“ I think we need input from someone who understands HTML design. We want to make sure Google can find our pages. Maybe it would be possible to imbed data from the {{Author:Template}} in the HTML page in such a way that it would not be visible to a human user but would be to a search engine. If I remember correctly there was a way to imbed data in a header that old time web crawlers looked at even when they didn't look at very much else in a page. If some one has a personal Wiki maybe they to do some experiments to see how the Wiki search engine would do. ”

“ WP commonly provides links to every website that contains a given work but WS. Why should someone looking for this material prefer to find it on Wikisource than any other web site? I have no idea. How can this material be organized so that it is an asset to the website, rather than a dumping ground? As per Pathoschild's response, it would take a dedicated community of knowledgable people, which we currently lack. Who is willing to organize, verify, and patrol this material and which kind are you willing to take on? A very dedicated group of people, which we currently lack. ”

“ They require a large community to maintain and update, are better cared for by dedicated websites such as Planet source code, and are not source texts. By their nature, they are either so simple that they are useless, or so complex that it is better to use code from a site with experienced programmers to verify it. Reference data is outside Wikisource's scope, does not contribute to our mission as a free library, and as Zhaladshar stated: "Wikisource should keep itself at a high level of integrity and not automatically take what our sister projects reject. ”

“ I don't think Wikisource need to be everything to everyone. Wikisource can't make everyone happy. I'll get off my soapbox now. --Droll 03:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC) WS would be terrible if it was everything to everyone. There would not be a point to any of the other sister projects if that were the case. We need to have a clear-cut description of what we are and what we take. Wikimedia need not have a project that stores everything a person can think of under the sun—it would no longer be able to focus on the best aspects and make them as good as it humanly can. ”

“ I know I'm skipping over a lot of other categories (like source code—but I don't want to bring that discussion up; someone else can do it) , but these are the most commonly seen here. Basically, even though there is some value to the data as a whole, they do not fit with our mission of collecting source texts. They should not be kept here—we simply just do not collect this kind of information. ”

“ Concerning the example of the Robert Service debate, it would be easily solved by using his full birth name ( [ [Author:Robert William Service] ] ) , and redirecting alternatives to that. It's not at all necessary for page names to be short or easy to type in; longer names will be easier to find in search engine results, in the MediaWiki search feature, and redirect pages can easily be created for common names that users will type in.
As I've said above, I'm very willing to draft a global, one-page naming convention with community input that would cover all possibilities, not individual cases. ”

“ I'd very much like to explore the feasability of global guidelines that can be applied to any author, regardless of social status or era. Such a system is vastly simpler and much easier to understand for both the reader and the users expected to implement it. I'll draft a proposal for community input in the next few days, to see if such a system can work. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 18:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC) oppose : I think the best way to refer to an author is to use his most common name, because it is the most natural way to find him. ”

“ Because of this current state of affairs there have been nominations for deletion for some of this data. However I feel we need discuss the larger questions of the place of reference material on Wikisource before we make any deletions. Some of this material may have more value than others. If we do decide to exclude certain things, there still may be a place for other material. I would like to approach this question differently from the past. Let us first try and figure out what kinds of material we want to include in Wikisource, and then work at separating out what doesn't belong here. ”

“ What I meant to say was that at one time the works of Shakespeare where dumped into the Source project from Wikipedia. Just because no other Sister Project wants something doesn't necessarily mean it does not fit our goals. That said I do not have any better answers to my own questions than you do. I am asking them because there were people who felt strongly that this data was important and I want to understand why. ”

“ One obvious problem is finding out everyone's birthname, for example early Monarchs & Popes. This info isn't widely known & it would be a major job to find it out. Also it would necessitate a lot of disambiguation pages (eg 7 James Stuart's for the people who became James I- VII of Scotland (assuming they have no middle names (I don't know, it's hard to find out for sure) & they all wrote something - they didn't but it's a general example) ) . ”

“ The British Library, at least as authoratative a source, lists the poet as Service, Robert, 1874-1958 and the historian as Service, Robert, 1947- so I'd say that how different catalogues classify them isn't really relevant. We should find the best way for wikipedia/wikisource without necessarily following any other usage (save the most common usage) . I would suggest moving RWS to Robert Service (poet) & making the Robert Service page a disambiguation page or just redirecting to RS (Poet) , which I think is likely to be the most searched for, & having adisambig line at the top of the article. ”

“ Exclude.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:42, 11 April 2006 (UTC) Exclude, except where the data is referenced specifically within a literary or scienfic text that has a purpose beyond merely serving source data. All texts should contain ideas, analysis or synthesis or something likewise human, which a pure reference work does not have. The same thing applies to source code. If we host source code we may as well host paintings, but a published work about either of these things is a different story and is appropriate for wikisource. ”

“ A logo is representative of something specific. The Wikisource logo is specifically representative of the Wikisource project, a public domain library. The Wikisource News logo is specifically representative of the community news project, a collection of news stories. ”

“ You can see what I collected for yourself at w:User:Pathoschild/Sandbox4.
We should strive to keep our standards as broad and simple as possible. Specific guidelines are not sustainable, as there are far too many specific things that can be individually treated. I suggest that if we cannot fit our entire present and future pagename guidelines on a single page, it is too large. Looking into the future, do you believe that this type of specific guideline will not lead to the prodigiously collossal phenomenon that has taken root at Wikipedia? ”

