Vicifons:Scriptorium/Vetera IV

E Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

unified account[recensere]

To have my account included in the new "unified account", I guess I need an admin to change my username to Usor:Matthead. --Mattheadus 00:40, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have emailed Accurimbono (talkcontribs) to see if he can help us reach the 'crat Personne (talkcontribs). John Vandenberg 21:51, 22 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to this, the crat has left the project, so you will need to take this matter to meta:SRUC --John Vandenberg 10:30, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Made a request there. --Mattheadus 09:19, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
... a successful one.--Matthead 12:00, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

request for volunteers[recensere]

There is a need for more local sysops and probably also a new bureaucrat. Accurimbono (talkcontribs) would be an excellent candidate for the role of bureaucrat, but I have not had a response to my email. If anyone knows how to reach Accurimbono, please do so. I think we should wait a few days before deciding what to do about a 'crat.

In the mean time I have requested adminship at Vicifons:Magistratus#Jayvdb, and I would welcome anyone else who has experience on Wikisource to do the same. On English Wikisource, we keep elections open for about a week, and I suggest we do the same here. At that time, we can request that Stewards honour the communities request. For simplicities sake, I suggest that suffrage is set to accounts with more than one productive edit to the mainspace prior the the nomination. John Vandenberg 11:04, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I will look around here but my latin is poor --Histo 13:53, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi! I agree with you. I reply now in my talk page. In the last months I didn't have enough time (now I finish the univ. and begin to work) to do anything else that a little of lurking and patrolling. Anyway I _love_ this project and I'm very happy to see new users, and possible new admins that are working on it! --Accurimbono 19:09, 23 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Salvete omnes!
As I'm rather new to this project, I'm wondering whether we have "Babel" here. I just found Formula:Babels and Formula:Babel-3. But they aren't working... Does anybody know, how to fix them? --Trevas 19:26, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Vicifons:Babel/Linguae looks like an attempt set this up.
I have created {{Babel}}, and copied the "la" and "en" sets of templates across from Commons. The categorisation in these templates does not work at all, so we will need to improve on it before creating hundreds of these little templates.
What I suggest is that regular members of Latin Wikisource create any templates that they want to describe their own language proficiency, but do not create more templates that will be unused. Most of these will need to be changed a few times before we have determined how all these templates should work.
John Vandenberg 22:45, 26 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gratias tibi ago. Thanks for Your help! I just added two templates and put a Babel box on my user page. --Trevas 16:25, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but should be better sync the syntax template with the table in Vicifons:Babel/Linguae. In Italian wikisource OrbiliusMagister is doing (here: it:Wikisource:Babel/Lingue) a great work with Babel. --Accurimbono 18:25, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bot should easily import from it.source most of the babel template. --Accurimbono 18:29, 27 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A bot would be really useful. I'd make all the work by hand, but I'm still surveying the evolution of babel templates on meta. The project still looks more complicated than simplified to migrate everything to th new template system, so we could set up the "current old system" and worry about global changes later. - εΔω 07:17, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I agree, I hope you will work on it, as on it.source, where you made a great work. If you need the bot flag for insert babel and categories template, I'll support for it. --Accurimbono (disp) 08:32, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm... let me look for Pietrodn or Paginazero, who already did this in Wikipedia and wikibooks... as for a flag... I'm thinking about a wikivacation from it.source to help translating and cleaning up here. John said "I would welcome anyone else who has experience on Wikisource to do the same": would it be a scandal if I asked for adminship here? Is it necessary to be nominated by someone who knows my work on it.wikisource? - εΔω 09:17, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
Sei stato nominato! --Accurimbono (disp) 13:13, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not create the babel templates and categories yet. There is a discussion on foundation-l (the thread moved to other mailing lists) about mw:Extension:Babel. John Vandenberg 14:41, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

bot flag request for JVbot[recensere]

JVbot (talkcontribs) is here to upload djvu pages and perform other tasks that are requested. I mainly use the bot on English Wikisource (bot flag approved), however it has also been tested on French Wikisource and its patrolling function has been approved on English Wikipedia (brfa).

