself.... hopefully we won't need it for very long now ThomasV 6 July 2005 22:01 (UTC)

I hope so, too. But I'm not sure if your first suggestion (copy the wiki and delete the articles, it was yours, wasn't it?) wouldn't have been the better (and faster) one in the end . --Jofi 2005-07-06 22:31:00 (UTC)

it might have been faster... but I hope the Special:Import will be less work for us. ThomasV 7 July 2005 06:11 (UTC)

Qualité des textes et blocage

Salut,

Penses-tu que je peux bloquer les pages après les avoir vérifiées avec une édition papier ? Aussi je pense qu'il serait nécessaire d'indiquer sur ces pages pourquoi elles ont été bloquées, après quelle vérification et par qui. On fait un modèle Template:Blocked ? Yann 13:13, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

oui, je suis pour qu'on protège les pages à partir du niveau . En ce qui concerne les informations concernant la page, je pense qu'il vaut mieux les mettre sur la page talk correspondande, de sorte à ne pas trop surcharger la page elle même. Note qu'il existe déjà un template fait par Marc, qui peut accueillir ces informations: Template:Édition. ThomasV 16:18, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

De l'esprit des lois

Bonjour, merci pour votre message et le tip sur le template refl, je ne connaissais pas :). Mon idée est pour l'instant de développer l'article et de voir plus tard pour le découpage. Je ne sais pas encore ce qui sera le mieux : un découpage par partie ou par livre; on verra bien suivant la taille finale. En tout cas, un découpage par chapitre est exclu. NeuCeu 16:49, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

si vous ne voulez pas découper en chapitres, je pense qu'il faut au moins le faire en livres. il faut éviter d'avoir des pages de plus de 100ko ThomasV 17:34, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

Les Caractères

salut, j'ai vu que Les Caractères était bloqué, apparement vous bloquez les textes à un certain stade pour vérifier... je sais pas trop pourquoi... mais je suis nouveau sur wikisources, juste Les Caractères est mal catégorisé : il se classe à la lettre L au lieu de la lettre C, voili voilou.--Labé 23:54, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

en effet, nous bloquons les textes une fois la mise en page terminée, afin d'éviter le vandalisme. merci pour la remarque, c'est corrigé. ThomasV 05:54, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Categories

Thank you for your recent message. Using [[Category:Authors]] is faster for me to copy and paste, but your suggested [[Category:Authors|Pottier]] is more specific. I will try that more specific categorization from now on though it takes more time. It is unreasonable to see at least 1000 uncategorized pages here, so I have decided to start some categorization.

As a candidate for adminship here, I have said at Wikisource:Administrator that my French is not yet fluent, but you are welcome to send me French messages as I can read simple French sentences. As writing French is still much harder for me than writing English or Chinese, I might still send you messages in English.--Jusjih 06:14, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I agree that author pages should be categorized, it is much more efficient than to maintain a list manually. In fact, I wrote the french author index, using categories (see Category:Fr:Auteurs).

I noticed your request for adminship. I guess this should not be a problem, but I want to give other users enough time to react to it. ThomasV 06:24, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

I am trying your suggested more specific categorization. It works very well so we will not have to see too many articles under letter "A", but shall Author:Charles de Gaulle be categorized as [[Category:Authors|Gaulle]]? Similarly, instead of manually maintaining a list of the laws of the Republic of China administering Taiwan, I have decided to list these laws under Category:中華民國法律 (laws of the Republic of China) to be much easier to maintain.--Jusjih 06:39, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Gutenberg

I noticed you added a few texts from Project Gutenberg. Since this source is fairly accurate, I believe you can give them the grade, instead of just . PG texts have been proofread. Although the wikisource policy on this is not clearly defined, I believe the grade should be given to texts that have been scanned by wikisource contributors, and for which the OCR has not been checked by a human; should be used only if the text is known to be incomplete.

Okay, I will do this in the future and upgrade the ones I have already posted. The reason I've been using is that most of the works I have been posting were in plain text on Gutenberg. I convert them to HTML using an automated tool [2] and do a basic visual scan to make sure the HTML is correct. Most of the time the formatting is good but occasionally formatting errors get reintroduced into the text. I would feel much more comfortable if another set of eyes scanned them before they were protected. CSN 06:35, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

yeah, I can understand you. but the problem is, there's not many eyes around to do that job :-(.

btw, the current policy on text quality does not make a distinction between texts imported from other sources and texts scanned by contributors, although this policy was mainly defined for texts scanned by contributors. I will try to change to change this. any ideas welcome. ThomasV 06:50, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Thomas, as you're a bureaucrat, would you mind changing my username (with the new Special:Renameuser, which only bureaucrats can use) to User:Ambi, which I tend to use everywhere else on Wikimedia these days? (and transferring my sysop status accordingly?)

