CSN

List of victims

I've already duplicated the list at commons. Commons says right on the front page: The Wikimedia Commons is a project that provides a central repository for free images, music, sound & video clips and, possibly, texts and spoken texts, used in pages of any Wikimedia project. So, it should be alright there. The problem I have with deletion of this list is that I put more work into compiling it than most people do putting 5 featured articles together. I also don't see any real difference between census data and lists of confirmed victims. If census data is allowed on Wikisource, so are these lists. I don't understand the urgent desire to delete them. Are we running out of space? No. --brian0918 01:57, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Transwiki

Thanks for working on the transwiki to wikisource. Is it possible to hold off on transwiking lists and tables for the moment? I am trying to convince people that lists and tables that are supplements to articles on wikipedia should be kept on wikicommons and not wikisource. CSN 03:09, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Will do. Since I don't follow Wikisource at all, I would appreciate it if you could inform me when this is resolved (and, if it's decided not to keep these on Wikisource, which articles they used to be so I can see about getting them undeleted on Wikipedia). —Cryptic (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2005 (UTC)

Biography lists

The only thing saying they have to be lists is just tradition; Wikisource's horrible documentation I don't believe covers exactly how biography lists are to be set up. Almost every author page has been created with the vertical list of links to Wikipedia, and those that weren't were changed. Of course, for some, the list was way to large and we use a five-column table to compact the list, like at Author:George W. Bush. But I take it you dislike the current scheme for setting up author pages :) ? | 02:24, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Oh, don't worry about raising controversy. I'm not going to make a fuss about all of this. I will say, that the set up for author pages has always...been a bit odd, I guess...to me, but after a while I got used to the way it was set up. The list I believe is easier to read, but I've begun to think ahead about the author pages in the future. When Wikisource gets its language sub-domains, are we really going to need to have links to all of the language domains on Wikipedia? I mean, a native English speaker will go to the English Wikipedia, a native German speaker to the German Wikisource and will read a biography in German. So, won't these lists become outdated after a while. I know ThomasV is a fan of getting rid of the lists and having one link. Maybe he's right; we might want to think about changing all of the author pages to just one link in the biography section when we move to en.wikisource.org. What are your thoughts? P.S. I must say, I do like the horizontal layout as well. | 02:35, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about moving the If page. I'll finish fixing it all up tomorrow.

Ha, what do you know, I got more time tonight. Yeah, the box that says "in other languages" will be generated automatically. Look at a WP page, at the bottom there will be a list of links in the brackets that say "[[fr:______]]", "[[de:______]]", etc. The system takes these and assumes that they are the links between the various sub-domains. So when we have the multiple translations of author pages or works, we just put a list of links with the language codes on the page, and voila--we've got our box. I say for now, let's not worry about the author pages; one way or another every author page will need to be fixed (our links to the Wikipedia pages in the biography section will be changed to links to various language domains on Wikisource instead of to language domains on Wikipedia). Author pages will be one of the things that we discuss right away once we move. | 02:56, 22 July 2005 (UTC)

gutenberg

hello,

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.

ThomasV 06:12, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Update on List of victims

Alright, the lists of victims are currently being VFD'd from Commons as well. I'll support their removal from Wikisource if you support them remaining on Commons. [1] and [2]. Thanks. --brian0918 23:04, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

De Occulta Philosophia

'S very cool you've been working on this text. I had created some images of the fixed star symbols, so I took the liberty of plunking them into the relevant section. I hope I didn't mess up any elaborate image-naming scheme you had going there. Lusanaherandraton 13:23, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Not at all, I've actually been following your edits. Thanks for contributing. The only elaborate naming scheme I was using was to include Agrippa in the title so I could easily find them on my computer. Great work by the way, most of the images I posted were straight from a PDF of the original document so they were all fuzzy and gray. Your hand-crafted ones are very nice. CSN 22:19, 2 August 2005 (UTC)