Also "Liber" is not a proper namespace; so we will need to file a bug to have that fixed. John Vandenberg 09:11, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support for the bot flag.
Why "Liber" is not proper? Do you have some other ideas for the new NS? Hi! --Accurimbono 13:05, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
See bugzilla:14693 John Vandenberg 02:57, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On that bug, a developer has asked what the associated "talk" namespace will be. I assume it will be "Disputatio Liber". Is that OK? The following pages will need to be renamed: [1] John Vandenberg 07:21, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see. for talk NS I think should be better use genitive as for the others namespaces: I propose "Disputatio libri". --Accurimbono 08:24, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Hesperian 23:23, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
support ThomasV 08:12, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, we have a new Bot! --Accurimbono 14:23, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
bugzilla:14693 has been fixed, and Liber:Hymni Ecclesiae.djvu is completely uploaded. John Vandenberg 02:18, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

interface translation requests[recensere]

Categoria:Translation required currently contains two templates which need to be converted to use Latin. Most important is Formula:PaginaQuality, which currently places pages into English named categories Validated, Proofread, Not proofread and Problematic. John Vandenberg 09:41, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

DONE, OrbiliusMagister translate the template. --Accurimbono (disp) 11:18, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Policies and guidelines[recensere]

OK, we need to fix some policies about the source. If we want to make la.wikisource an important and authoritative virtual library, we need to respect some rules that I propose here because I think are short but very very important:

  1. One text - One source: every text we have should have one (and only one) source (the edition of the book from which the text is copied), the source shall be clearly show in the talk page with the Formula:OperisInfo (see here an example Disputatio:Aeneis)
  2. No user text (or translation) - Only printed text (or translation): at the moment we are a very little community and to have high quality latin text we shall insert only printed text and not text translated or wrote from someone user. Otherwise we risk to have in la.source some like-latin text, the are not latin. In the future when the community will grow and the active users' number will increase we could also check user generated translation.

So the road map for fix the text we have at the moment:

  • Check for every text the source, and if the text don't have yet found one source to put in the template OperisInfo in the text's talk page.
  • If a source will not be found in a couple of week, the text will be deleted (when a source will be found the text will be recovered)

This rules are also in it.source and at the moment it.source is one of the best wiki for quality. Every text have the source and so we known from which book/edition come the text, very important for an authoritative virtual library. So what do you thing about?

Hi, --Accurimbono 13:26, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with both rules. However, they are not sufficient.
On it is also mandatory to upload scans of the source for every text. Public availability of scans allows everyone to check the text. Shall we use the same rule here ?
ThomasV 13:50, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I see the argument. I have moved the Consitution page I've started to my Vicifons user namespace. I hope that is sufficient to allow me to continue working on it so that one day it might be accepted into the regular space. However the little arrow feature allowing comparison of translations doesn't work there. O bother! That was so useful.--Rafaelgarcia 15:40, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do not support the deleting of existing texts; texts to be deleted should be discussed first. There should be no rush to delete pages, as we have few people to check pages.
I think it is well worth considering that require pagescans as ThomasV proposes. One concern is that I have been looking around for repositories which have pagescans, and not found many.
John Vandenberg 15:54, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was under the impression that both of Accurimbono's proposals were already policies, and as such I can support them. I am less sure about the necessity of a page scan for all works added to Vicifons. So long as the source is stated in the disputatio, any editor with access to a good library may check the accuracy. A similar situation prevails at en.wikipedia, where reliable sources are required to back up statements but these sources need not be immediately accessible for every reader. Aramgar 15:58, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, instead of deleting text without source (that are a great number vs. the number of active users), we can insert (while waiting to reach a source) a template at the top of the text's page with a sort of "Text with no source" disclaimer. For the scans I agree that should be beautiful to have a scanned version of the original source for every text, but I'm not sure if we can found many scanned source. --Accurimbono 21:26, 29 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good. On en.wiksource we have en:Template:Authenticity for when there is significant doubt about the text, and en:Template:No publishing info for cases where it is reasonable to assume that the publishing details can be supplied. John Vandenberg 01:39, 30 Iunii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree scans should be strongly encouraged, but there should be no threat of deletion merely because no scan is present. Angr 19:44, 1 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
hello everyone! i'd like to put my two cents:
  • First of all I completely endorse Accurimbono's proposals (no surprise, since I work mainly on it.source): To fit his ideas to this Latin environment I notice that
    • Latin texts face a very long tradition of research and refinement in critical editions, so we'll have to be very careful in pointing out and looking for certain and possibly authoritative sources. De.source is pushing in this direction and I think that it's the right one for Latin texts
    • Even if I'm a fast deletionist on it.source, I agree with some circumspection about unsourced texts here. It should be possible to find out online or scanned texts and use them to give unsourced text a chance of life: let's use a template to alert navigators about unsourced or doubrtful texts, and while doung this...
    • a "soft" deletion policy should be put up to let the community try and save what's worth saving. Let's discuss about it.
    • About mandatory scanned sources... theory is appealing and should have been used ab antiquo, but reality is more complicated. Texts in Latin language are spreadt all around the world and it is very unlikely that two readers have the same printed text in their hands (unless, as stated above, it is an authoritative and internationally recognised edition), so we have to rely on online sources, be they on sites or scanned texts. If we are worried by the volatility of online content in sites different from ours, there's no difference between online texts or scanned pages, they could disappear anyway. If we wanted to rely only on commons to have scanned texts we'd have to destroy almost completely this project. Extremism is impossible.
On it. source we are considering this process as gradual roadmap: We began with copied texts from external sites, and they are still a big part of the library, but after introducing scanned pages and OCR we are facing all possible discussions about coyright byzantinism and we are slowly trying to shift to self-produced scans and transcription form GoogleBooks and similar resources. On it.source page deletions aren't yet given to the community, but I think that once we have a sufficient number of reliable sources or duplicate texts it shall be the next step. Here I see the urge to tidy up the library to begin a new thrust towards scanned sources and authoritative editions, but without any "McCarthyism". - εΔω 17:36, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