Thanks, Ambivalenthysteria 06:46, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

that's done. you now have to login as 'Ambi'. ThomasV 07:37, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a bunch. Ambi 14:31, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Renaming

Hi, ThomasV. Would you mind renaming my account from Swarfega to Nineworlds, please? I've been asked by the trademark owners to stop using that name!

Thanks. --Iain 14:18, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Wow - fast work! Many thanks. --Iain 14:25, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Category:Authors

You reverted Authors from Autorzy because it is for author pages. But I think that it is for category too. Niki 11:17, August 5, 2005 (UTC)

sorry, but I did this in an effort to make things clearer. there seems to be a lot of confusion in how author pages are indexed. Category:Authors is an index of english author pages. Category:Autorzy is an index of polish author pages. so the latter doers not belong to the former. ThomasV 11:31, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Hesychius

well, I suppose the text is from Hesychii Alexandrini lexicon, ed. Latte, Copenhagen, 1953, 1966. I think the digital text is descended from the Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, but I cannot vouch for that. 83.77.217.18 13:59, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, my question was about the digital text, if there is a website it's been taken from ThomasV 14:04, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Hello

Well, the bot don't recognized them. Look at User:ThomasBot/catalan and the others are in User:ThomasBot/unknown. But the category already exists at Category:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. I will make the change later. --LadyInGrey 17:16, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

about encyclopedia britannica: if you create a new category, it will not help the bot. the bot will better understand something like [[Category:English]].

concerning misclassified catalan: thank you for adding the Espagnol category to these pages. please note that it takes a bit more time for the bot to reclassify misclassified pages. I usually restrict it on unclassified ones, in order to go faster...

and thanks for your help ThomasV 17:22, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I understand now, how can I repaired my mistake? deleting the category that i created from the articles or adding categ. english? or using the old categ. Please tell me and I'll do it. (And don´t give me the thanks, I like helping with the proyect very much.) a big smile for you

yes, I think you can delete this category. what else you can do:

• keep going detecting misclassified pages, as you did for catalan. since I do not know spanish, I cannot do that. also check in the portuguese list, there might be some misclassified spanish...
  • Classified in spanish, italian, catalan, galego, português
• keep adding category tags to the pages in 'unknown'
• create a list of all the categories you want to move to the spanish wikisource (the bot does not visit categories)
• go to meta, create yourself an account, and add your signature to the request for es.wikisource.org
  • • Done, I sign on http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Requests_for_new_Wikisource_languages
• go to IRC, and complain about developers still not having created subdomains.
• if you know a way to tell the difference beween chinese and japanese, please tell me about it :-)

ThomasV 17:43, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Subcategories of Category:Authors

Is there a reason that Category:Authors uses a custom-designed template to provide links to Category:Authors-A, Category:Authors-B, et cetera, instead of just making those categories subcats of Category:Authors and letting the MediaWiki software take care of it for us? I just checked, and there's nothing preventing Wikisource from using subcats — so I wonder why they aren't being used. (I'm starting my quest for answers with you because you're the original creator of Category:Authors-A, et cetera.)

I'm going to be trying hard to make a decent category structure for Wikisource in the coming months; see Category:Poets as an example. --Quuxplusone 03:36, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, there is a reason. please do not take it bad, but I reverted your edit. here is why.

if you create 26 subcategories, they will use a lot of real estate when the category authors is rendered. using a template is much more practical and achieves the same result. also, if category:authors has no subcategory, then it is possible to know how many author pages we have, they get counted automatically.

another reason, that is not jut aesthetical, is that you know in advance the number of letters in the alphabet: 26. it is a constant, that is not likely to change in the future. Automated indexing (aka categories) is useful when you want to index a list that keeps growing, because new members can be added easily, without having to think about the layout again. However, if you are listing a set of objects that is finite, that will not change in the future, then there is no reason to use automated indexing. you can use manual indexing (for example with a template) and it gives you much more freedom in the choice of the layout. note that there are many instances where categories are used in wikisource, while the set of objects that they index is finite and does not require a category.

