This page is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WikisourceWikipedia:WikiProject WikisourceTemplate:WikiProject WikisourceWikisource
Improving citation uniformity
I would suggest that the inline citation templates in Category:Wikisource link templates should be turned into one parent template, with the others feeding into with some automatic sections. In particular, I think the main template should be {{Cite wikisource}} but the code should be replaced with a standardised format based on {{Citation}}, as with {{Cite book}} et al, with elements of {{Cite WS}}. The name "Cite wikisource" is the most obvious standard and conforms to the "Cite book", "Cite web" etc naming convention. Once "Cite wikisource" is ready, the others can be edited to pass parameters through to it (while having some standardised parameters based on the specialism of the template). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 07:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
This is a great idea, I was wondering how to condense the many templates, yet still allow for special cases. I can start working on it probably tomorrow. Some things to discuss of which I have an opinion of sorts on:
Leaving Wikipedia: I think that simply because some aspect of the reference (i.e. the page, work, author, publisher) has a Wikisource page, the preference should always direct to the wikipedia page if it is existant. Therefore, the use of the ws logo simply at the beginning is not telling of where the ws link should be, and it needs to be applied per ws link.
"from Wikisource: remove, due to the same reason as above I guess; since only a portion of it may actually link to Wikisource.
ISBN? How come this is never applied in use at wikisource? I wondered that the first few days I was there, and then the thought just dissapeared. It is useful, whether linking to Google books or Wikisource, in that I can check for physical copies at nearby libraries with ease. Wikipedia already addresses this somewhat internally, if applicable at en.ws, maybe we should point to an ISBN or OCLC too?
This and a few other bits and pieces should now be addressed. (I've also imported some minor features from some of the existing templates).
Icon moved to the title.
Text removed but I've added "Wikisource" as a publisher (or just after the publisher if one is entered). I say that, technically, Wikisource would count as the publisher of any cited works.
I think it's been suggested; try searching for "metadata" in the Scriptorium archives. I believe the problem comes down to whether to create a template for this (and other metadata) or an entirely new namespace (alongside "Talk:"). Either would be a lot of work and, as far as I know, no one has chosen to take it up so far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a way to setup links that if any are linked through [[s:XXXXX]] that it will display a small source-berg icon next to it? I ask this because there are some cases that I think it would be beneficial to link to the actual page (or chapter) at Wikisource in the reference page parameter. Also, if the work has its own wikipedia page, I think that the reference should point the title to the wikipedia page, and then link the page/section/chapter to Wikisource. I feel like in the same way that wikipedia links amidst en.ws text is not preferred by some, we should not do the same at en.wp; any instance that links to en.ws should be apparent with an icon or something (no tricks ;) just to be safe) If there is even a marginal author page at en.ws, yet a full biography at en.wp, at en.ws we still link to our internal page first.
Regarding the publisher, that is certainly a good field for that; I may still list the original publisher alongside, just to maintain consistency (like we don't link archive.org or Gbooks as the publisher, since they are just hosting the text)
I think I'm going to bring up using ISBN or OCLC on the index page somewhere, not as a requirement, but if possible. This could help prevent uploading the same texts; right now a non-proofread index file may not have great information on title, etc. and may be under a file name not indicative of its contents. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I have added Wikisource alternatives to the chapter and title parameters: wschapter and wstitle. I cannot find a way to detect Wikisource links, probably because the software seems to handle them like a namespace rather than a different site, so having alternative parameters seems the best way to handle this. Both will display a Wikisource icon by default if used. I have also rejigged the title parameter to default to the Wikipedia link rather than Wikisource (the parameter title overrides wstitle). If called, the scan paramter will also display a Wikisource icon. These are the only parts that link to Wikisource at the moment. I've thought about adding wikisource links for the author parameters but (1) I can't think of a way to add icons that would work with Wikipedia's core citation template, and (2) I don't think this is necessary, other citation templates (book, web etc) only provide external links for the title and chapter. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:29, 6 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've made the new version live. I haven't fed anything else into it yet, just in case there is a problem or my edit gets reversed. Hopefully this will work (all the tests seemed to be OK). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:18, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
{{Cite wikisource}} should either call {{Cite encyclopedia}} or similar or call {{Citation}} it should not duplicate the inner workings of those templates as it leads to unnecessary duplication of complex code that needs to be supported. Also there is a fundamental problem with the way some of the implementations of {{Cite wikisource}} has been incorporated into existing templates which causes problems of massive duplication of code see this edit and this comment Template talk:Cite Americana#Future development.
So for {{Cite wikisource}} it should be a wrapper something like this:
In many cases the citation to a source may alter over time. Take for example the s:EB1911. Not all the pages in s:EB1911 are available. So it makes sense to link in a standard way to external sites using title=url= to those articles not yet on Wikisource. So what is needed is another variable such as wstitle= to handle links to wikisource as they become available. Then all that needs to be changed in the article is a change of title=wstitle= and the removal of url=.
There is a further complication with this approach. What to do about the use of varliabels such as short= which hide some parameters in some templates?
It makes no sense to me for a general template like {{Cite wikisource}} to wrap around {{Cite encyclopedia}}. Wrapping around {{Citation}} sounds like a good idea. I also think that {{Cite Americana}} should be wrapped around {{Cite encyclopedia}}, as I hope it still is, for the reasons you state, and also because, unlike EB1911, Americana has not moved on to allow for transclusion, so some of the bells and whistles of {{Cite wikisource}} are just of no use, and any justification for the latter's peculiar icon style is completely missing. A possibility for EB1911 and other encyclopedia projects that use tranclusion would be to have a separate template, like "Citews EB1911" for citing transcluded articles. But I would not wrap this around {{Cite wikisource}} but around a further adaptation of it or a parallel development called, say, "Citews encyclopedia", and this latter could then also be used as a core for "Citews NSRW" and other translusion-based encyclopedias in Wikisource. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Inline graphics, text availability not uniform between wikisource-inline and wikisourcelang-inline, definite article
Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!
Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.
@Theornamentalist, AdamBMorgan, John Vandenberg, and Clockery:, you are all the listed members of this project. It is, seemingly, inactive. I was wondering what you all would think about maybe using the project not only for development of content about wikisource, but also, maybe, being one of the central locations for development of wikipedia articles with wikisource material, and, possibly, development of relevant wikisource works that are discussed or used in wikipedia. Any opinions? John Carter (talk) 19:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I had sort of assumed that it covered articles which were predominately about a source that is, or should be, available on Wikisource.
I have to agree that, where they are notable, having articles about wikisource material would be very useful, particularly regarding possibly dated nonfiction materials. Maybe we could try to provide some focus on such, particularly for works which might be finished over there. John Carter (talk) 21:20, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, I would myself rather like seeing this project and a not yet developed wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Wikipedia be basically two halves of one collaborative effort. With, maybe, this project developing articles about or based on works there, or, possibly, including material from works there, and the wikisource wikipedia project developing content there relevant to extant articles here, perhaps specifically works which have articles here but aren't yet there, and, maybe, works indicated as sources in articles, or as possible sources for articles here, which are in the PD but not yet there. In that regard, wikisource:Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries might be of interest to editors here. John Carter (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A new Newsletter directory has been created to replace the old, out-of-date one. If your WikiProject and its taskforces have newsletters (even inactive ones), or if you know of a missing newsletter (including from sister projects like WikiSpecies), please include it in the directory! The template can be a bit tricky, so if you need help, just post the newsletter on the template's talk page and someone will add it for you.