We have talked a bit about quality, and we all mostly agree, however Accurimbono also raised No user text for discussion. I am very unhappy that it.wikisource rejects collaborative translations into modern Italian, however on the Latin Wikisource project I agree that there is no reason for permitting "collaborative translations" of texts. I have updated the sub-domain coordination matrix.

Another policy to discuss is annotations/footnotes. I think they are useful, especially when the average reader is not likely to highly proficient in Latin, however this opens a can of worms: what language should annotations/footnotes be in? We could create a template to allow footnotes to be translated into the main languages that we actively support. John Vandenberg 14:38, 3 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

IMHO annotations/footnotes should be permitted ONLY if they are in the original text. For add comment or user generated footnotes there is another project: Wikibooks, in which anyone could make a commentary of any text. --Accurimbono (disp) 13:13, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. user generated footnotes should not be allowed. ThomasV 14:01, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would prefer to permit user generated annotations, as setting up a Wikibooks for a small annotation is too much effort, but I will accept that they are not permitted here and have updated the sub-domain coordination matrix accordingly. John Vandenberg 14:27, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Standards of notability[recensere]

I have posted a question here about what kind of texts are notable enough to be included at Vicifons. Aramgar 18:59, 2 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another talk about good sources[recensere]

After re-reading the aforementioned discussions about good sources and after the current development of the latest one about Catullus, I try to summarize and go on, since it's important to have these thoughts written out and shared:

  • Scanned sources mandatory: best solution but no total agreement
  • source mandatory with Formula:OperisInfo: consensus quickly reached.
    • unsourced texts: we'll have to tag /categorize them with an alert template and then decide their destiny one by one. There's no haste but it has to be done.
  • Authoritative editions, multiple editions, deletions... I wish to point out some more thoughts.
    • Strictly writing: we put on books, Pedia puts on bibliographies.
    • I'd like to have only Great Editions of authors, but this doesn't mean that a scanned edition of a lesser quality has to be deleted: scanned editions are always a valuable treasure and will coexist with future Great editions (when these arrive)
  • On the other hand, if our Annales are both incomplete and without a specified source, they should be deleted.
    • If we wish to save a text (on it.source I know how easily a text can be resurrected when a source is provided) without deleting it, we must find a source.
      • At this point the community can discuss to find a good (scanned - authoritative - online or offline) source. For Latin texts it should be interesting.
  • Offline sources (that is sources which cannot but be seen going to a library) are to be looked carefully. On it. source some users load texts from their own scans or typewritten copy, and good faith is the same as in wikipedia since those texts are considered valuable. So I'm going back to the beginning: scanned sources online. What about these instances? I always verify by looking into online OPAC or catalogues (see wikisource:OPAC), and this quiet me down even if i haven't a scanned text at hand.
  • My two cents, based on common sense are:
    • Online scans are always the best (in terms of verfiability) source. Scans are the future, the main source for new texts, but not yet the present.
    • Online texts provided with bibliographical information about their printed source make a website affordable.
    • Online texts without those information are not welcome
    • Vicifons texts coming from offline sources should at least provide an account of existence of their printed source. How this can be obtained is another matter to be discussed.

I hope this statements to be simple enough, if I make some grammatical and syntactical mistakes blame it on my knowledge of English and libenter emendate. Let's go on. - εΔω 16:20, 4 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

Mandatory Scans[recensere]