ThomasV 05:33, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No worries — in fact I'll apologize in advance for just having added 'Authors-W' to 'Authors' by reflex. :) However, I think all your points are wrong, and here's why:

1. Screen real estate is cheap. The template currently takes up about 12 square inches on my monitor, which isn't much less than the explicit list of subcats would. And the subcats would all be in one place, then, so it wouldn't be hard to scroll past them.
2. "they get counted automatically" — what does this mean? MediaWiki doesn't keep counts of pages in a category, except modulo 200, in the "prev 200/next 200" links. And that's pointless anyway, since all you're counting are the pages in Category:Authors, which certainly isn't a number anyone might care about. It's just the number of pages in that cat. My way, you get 26 different counts, one for each letter of the alphabet. More is better, right? :) (Seriously, I don't see why less is better.)
3. So 26 is a constant. Okay. But what about all the other subcats of "Authors" we'll have shortly: Category:Poets and Category:Authors of fiction and Category:Orators and Category:Presidents of the United States and so on? Your "real estate" argument evaporates (since the subcat space will be used no matter what), and so does this "constant number of subcats" argument.
4. "more freedom in the choice of layout" — I don't get it. What good is freedom if it would be stupid to use it? The whole point of the category system's being built into MediaWiki is so we don't have to reinvent the wheel on every category page. We can just use subcats, and MediaWiki will take care of the layout and formatting for us, in a standardized and easy-to-navigate style.

So I won't add any more of the "authors by name" subcats to cat "Authors," but I'll keep looking for a place to start up a discussion about it, and I'll keep adding other "authors by..." subcats as I find them or think of them.

Have you contributed to any of the other Wikimedia projects, by the way? Wikipedia uses categories very heavily! --Quuxplusone 07:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

if you want to create a supercategory that contains categories like "Authors-W" and "Poets", please feel free to do so. my point is just that Category:Authors is not the right place to do that, because it is not intended to be a supercategory. but I do not have anything against creating a category where you can add subcategories. ThomasV 07:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

See Scriptorium#Subcats and Category:Authors, where I've just posted to try to get some discussion of the issue. (For the record, I still don't understand why you feel Category:Authors is so sacred. What do you mean "not intended to be a supercategory"? This is MediaWiki! Every category can be a supercategory!) --Quuxplusone 07:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Re:categories

I juat received your message. Special:Uncategorizedcategories shows 520 uncategorized categories. Shall we let Category:Authors, Category:Authors-A, Category:Authors-B, et cetera remain uncategorized? --Jusjih 08:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I just received your message. If you think that creating subcategories would be messy, I also consider creating duplicate indexes messy as well. Shall I categorize all Chinese page under Chinese category as well as its sub-category? As I cannot move category, do you know if I can change from Category:Chinese to Category:中文? Since most languages categories are in their native scripts, I, as a native user of Mandarin with traditional Chinese, really hate to see Category:Chinese.

As you ask about Chinese and Japanese, I can categorize all relevant pages for you, but first of all, since Japanese uses Category:日本語 in its native script, I really prefer Category:中文 over Category:Chinese, so I need further reply, please.--Jusjih 08:47, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

As I can distinguish Chinese and Japanese, yes, there are categories for Chinese and Japanese, that you can use for the robot.

The main Chinese category is Category:Chinese. Although I would prefer Category:中文, Category:Chinese has 4 edits so unless it becomes possible to move, I will stick to Category:Chinese. You will find Chinese pages and sub-categories there.

The main Japanese category is Category:日本語. You will find Japanese pages and sub-categories there.

If you have more questions, please ask. Meanwhile, I am cleaning up some excessive Chinese redirects and categorizing any uncategorized Chinese and Japanese pages.--Jusjih 05:52, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

sorry I did not see your previous answer. thanks for your explanations.

creating duplicate indexes is messy for the moment, but they will be moved to subdomains soon.

please fel free to replace Category:Chinese with Category:中文.

ThomasV 06:00, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Chinese subdomain is especially needed to fit traditional and simplified Chinese converter used at Wikipedia and Wiktionary. How can we move contents to subdomains? When moving is soon, I will not replace Category:Chinese with Category:中文. How about we administrators? If you know how to move contents to subdomains, I would like to know how and to request a zh: subdomain where I can prepare to host it. I look forward to moving Chinese pages soon.--Jusjih 06:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

es.wikisource

Hi, can we add new articles on the new subdomain? --LadyInGrey 18:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

of course you can!