“ Rewrite Noarticletext message I've sandboxed a rewritten version of the Noarticletext message (User:Pathoschild/Sandbox4) . The new version is much smaller, more useable, and adds several relevant links such as a search of the deletion log, Help:Adding texts, and our inclusion guidelines.
Changes Much less verbose. Explanation has been reduced on the assumption that most users don't care why purging works. Changed paragraph to short point form. Removed links to search Wiktionary and Commons, added a link to Template:Sisterprojects. ”

“ That leads to the problem Wikipedia experiences. We should not depend on staying a small project forever in the hopes of avoiding the problems of bigger projects altogether; if you look at the Scriptorium archives, you'll see that activity is increasing very rapidly.
Where it is impossible to determine an author's birth name, they could exceptionally be under their common name. Disambiguating pages isn't a problem, as users won't be typing in their real name to find them. Let us say a user types in [ [Author:Saki] ] ”

“ I'm a child of the 80s & I grew up thinking Europe stopped at Germany full stop, other people in different countries will have different ideas of where the borders of regions lie, I'm sure many Eastern Europeans will consider themselves Western Europeans now they're in the EU & not the Soviet Empire. ”

“ When we list them on the Author pages, we can go ahead and put their title, but there's no need to display it on the actual author page itself.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC) I am unsure about this. What exactly is considered a title? For example, do we take away "the Great" from Alfred. If we do what do we call him instead? I recently learned of problems with Wikipedia's naming convetion regarding royalty. Even though I have used their article titles as guide in the past, I feel we should be cautious when they regard nobles. ”

“ I'd like to seek a consensus on whether we should use this image for Wikisource News. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 09:17, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the selection of a news logo needs to be as rigorous as the actual Wikisource project logo. If it is attractive, has some sort of symbolic meaning, and people like actually like it, then why not? Personally I think this one is absolutely fine. If it turns out that a number of other people agree with Yann, then selecting a different alternative shouldn't be that hard either. We now have lots of options at our disposal... ”

“ A system would need to be developed for naming national anthem pages; it's kind of malproductive to have to find the name of a country's national anthem before searching for it. Foxjwill 01:50, 2 April 2006 (UTC) The problem with arranging the anthems geographically is that many people have poor geographic skills (I know mine isn't really up to snuff) . People might know what continent a country is on, but the region seems a bit more iffy. ”

“ I think everyone agrees if we put some work up on Wikisource the tables in the appendices are allowed. We are just excluding them without the larger work. --BirgitteSB 11:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC) I think the discussion has resulted in a fairly obvious preference for exclusion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 11:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Standardised process header I propose a standardised header template for pages in the Wikisource namespace. To that end, I've created {{process header}} and experimentally converted Wikisource:Possible copyright violations to the template. ”

“ The same holds true for WS. Hosting everything under the sun just because it has words or might be valuable to some person somewhere who must use mathematical tables is not a good reason to accept it. ”

“ I apologize, Birgitte—it's been a long day, and my brain is overall fried. What is it you would like to exactly add to the Style Guide? I'm not opposed to adding anything, but I'd just like to know what amendment we'd make.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 22:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC) At Wikisource:Style guide#Title formats, I would to add 7. Author pages should be titled according to the most common English name, with alternate formats as redirects.--BirgitteSB 02:33, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
If the "most common English name" policy is accepted how is the most common English name determined. ”

“ Birgitte we should be wary of using the Google test at any times but here I wouldn't consider it relevant as most foreign (non-Vatican) news orgs are unlikely to be precise or consistent in their usage of his title, & whether they use the word Pope in the headline or not isn't really relevant. AllanHainey 12:15, 27 March 2006 (UTC) That sounds good to me regarding the Popes. I will say this about some of Wikipedia's naming conventions. The ones I dislike are the ones that value internal consistancy over common sense. ”

“ I consulted user:Zhaladshar before hand. I also updated well over 150 poems to reflect the change while I was changing them to {{header}} format and doing other minor corrections. It seems to me that our difference in opinion arises because of our personal points of view. In the long run what we think should not be the deciding factor. The issue is not isolated to this one author as you imply. I appears to me that it would be best in the long run to have an external standard such as either the LOC or The British Library or some other source such as the Encyclopædia Britannica. ”

“ The problem proposed rules is they are never ending. We will next need to deal with Chinese emperors which will not work by using the European system. Then we come across the descendents of desposed Eastern European nobility, etc. The drawback with common usage is that in some cases it has to be determined. Which requires finding critical texts and how they describe the author, but I think that is a small hurdle.--BirgitteSB 02:09, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
(After Edit Conflict) Comment - In the majority of cases in 2 this will be common usage, for the few cases where it isn't & common usage is ... ”

“ The conversion will require heavy use of conditional programming to correctly translate the parameters into prose, since the sentence structure varies depending on which information is provided. Before I begin that task, I'd like some community input on what the conversion will look like. Following is what the {{title page}} on Crime and Punishment will look like if converted now. ”