A policy of mandatory scans does not mean that texts that have been uploaded before the policy is adopted should be deleted. It only applies to new texts. This policy has been adopted early by the German Wikisource, and it has given very good results. Almost every page of text on has a reference scan. I have been following the development of the german subdomain, and I believe that they are by far the best in terms of quality and trustability. ThomasV 13:58, 5 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a hard an even a long way, but I think that the german language wikisource has shown that it is possible to raise the level and to cope with the own history, by adding the scan as soon as it is possible by the community. We are working on that job for more the two years now. There are still a good number of old texts but this number is decreasing. But I think the result is good. greetings --Joergens.mi 16:41, 7 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A hypothetical question: I wish to contribute an extremely rare but extremely important text. I cannot obtain a copy of the extremely rare original, or even a scan of it, but I am in possession of an annotated modern reprint. From this reprint I am able to contribute text (omitting the annotations), but I cannot contribute page scans without violating copyright. Will I be banned from contributing this material? Hesperian 00:17, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hesperian hit my target. That's actually my main objection to the German way. As long as a good edition is avalaible through "offline libraries" or as long as private scans are privately exchangable between users (sshhhh!), and as long as the "raw" ancient text on a modern edition is Public Domain we shouldn't deny ourselves this chance to have good texts form modern editions. But here is the right international place to discuss different policies between French, German, English and Italian users: how has this issue been addressed on de.source? Was there a legal threat about modern transcription of ancient texts? Was it only a matter of online avaliability? - εΔω 08:17, 8 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Hesperian: IMHO scans had to be preferred, but also not-scanned text should be permitted. --Accurimbono (disp) 10:43, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmina Burana[recensere]

The w:Carmina Burana is public domain, however many of these pages have Scriptor:Carl Orff as the author instead of the accepted authors, such as Scriptor:Archpoet. Also, mentioning Orff gives readers the wrong idea about copyright.

There are some pagescans in commons:Category:Carmina Burana manuscript, with a more complete set of text here. Sadly I cant find a complete set of pagescans. Can anyone else find them? Surely they have been printed many times since in books. I have found one book in German about the compiler, Schmeller, which might mention printed editions. John Vandenberg 15:04, 7 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Would anyone be upset if I ran ZSBot as an interwiki bot on this wiki? It's under the pywikipedia framework, and would only be used as an interwiki bot. --Zhaladshar 14:22, 9 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There have been a number of "problems" that have been identified in the past with interwiki bots on Wikisource, such as linking editions of the Bible where the links should only go in one direction (i.e. toward the original languages, rather than across between unrelated translations). I presume it can easily be avoided initially by pointing the interwiki bot at pages which the operator knows need linking, but if the bot runs unattended without end, will it eventually find the Bible and repeat the same error? I dont mind if the bots make mistakes, provided the bots don't continue make the same mistake many times. Has this been addressed at all? (a blacklist might help?) John Vandenberg 03:51, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This should be addressed. In running ZSBot on en.source I've come across this problem. I never let the bot make changes without approval, and I often just skip the Bible sections because it's one sloppy mess. I would love to see the script changed for WS so that this problem no longer is one, but for the time being, I have it skip over all Bible pages on en.source (and I can easily find the Latin Bible pages and put that on a skipfile, as well).Zhaladshar 15:46, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • +1: flag that bot! (and if Zhaladsar is so kind to let it run also on it.source We'll be glad). - εΔω 15:05, 9 Iulii 2008 (UTC)
  • +1 OK, first of all, please create user-bot: Usor:ZSbot (was ZSBot), than after a week, if no one oppose, I'll be glad and proud to have an interwikibot in la.source! Thanks! --Accurimbono (disp) 10:54, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, it's Usor:ZSBot, which I created last month. :) I've since linked to the bot account to avoid confusion.Zhaladshar 15:50, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK! I mispelled the name. Sorry! :-) I'm going to flag it! :-) Thanks! --Accurimbono (disp) 11:59, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. John Vandenberg 03:51, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Flagged! Specialis:Acta/makebot --Accurimbono (disp) 12:03, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Formula monitoria[recensere]

I'm preparing in my sandbox an alert for unsourced new texts.

I'd like to have some feedback about this (still) unwritten rule (see here):

providing a source for a new text is the uploader's duty, not necessarily ours

There's room for common sense, as long as a contributor is reachable with an alert box, or if a text is particularly precious or easily traceable, but these two last are exceptions, not the rule.

I'm going to import the Alert message box system from Pedia to standardize the look of our templates. In the meantime I'll set up some template to warn newbies or vandals.

The next stage is a deep scrutiny in order to set up a page of unsourced text. Any help about this page (which should work as a deletion request to have discussions centered there) is welcome.

If time lets me go on, I'm working on interface messages too. I have and la.source message window tabs to make the appropriate confrontation, and I hope to be helped by some friends of mine. - εΔω 18:04, 10 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

While you are working on interface messages, please also look at these: [2] translatewiki is where all translations should go, and then the strings will be incorporated into the next software release. John Vandenberg 04:43, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that a message like this should be integrated into {{Salve}}, which we should provide in the four main languages. I have started Formula:Salve/en. John Vandenberg 05:02, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Making suggestions[recensere]

How can I suggest a missing text? Here it is: Solomonis et Marculphi dialogus (Late medieval moral work) —Preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 17:17, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for interesting in latin Wikisource. Have you got a source, better if a scanned source, about this text?
If you link a source, we can easily insert the text.
Thank you. --Accurimbono (disp) 10:54, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]


I have been informed on my talk page (Disputatio_Usoris:Jayvdb#Bot_needed) that on it.wikisource and also here at la.wikisource , the discussion page for subpages are being created. I strongly doubt the usefulness of creating discussion pages except for the main page, but they also dont do any harm.