I do not know when we will be able to move pages, however. so make sure you do not create pages that already exist here... :-)

Thank you. I've started to add new articles. I hope this is not a problem, but I have transfered 8 articles from here to es.wikisource, and I deleted them inmediatly from wikisource. At least the 80 % of the articles in wikisource (spanish) are pages that I created, so the contributor is the same. I'll move only my articles, not of other contributors. Can you make me an administrator for es.wikisource or have I ask for in meta? --LadyInGrey 14:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Moves to Wikisource

Hello Thomas. I moved only the ADB articles, because I changed them anyway. So it was the same if edit all articles or edit and copy them instantly. I won't move any other article manually (too much work ;-)) --Jofi 13:44:12, 2005-08-24 (UTC)

Category:sv

I see that you have noticed our little special category! If you label whatever Swedish stuff you stumble om with it, that is perfect. The purpose of the category is that all changes on pages in that category comes up in a "related changes"-list, so whatever shows up there is likely to soon be taken care of (if it needs to be taken care of). / Habj 15:02, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Importing articles into this Wikisource site

I would like to know if I can import articles from Chinese Wikipedia where some inexperienced users post primary sources that should be here.

Will we export most pages from this multilingual site to language subdomains?--Jusjih 00:08, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I really do not know.. sorry ThomasV 00:15, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

As a reminder, I would like to know yes or no if I can import articles from Chinese Wikipedia or if you could please grant me this privilege. As of now, only User:Tim Starling (developer) has importing privilege. (You may reply to me in French if you want. It is sometimes easy for me to read French, but writing French by myself remains much harder.)--Jusjih 08:27, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry, but I really do not know. I do not have developer privileges, and I think you need developer privileges in order to import things. all I am doing is centralizing demands for brion. but I do not have any privileges. maybe you can create a list of the pages you want to be moved to zh.wikisource, and list it in the scriptorium, in the array I just created (the pages from chinese wikipedia and those from wikisource) ThomasV 08:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I have found French Wikisource and registered a user name there. How was that site started? All French pages were moved herefrom very well, including some contributions that I made here. How may I or someone else start Chinese Wikisource?--Jusjih 05:36, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

read the scriptorium. it's all explained there ThomasV 05:39, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

pl

Hi. We do realise that we lose the history of the files; however, as it was mostly Niki K who edited pl pages here, she decided that we move them anyway. Thus said, we haven't moved all pages yet: the list of pages that remain to be moved is at User:Tsca/lista - we'll leave it to brion.

As for removing pages that have already been moved to pl.wikisource: you are right, I'll take care of that. tsca ✉ 10:58, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

all right. but if you do not care about histories, you might as well let your bot finish the job. it will be less work for brion... ThomasV 11:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. tsca ✉ 11:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hi. It'll be better to not lose pages histories but your bot don't see some of them. Niki 11:07, August 25, 2005 (UTC)

which pages doesn't it "see"? ThomasV 11:17, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that everything is in progress and full swing I think it's too late to change one's mind; let's drop it.

I have listed the pages that have already been transferred at Wikisource:Proposed deletions. tsca ✉ 11:22, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I guess you'll have to ask brion to delete them. I do not want to be doing this manually ... ThomasV 11:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I won't clutter the Recent Changes, I have stopped the script, I'll limit myself to listing the pages in 'deletion requests'. Hopefully noone will work on the transferred pages before they get deleted. tsca ✉ 12:29, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Foedus pactum

Please, look at this article, there are 6 languages on it. Separation?? --LadyInGrey 17:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

if you split it, it would be great to have links between them (like :"other versions of this text : ...). ThomasV 17:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Pages à trier

Thomas, les pages suivantes proviennent de la liste des pages à trier générées par ton robot.

Aba-na est le Notre-Père en arabe ; Pourrais-tu créer une rubrique "autres pages" pour cette langue. Autres pages Bilady, Bilady, Bilady (poème arabe ?)

C1.V1., C1.V3., C2.V1. sont des pages arabes, sans doute des versets du coran, créées par une IP (intérêt ? à supprimer ?) François Rey 10:04, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

---

Bible et The Lord's Prayer sont des pages "internationales" (sommaire des différentes versions). Faut-il créér une catégorie "interwiki" ? François Rey 10:16, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

pour les pages en plusieurs langues, on verra plus tard ce que les gens veulent en faire. c'est pas grave si elles restent dans cette liste. ThomasV 11:05, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks but

I discovered it yesterday. Now I´m writing help pages in es:wikisource. However It only was 2 peges (and one was already).

However, Thanks for the advice--FAR 10:42, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh excuse me. in firefox I ghave opned tabs for wikisopurce and es: wikisource and i was confused. Thanks--FAR 10:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm sorry... 151.37.234.195 14:58, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

de.wikisource

Hallo Thomas, danke für den Hinweis! --Langec 17:23, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

How do I link to de.wikisource from Wikipedia? It doesn't work with [wikisource:de]. I know that there was a discussion, but I thought it works now. --Jofi 17:38:19, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I think that interwiki links do not work for the moment. I suppose brion is working on the problem. ThomasV 17:40, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

OK. I can use http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/ instead for the meantime. --Jofi 17:43:55, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

OK. I can't use it in the templates because of the spaces in a word. Perhaps there should be a message left on top of the pages (below the donation note), that some Wikisources have their own pages and people should go there. --Jofi 17:51:40, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

I just want to tell you that I'm not online for a few hours. --Jofi 17:53:58, 2005-08-27 (UTC)

sure :-)

Danke, habs schon bemerkt. Die Fehler im kommunistischen Manifest waren auf de.ws fast alle schon korrigiert. Grüsse, Stephan --Stw 19:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

ro.wikisource

Hi, Thomas. Your bot that created User:ThomasBot/romanian did a good job. From what I see all are in Romanian and can be moved to ro.wikisource, excepting Lo importante es la experiencia, which appears to be in Spanish and is a red link anyway. From the unidentified page, there are in Romanian the pages Colindă, Folclor românesc and Românii supt Mihai-Voievod Viteazul. Bogdan 22:02, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

all right. please create a list of all the romanian pages in the other namespaces: categories, templates, help and wikisource. add it to the array. Mark it as ready (in the status column) once you have everything you want to import. ThomasV 22:06, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Done. Bogdan 22:36, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

thanks. ThomasV 22:39, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Autor pages

They are in the list in english. They have a category in spanish, but the bot put them in other list. Look at this example: http://wikisource.org/wiki/Special:Whatlinkshere/Autor:Jos%C3%A9_Marchena

I am coping articles and history manually to the es.wikisource and deleting from here.

I detected the mistake yesterday, after the moving, but I think that the problem are the authors index in english. All these pages was in the index, and the bot don't "see" the category in spanish. --LadyInGrey 20:04, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

yes, you are right. the bot saw the "<[[Wikisource:Authors" chains and it concluded to english. ThomasV 20:06, 28 August 2005 (UTC)

Psalmer

I can not write in english, but I know what I am doing when I delete the text of a swedish psalm. --Damast 07:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

you did not delete it, you blanked it :-) I do not read swedish ThomasV 07:39, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

I add a translation of what Damast has written on her talk page. She has a collaboration with a Danish admin, Christian S - Swedes and Danes understand each others written languages without major effort, at least in smaller chunks. The procedure, as I understand it, is she blanks the page and lists it somewhere (on a subpage of her own page or on Christian's I don't know), and he deletes it. The system seems to work well, and esp. since we are moving to different subdomains in a forseeble future I don't think there is a reason to change this system. / Habj 13:01, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

tell her I am sorry, but I did not understand why she blanked it: is it for copyright reasons (it should be listed in the page for deletions then), or is it because the page is being moved to a subdomain? in any case, blanking the page is not a solution, it has to be properly deleted. ThomasV 13:06, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

np, I'll tell her that. It has nothing to do with the subdomain, it is copyright reasons only. Btw, I found the page where she lists the pages: Category talk:Psalmer. Would you prefer she doesn't blank the pages? Of course they could be left as they are, the main thing is that Christian S takes care of the deletion. In some cases there is some info to transfer back to Swedish Wikipedia before the page is ready to be deleted. As you can see they have used this system for some time. Is that OK, or is it usually not approved of that an admin decides these things on his own? As far as I can see Damast and Christian sorts these things out fine, and I don't really think that people who can not read Scandinavian languages can be very helpful in investigation the copyright on Swedish texts. / Habj 13:14, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

it's fine with me. I just did not know how it works. I thought it was some newbie thinking that a page can be deleted just by blanking it. as long as somebody takes care of the deletion, it's fine with me. send my apologies to her. with flowers :-) ThomasV 13:19, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

:-) / Habj 13:27, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Subjected Women

Hi,

Your fella bot shifted page De l'assujettissement des femmes to a new one. Fine, I like that. Hence, tell me : from FR Wikipédia, how do you cope with linking to the new page : I tried [[:wikisource:fr:De l'assujettissement des femmes]], or [[:wikisource:c:fr:De l'assujettissement des femmes], but both don't work. Page is linked in 3 articles in FR, as soon as you answer in my FR talk page, I can handle the update.