On en.wikisource, we require that subpages are named as "<work>/<subpage>" however this doesn't appear to be often done here on la.wikisource; " - " is used instead of "/". Is there a naming convention document? If not, can we create one. John Vandenberg 04:40, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dear John, I strongly encourage the use of talk pages for Formula:operisInfo. Let me explain: Talk pages on it.source are used to let the reader know the source of a text (and particularly when a text is divided into subpages). That's the best advertisement for the verifiability of a text - and I don't understand why on en and fr.source this is so underestimated: let me take some random texts form en.source to be more explicit:
  • British North America (No. 2) Act, I have information about its copytight status, but no trace of its source: if I were Canadian or English should I automatically know where this text come from? And being neither Canadian nor English, I haven't got a clue about it.
  • On his Consulship, this envolves us, since it's linked to a la.source text. Where does it come from? I had to go through --> Cicero's Poetry, with no result... then to the link to On divination 1.11-13 --> On divination and eventually --> Talk:On Divination. How many users are concerned about verifiability? Many many many. How many of them are ready to tread such a heuristic path to have an answer before going elsewhere grunting against us? mmmm.... How many of them would be satisfied by a single click on a talk page (renamed "source" with a ad-hoc template) of every text they stumble upon in Wikisource? All of them,
  • en:Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series I/Volume III/Moral Treatises of St. Augustin/Of Holy Virginity/Section 27: a sub sub sub sub page. Presuming that it comes form the same source from which all the other subpages come (and having to do with multiple contributors or texts begun by a user and completed by another one it shouldn't be so commonplace), I'll have to navigate to the main/index page which - luckily - has its textinfo template. Well, on it.source no page should be without textinfo, and in subpages we recall the main textinfo through transclusion. Having every page tagged with its source info, (using a bot for subpages if needed), Setting up an Bot generated Alphabetical list makes the search for unsourced texts a very simple task.
If this doesn't give a fair account of usefulness I need to understand if suche de.source - it.source policies are a wasted effort.
  • On de. source information is shown directly on the same page with the text: good but aesthetically invasive. I find desirable - if not necessary - making every text page (be it an index or a sub-page) pointing to its source. As for naming convention I put the question in Accurimbono's hands, who told me to use opus - titulus subapginae. I'd prefer the "slash method" in perspective (if one day we'd decide to have virtual directories in the main namespace it would be an advantage), but I'm not the main contributor here, so let's read some more sententiae. - εΔω 08:39, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

  1. Subpage talk: A transclusion of the principal talk page, with a simple link in the talk page, can give an important information about the source to the reader. IMHO I think is very easy and useful, anyway an example is better than words: Aeneis.
  2. "-" vs "/": At the moment there is a not-written rule for use "-" to separate the subpage, but I think should be better to use the "/" as all the others wikisources. The problem is that a lot of text use "-" and move them (and all link) is not simple, we can use the "/" only for the new texta. For the other old texts we can move them in the future. The naming convention is to be created.
I'm going to make a page for guideline and another for talk about them.
--Accurimbono (disp) 09:57, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I used Aeneis to test the propose naming convention to use "/" instead of "-", and to use the transclusion link in the subpage talk (like this Disputatio:Aeneis/Liber I) As you can see the link is very simple, and the source information come from the same single template in the principal talk page.
--Accurimbono (disp) 10:20, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So would collections of poetry, where individual poems now stand on their own pages, work the same way? I append some probable examples for confirmation: Amores/Amores 1.6, Carmina (Catullus)/Catullus 1, and Hendecasyllaborum seu Baiarum libri duo/Puellas alloquitur admonens quid servare in balneis debeant. Aramgar 18:48, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think subpage notation should move to the "/" notation. This has very great benefits (such as ease of linking between different subpages of the same work) and helps to better "tie" works together. My philosophy on poems is generally not to put them in subpages of a "larger" work unless the poems are so related to each other that they would not make sense if one "picked and chose" some poems at random. I would say if the Amores are not thematically linked in this way, then there would be no need for making them subpages.Zhaladshar 21:30, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Collections of poetry: In it.source we have solved this problem in that way: if we have (example) a "Collection" made by "Poem-1", "Poem-2", "Poem-3", etc... The poems go under the subpage: [[Collection/Poem-1]], [[Collection/Poem-2]], [[Collection/Poem-3]], etc... and (if title is well-known) in the page [[Poem-1]] we insert a redirect to the page [[collection/poem1]]. In that way we have the poems under subpages, so it's simple to manage the different poem that belong to the collection, and it's also easy for the user who search a single poem to reach the page with the text. --Accurimbono (disp) 12:33, 13 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that discussion pages need not be created for subpages, except for the case where different subpages have distinct provenance e.g. the page scans for different volumes of the same work came from different places; in which case these subpages will need individual operisInfo templates. Hesperian 00:00, 14 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and I also agree that subpage notation should move to the slash notation, per Zhaladshar. Hesperian 00:01, 14 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am glad everyone is happy to use "/", as I've built a tool for that groups subpages based on "/". Here is the same tool to work for [3]. I have quickly moved a number of subpages, and right now we have "2396" pages being identified as a work, but many of those need to be grouped together.