Yours sincerely,

en:User:Holycharly

for the moment you can do fr:s:blah but I guess it is a temporary solution. ThomasV 08:59, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, fr:s:blah does work! I tried it from wikipedias too. Why do you say it is only a temporary solution? Won't it be left this way?Dovi 09:31, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

because I would think s:fr:blah is more logical. and brion also said it should be wikisource:fr:blah (which does not work) so he has to fix it. ThomasV 09:33, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Venus

I have copied the format to es.wikisoruce, but I think that the problem is with the protected pages. I have been looked a couple of poetry in the new domain and they are with format. I don't know what is happening. --LadyInGrey 15:21, 29 August 2005 (UTC) (Venus can be deleted now)

do you mean that all protected pages were not correctly moved? that would be a catastrophy.... ThomasV 15:24, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, wait, I found another protected pages on es.wikisource, and they looks correctly. Except that the protect dissapeared. (more work, we will protect the pages again)

I suspect all changes made after protection were lost. which one is it? ThomasV 15:46, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

No, because I protected a page when the format was finished. In the case of Venus I used a different format. Maybe that was the problem. What's happen with the articles in the list? Shall I copy manually or not?

here is the list I had this morning. these pages are there because they were protected, except 2 of them who were added after the move: http://wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User:ThomasBot/spanish&oldid=163465 ThomasV 15:50, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, excuse me for deleted it. :)

sure, you can copy manually the 2 missing ones, and delete them from here ThomasV 16:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

pl, not moved

Can you move on .pl deleted pages from there? Niki 11:13, August 30, 2005 (UTC)

Error

I found an error with an article. The links are:

• Autor:Inca Garcilaso de la Vega
• http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Autor:Inca_Garcilaso_de_la_Vega

I'll will move the article from here to s:es:Inca Garcilaso de la Vega, --LadyInGrey 21:42, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Change username requeste

Hi Thomas,

Would you mind changing my username from User:Drew Devereux to User:Snottygobble? Drew Devereux 00:59, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Not moved

Pages from there was deleted but not moved to pl. I don't know why. There is still a page, which is not moved: To reconstruct (not moved to pl)

• Wikisource:Beletrystyka

Niki 12:59, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Pages to delete are there. Can you reconstruct those pages: category:Kodeks Prawa Kanonicznego, Wikisource:Teksty podejrzane o naruszenie praw autorskich? Niki 11:18, September 4, 2005 (UTC)

why don't you ask the person who deleted them? ThomasV 11:23, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

ko subdomain

Hi Thomas,

I want to create the ko subdomain. Would you help me for setting the Main page and moving pages in Korean to the ko subdomain. --아흔 15:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thomas,

I've just arranged the pages to be moved and also some should be deleted (here). Is there any more preparations for setting the subdomain? When is it going to start? --아흔 15:53, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

thanks. I guess it will be in the coming days ThomasV 15:56, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

By starting of the ko subdomain I would like to have the Allmessages of Ko Wiktionary since the default Allmessages of ko PHP and of the ko wikipedia is very unsatisfactory translated, otherwise hard work will wait. Would you ask the developer that possibility? --아흔 16:16, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Help

I finished with the list of Spanish. Do you need my help deleting articles in the list of French or other list?, --LadyInGrey 18:26, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

sure, go ahead if you have time. many thanks ThomasV 08:54, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Cantonese

Hello Thomas V why you removed [3] the Cantonese version main page [4] from Template:InterLingvLigoj? Thank you. - CantoneseWiki 13:53, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

The chinese pages have been moved to zh.wikisource.org. The person in charge of this wiki (User:Jusjih)requested one single wiki for both mandarin and cantonese. if you are contributing in chinese, please go to zh.wikisource.org. ThomasV 14:06, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

What are the reasons behind for a single Wikisource for Chinese and Cantonese? There is actually a proposal to set up a Cantonese Wikipedia. Please keep the Cantonese main page on Template:InterLingvLigoj, and don't move it to the zh subdomain. - CantoneseWiki 14:54, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Thomas, there is a major debate going on about this on Meta. It seems likely that Cantonese will be approved, but until it happens there (for Wikipedia) we obviously shouldn't set up a real domain here either. If it is approved then we can do it in the future, even if other zh: people say otherwise. (That is exactly what the debate is about: Can zh: people who speak Mandarin deny wikis to other dialects.)

On the other hand, here at wikisource.org we can have the best of both worlds: We can allow an "unofficial" local Main Page so that people who want to add texts in Cantonese can do so. There doesn't seem any reason to remove that. If they show that there is enough written Cantonese to justify a wiki - great. If not - nothing lost.Dovi 17:23, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, the idea was to have both cantonese and mandarin on the same site, and to have 2 main pages. However, I have a much bigger problem right now: not all pages were transferred to zh and to ko. (among the missing ones, the famous cantonese main page) sorry but I have to set priorities, and I guess this is #1. so please do not edit chinese pages for the moment ThomasV 17:43, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually, until very recently I couldn't find ko: at all ("Wiki does not exist"). After that is solved, I suggest you do two things :-)

1. Take a vacation.
2. Now that all the largest and hardest languages are set up, from now on delegate responsibility to one specific person who has requested a new wiki and who will be responsible himself for getting it set up.Dovi

thanks for the advice :-). for the ko domain, it was created but not visible until today. hopefully there is no data loss (everything is still on the main site), but I am a bit concerned that edits being done now will be lost. once everything is sorted out, I will focus on the french wikisource, and the main site will also be much more calm, hopefully. ThomasV 18:44, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep Cantonese in the main domain, not the zh subdomain, and keep it on Template:InterLingvLigoj. - CantoneseWiki 06:57, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but it is a bit late to change policy. Please get in touch with User:Jusjih if you want to discuss that matter ThomasV 08:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep it on Template:InterLingvLigoj for the time being. - CantoneseWiki 16:29, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

You apparently misunderstood something: I am not responsible for the choice to have one single wikisource for chinese. if you do not agree with this, I am not the person to talk to. And I am not opposed to having two links in the InterLingvLigoj template. I put them back, since you insisted. However, as I already told you, the transfer of chinese pages failed, for some reason that is not known yet. Therefore the links will not work for the moment. So please be patient. I asked Brion to do the transfer once again. I am doing my best to improve the situation. Please understand that I have to deal with all kind of requests from all subdomains, and that I am a little bit overwhelmed. What's more, I do not live in the same timezone as Brion, so it is kind of difficult for me to find him on irc at wake hours. If you want things to go faster, feel free to contact developpers yourself. It will be less work for me. ThomasV 17:04, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Thomas since you are the person keeping the InterLingvLigoj template you are the only one I have a clue that I can talk to over this. May I know how I can contact Brion? I requested to put the link to Cantonese to the list, not Chinese. Thanks. - CantoneseWiki 06:41, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I put the link back. brion can be found on irc. ThomasV 07:22, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Thomas. Would you mind relocating it back to the place before being removed [5]? (For the same reason Old English at E not A, Japanese is at N not J, and Korean at H not K.) - CantoneseWiki 08:17, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Traduction de Bible

Monsieur ThomasV, Ma traduction de Bible en croate n'est pas bien transféré à la subdomaine croate. Il manque moitié de châpitres. Pourriez Vous faire quelque chose? Merci, --Tomahawk Cheerocky 15:55, 12 September 2005 (UTC)Tomislav Dretar.

quelles sont les pages qui manquantes? la liste des pages transférée est ici User:ThomasBot/croatian. ThomasV 17:49, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Missing revisions from move

Hi there. Some pages I added have been moved, e.g., Bright's Anglo-Saxon Reader (The Conversion of Edwin). However, not all revisions are in the new copy on en:. For example, compare [6], with one one revision from April, with the original [7], which has more revent revisions.

What's up with that? Is the data simply taking a while to propagate, or should I be concerned? --Saforrest 21:17, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not know what the reason is. We had the same problem with Venus moved to es. this seems to occur quite rarely. I suggest you do the fix manually. if you find that it happened often, report it to developers. ThomasV 21:31, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Undelete two templates

Hi. I'm here to ask you to transfer two deleted templates to Korean Wikisource: Template:옛한글 처음 and Template:옛한글 끝. They're used to indicate fonts for special characters. --PuzzletChung 19:21, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

I restored them. you'll have to browse the history and copy paste what you need. ThomasV 19:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved. Thank you! --PuzzletChung 03:29, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Korean Wikisource is clean

I've checked all the articles transfered to ko, and copy-and-pasted the changes throughout revisions that have been missed during the transfer. They all are now clean. You may want to delete them. --PuzzletChung 04:19, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

questionmark articles

Hi Thomas. You added the "moved" note to Kann der Neidische je wahrhaft glücklich sein ? and Groß willst du, und auch artig sein?. The articles are still not available at de.wikisource. --Jofi 11:10, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

yes, they are at de.wikisource. (I can see them). the redirect written by my bot does not work, because the question mark is not counted in the link. but the pages are at de. ThomasV 11:23, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

here are the correct links : http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Kann_der_Neidische_je_wahrhaft_gl%C3%BCcklich_sein_%3F

http://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Gro%C3%9F_willst_du%2C_und_auch_artig_sein%3F

My fault: I didn't realise that the redirect links are wrong. --Jofi 13:16, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

2 questions

Hi.