Also, to anyone moving pages, please do not delete the old page immediately, as other people on the Internet will be linking to the old page names, and Google will be scoring the pages based on the old URL. If the redirects are deleted, man and googlebot become confused. John Vandenberg 11:27, 16 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Update: 2220 works. John Vandenberg 23:56, 16 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 2142 works. John Vandenberg 16:55, 18 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 2093 works. John Vandenberg 09:36, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 2003 works. John Vandenberg 07:52, 21 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 1720 works. --LaosLos 20:41, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 1386 works. --LaosLos 17:02, 11 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Update: 1303 works. --John Vandenberg 00:37, 6 Septembris 2008 (UTC)[reply]


A great number of talk about guidelines are in progress. I create a page to summarize the talks and the decisions.

I hope anyone would improve those guidelines pages. --Accurimbono (disp) 12:32, 12 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Could any admin modify one line in Common.css code, please?[recensere]


In order to view the contents in the namespace Pagina (ns-104) properly, the body.ns-104 class in the Common.css file should be modified deleting the width: 33em; line, or replacing it for width: 100%;.

Could any admin correct it, please?

Thank you

--LaosLos 11:42, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Done!, Thank you. --Accurimbono (disp) 13:57, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much :) --LaosLos 14:00, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It don't seem to work... --Accurimbono (disp) 14:04, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to RB. --Accurimbono (disp) 14:05, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No revert please, it works, but the changes in Common.css sometimes have not immediate effects.--LaosLos 14:07, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I deleted the line! Now it's OK! --Accurimbono (disp) 14:09, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you :) --LaosLos 14:10, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Categoria:Precationes christianae -> 1 "ws book" Precationes christianae?[recensere]


what do you think about joining the Precationes christianae in one ws book (Precationes christianae/Actus caritatis, etc.)?

Actually, I don't know if such a book exists, but it seems rather strange to me that all these short pieces of text are treated as independent opus when, in fact, they are all connected by the same topic and use.

--LaosLos 22:52, 20 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont have strong feelings on this ... I think they should be kept separate as individual pages for the moment. There will be volumes which contain some or all of these, and when we add those pagescans, these can be migrated into collections that were published as such. John Vandenberg 13:27, 21 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. If the book doesn't exist there is any reason to create a ws book.
  2. Most of the prayers come from Compendio Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica (a big official text that have a little appendix with those prayers) that is under copyright, but the single old prayers are in PD because of the age.
So these short pieces of text are very very different for origin, age and history: they are indipendent texts.
Hi, --Accurimbono (disp) 08:06, 22 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's very important to have each text linked to its single source, and since Compendio Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica can't be transcribed here it's impossible to see them as a whole corpus. On the other hand nothing stops us if you want to build a wikiliber with a collection of prayers from ws o be arranged and commented as you like: that project is perfect for this practice. - εΔω 13:31, 22 Iulii 2008 (UTC)

  • Ok, I agree with John: we can wait until finding a book that has them.
  • But, in fact, Accurimbono has just said that the book exists: Compendio Catechismo della Chiesa Cattolica. And this book is exactly in the same situation as the Bible:
    • all the recent Bibles are under copyright, for example the Biblia Sacra Vulgata (Stuttgartensia) (1st ed. in 1969), but the texts inside are in PD except for the prefaces, etc.: we can publish the text referring the Old and New Testaments but not the pagescans or the prefaces, notes, etc.
    • the texts from the Bible are very very different for origin, age and history: they are independent texts (compiled by the Church), but the Bible is the book.
  • So I think that we have the book. And if the book exists, it seems that there is no reason for not creating a ws book.
  • In fact, all the religious texts has the same problem: they are usually short, independent texts compiled by some institution. But I'm not going to make a philosophical digress, or to create a dilemma. I was only thinking about the text organization on, that's all. If you still think that the texts are better published as independent texts rather than as a book, it's ok for me :) . --LaosLos 13:44, 22 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"And if the book exists, it seems that there is no reason for not creating a ws book."
The reason is that the book (Compendio CCC) is copyrighted. --Accurimbono (disp) 09:51, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also the text of the Bible are often copyrighted because they are critical edition, and not simple transcription. We can transcribe here online when the copyright has expired. Anyway they are 2 different situation: in CCCC prayers are in a little appendix and they are a 2% of the whole book. --Accurimbono (disp) 10:02, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