1. Two days ago I requested admin rights for me at Wikisource (here: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_permissions) as I would like to work fort he Czech Wikisource (where I am sysop for a longer time) a bit and the community supports it, but they seem to have some troubles at the moment. Do you have any idea how long time it will take?
2. I saw that your bot removed some pages to la: as they were recognized as latin text. Butt his is not quite right, it were some lithurgis txtes where both czech and latin occured (what can be useful some times); It is no problem form e to renew the pages from the history, but the question is, if your bot will do it again if I renew also the latin text. What do you suppose? Should I maybe leave the category Moved to la on the page?

Thx, you can answer here, I see it, -jkb- 08:15, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

1:There is no czech subdomain for the moment. If you want to be an admin on the main wikisource, you have to request rights here. If you want to request a czech subdomain, go here: Wikisource:Language_domain_requests

2:my bot will not do it again. please add "category:czech" to the pages it misclassified.

ThomasV 11:13, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your answer. My request is there by now. As for your bot, its OK, I will change it somehow. By the way, there is a page of the bot where he listed all czech pages - but it is a bit wrong, first we have by now 32 pages, secondly among the listed pages there are two or three ones in Slovak, which is similar but not the same. Greetings, -jkb- 11:52, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

What article?

You wrote: please move the pages you created to the English wikisource. they do not belong here. ThomasV 08:22, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

I found the articles: Albert J. Beveridge Emilio Aguinaldo and George Frisbie Hoar

how do I move them? Thanks Travb 23:17, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Will we keep history of pages moved to subdomains here?

When I manually prepared lists of Chinese and Japanese pages to be moved, I accidentally specify 2000年国勢調査第14表 as Chinese while it should have been Japanese. Someone made a copy there without moving its limited history. Is it too late to move its history thereto? Will we keep history of pages moved to subdomains here?--Jusjih 00:33, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

it is not too late, but you will have to nag developers. (and they do not like to be nagged for just one page). I plan to delete moved pages from here, once we are certain we do not need them. ThomasV 14:34, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

I have noticed TWO Japanese pages that were here but moved to Chinese pages in error. They are 2000年国勢調査第14表 and 新約聖書. Some of their page history end up in Chinese Wikisource instead of Japanese one. These pages have been deleted here but still visible to administrators. Who is the developer?--Jusjih 05:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

you do not need to contact devs for that. jst undelete these pages, and copy them to ja. ThomasV 07:43, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

How do I copy the page history?--Jusjih 05:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

you won't. if you want the history, ask developers. you can post a bug on bugzilla, or ask on irc. but I would not do that for just 2 pages, unless it was very important. ThomasV 09:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

not sure what it is

Hi, I have just reverted something, but in the following cases I am not quite sure if it is a vandalism or something I dont know:

1. (diff) (hist) . . N Wikisource:About; 07:21 . . 150.164.162.250 (Talk | block)
2. (diff) (hist) . . N Category:PD-US-no-renewal; 06:52 . . 202.56.253.177 (Talk | block)
3. (diff) (hist) . . N Category:About; 05:55 . . 24.187.39.84 (Talk | block)

)

1. (diff) (hist) . . N Category:General disclaimer; 03:55 . . 61.67.8.169 (Talk | block)

The edits are the same, but comming from different users. Please have a look there. -jkb- 12:51, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

OK, LadyInGray did it. -jkb- 18:24, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Pourchasse en anglais

Thomas, Pourqoi ils me pourchassent sur WikiSource anglaise. J'ai bien prouvé mon identité, Thomas Dretart et Tomislav Dretar sont une même perssone avec le droit d'auteur sur les livres de Tomislav Dretar et Thomas Dretart. Je ne comprends pas ce qu'il faudrait-il faire, venir en personne? Voilà mon N° de Tél: 003226482600 mon e-mail: drtomis@scarlet.be , demandez les administrateurs croates, la Police Européen, mes petites filles Sylvia et Cindy François, écrivains belges Gérard Adam et Monique Thomassetie, Les Edition du Panthéon, tous vont confirme mon identité et mes droits d'auteurs. J'ai l'impression d'être un criminel, je pense que vous êtes un Serbe tschetnik assoiffé de mon sang. Sur tout l'Internet il y a un WANTED mort au vivant. Où est le problème? Tomislav Dretar alias Thomas Dretart.--213.49.69.209 20:13, 2 December 2005 (UTC)