De Trinitate needs to be fixed[recensere]

I'm a grad student currently doing an Independent Readings course in Augustine's "De Trinitate." In the course of my work, I discovered that the text for Book IV posted for that work ( is actually the Latin text for Book IV of "De Civitate Dei." I was thinking that perhaps the links for Book IV of "De Trinitate" and Book IV of "De Civitate Dei" got crossed somehow. Upon finding the Latin text for "De Civitate Dei" however, I saw that only Books I through III are online as of yet. What happened to Book IV of "De Trinitate"? Does anybody know?

Anyone can contact me at My name is Adam.

Hi Adam!
You're right! Thank you very much, this text was inserted long time ago and needs a deep proofreading. I just replaced the text with the right text taken from TheLatinLibrary. But all the books shall be proofreaded.
Please, if you want, log in and help us with this project. Thank you very much! --Accurimbono (disp) 19:19, 24 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Carmina (Horatius) I, I and Carmina (Horatius) I, III[recensere]


These texts are protected and I cannot rename them and update the links. Could any admin rename the texts:

and update the links inside, please?

Thank you

--LaosLos 17:44, 26 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Aramgar :) --LaosLos 15:08, 27 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]


We have some copyright problem with this page.

The owner of this site believe that we had steal the text by his site..... I need some information about the real origin of the text, becouse i have to answer him by Otrs-Legal.


--Senpai 08:13, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's very difficult to know the real origin of the text because the user "Personne/Marc" is not on Wikipedia anymore.
  • But making a comparison of the two texts, they are identical except for the reference numbers.
  • Making a search of the first words on Google, it seems that there is no other possible source for this text (in fact, the Sant'Agostino web doesn't appear either).
  • Reading the copyright info from Sant'Agostino web
Copyright note:
All the texts and the images of this web site are protected by the copyright laws and are property of Città Nuova Editrice and Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana that will proceed against unauthorized use. It is permitted to use images and texts from this site only for personal and private purposes. Partial or total distribution of the content of this site is not allowed in any way by any media (prints, copies to disks, etc. are not allowed); it is not allowed to copy the content of this web site to other web sites or to other media.
Sant'Agostino web
it seems that there exists a copyright abuse on a text that is in the Public Domain. They can copyright all the site and establish property on all the stuff created by them, but not on texts in PD, even when they have transcribed the text from a paper edition (they have not created the text, and the references added by them are not in Vicifons).
  • Anyway, we could be polite indicating the digital source of this text (but we are not obligated) even when, actually, we don't know if they are the source.

--LaosLos 10:17, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The copyright internation law (Berna Convention and internal states laws) establishes that the layout of the text is eligible in the copyright.... the Città Nuova Editrice and Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana thinks that the layout of our text are the same of their text.--Senpai 10:30, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

1. The text is available from [4]. This could be mentioned as the source. In addition, this looks like an exact copy of, so i even wonder if they have copied it from there. 2. Reading their copyright notice, it seems that has a very poor understanding of copyright matters, and of the web in general. Yann 10:55, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have searched for a facsimile edition of the text in order to see the original layout: Google Books and it seems that it is a classical layout (numbering 1. 1. instead of 1. [1] is not sufficient for a layout copyright, but we can change that, no problem :) ). --LaosLos 10:59, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can not find this ticket; maybe because it is the legal queue. If it is a legal matter, then it needs to be handled by a lawyer. If it is not a legal matter, they could advise us which copyright it is that we are infringing, and explain why they believe they have a new copyright in the text on that webpage. We are not copying the layout of their website. We have the same PD text in different layouts. As far as I can see, we are certainly not infringing the copyright on their edition of this text, as their layout is unoriginal, and our layout is unoriginal. Neither them nor Wikisource is doing artistic work in the presentation of the text. If they can convince the foundation lawyer that they own copyright over this, we will respond. John Vandenberg 11:12, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is a Legal matter.... I'm one of the responsable of otrs-legal-it. I think the best solution is to find another source for this text. The recrimination is not only about "numbering 1. 1.":
  1. numbering
  2. each paragraph have the indication of the chapter;
  3. they used a variation of Migne's Text confronted with CSEL's text;
  4. when Migne use point and virgola and capitol letter, they use two points and small letter...
  5. some u have been replaced with v.
Senpai 14:38, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are only three sources for this text (the links point to the copyrighted texts except for the CSEL edition):

  1. The Migne Edition (Vol. 40, 1844-1855): no available facsimiles and copyrighted(!) by the Cooperatorum Veritatis Societas.
  2. The CSEL Edition (Vol. 41, ed. J. Zycha 1900): no available facsimiles, only a reference on Google Books.
  3. The polemical edition we have here: no available facsimiles and copyrighted(!!) twice: by the Cooperatorum Veritatis Societas and by the Città Nuova Editrice & Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana (both have copyrighted the very same text, with exactly the same layout: the two points and small letter after, the u replaced with v in the same words, the indication of the chapter and the numbering; and neither of them specifies a source for the edition).

I think we have only one solution: we are going to change the way the chapter and numbering are indicated and we'll have got the Wikisource edition (no changes for the rest as in Vicifons the majority of the texts are typographic/orthographically modernized, and the bilingual la-ca facsimile I have linked above has the same typographical conventions, except for the v). Maybe some day we will have a complete facsimile edition. --LaosLos 17:38, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a free-as-in-freedom available edition for us, we'll going use it, otherwise we'll must delete the text.
The best thing is to find a PD book, scan it, use the Proofread page extension to transcribe it.
Anyway this matter show us that we need to have a template+category for texts with no-source, for fix them.
Thanks to anyone for the talk. --Accurimbono (disp) 19:26, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How this text could be copyrighted? Either it is the original text from Augustinus and it is free, or it is not and we don't want it. We don't want the layout anyway, so even if some web site copyrighted the layout, it is not a problem for us. Yann 22:01, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I agree: I don't say that the text is copyrighted, but if we have a text with a copyrighted layout we have a problem. Only after the copyrighted layout will be replaced/changed (and is not so simple, as you can see from the list by Senpai), the problem will disappear. --Accurimbono (disp) 15:18, 29 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Serching for real book in italian biblios I found some book: search here "Contra mendacium" --Accurimbono (disp) 19:30, 28 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think the best solution is to substitute the text with a text scanned from a real book..... I'll not answer to the mail of "Città Nuova Editrice & Nuova Biblioteca Agostiniana" but i think we must remove the actual version of the text.--Senpai 08:16, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It's ok, I have found an exact transcription from the CSEL edition: the Google Book I have linked above is available at the Universitat de Barcelona Library (I have the book at home now, until 11th August ;) ).

This book has an exact transcription of the text from the CSEL Vol. 41 (J. Zycha, 1900), p. 469-528:

c. mend. [...] L'edició que emprem directament és la ja citada de J. Zycha, al CSEL 41, Vindobonae 1900, ps. 469-528.
Consenci, Correspondència amb Sant Agustí (J. Amengual, Barcelona:1991) Vol. 2, page 39.
c. mend. [...] The edition which we are directly using is the cited from J. Zycha, in the CSEL 41, Vindobonae 1900, pages 469-528.
English translation by me (my English is not very good, anyway).

I'm goint to put this very text on the wikisource and the supposed copyright problem is finished.

--LaosLos 11:13, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Very very good!!! --Accurimbono (disp) 15:20, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Great ! --Senpai 15:55, 30 Iulii 2008 (UTC)[reply]

babel system[recensere]

Orbilius omnibus s.d.

I'm ending a long experiment on it.source to get prepared to set up a local babel system. While waiting for an unwritten future I looked at the present and i found the system currently used on meta convincing, scalable, and rational, while it can't be said the same for the one used in commons (three templates for a box and still many many templates for single proficiency levels). Before Beginning any work I'd like to describe what the system is made of:

  • some css classes on mediawiki:common.css (one for each proficiency level) managing colours, dimensions and general appearancof the boxes
  • one template for the box, managing texts and categorization, and allowing many optional custmizations.
  • one template subpage for each language, where a parser function defines the wording for every proficiency level. --> here the list.

So the complete load is: one template and as many subtemplates as the language currently used. Nothing more. Enough with myriads of scattered pseudoindependent boxes.

Everything is already available on meta to import. All I had to do on it.source (and I'd like to do here) was

  • Translate the complimentary phrases (user, missing category etc.); I translated also all parameter names, but in this multilingual environment it could be discussed.
  • adapt the colours and the shape of the box to the former italian use. This also can be chosen by discussion. (You can watch a preview here)

If you want to see them: Template:Utente vs m:template:User language. to see them in action have a look here and here

On it.source there was the preexistent old babelbox system to adapt, and that is still a problem, but here we have almost a tabula rasa so everything should be painless.

I feel an urge to have this work done, since there's no native Latine loquens usor here, and it's important to foster any help for multilingual coordination.

Let's give way to reflections... - εΔω 19:01, 7 Augusti 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer to wait until meta:Babel extension has been accepted or rejected. John Vandenberg 01:49, 8 Augusti 2008 (UTC)[reply]