Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

That's not goals for the end of fiscal years, but driving target, just like having a list of articles every Wikipedia should have. :) Le 11/04/2017 à 16:36, ankry.wiki a écrit : W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON napisał: 2017-04-11 13:17

Re: [Wikisource-l] Creating family tree chart while proof reading

If you want to use structured html, a nested list (…) are probably what makes more sense in term of semantic for a tree. You'll need some CSS to make it looks like a tree, but you can easily find ready made example like http://thecodeplayer.com/walkthrough/css3-family-tree The only

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

2017-04-11 16:36 GMT+02:00 ankry.wiki : > W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON < > vigneron.nico...@gmail.com> napisał: > > > 2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner : > > > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

W dniu 2017-04-11 14:06:02 użytkownik Nicolas VIGNERON napisał: > 2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner : > > > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki wrote: > >> > >> I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD

Re: [Wikisource-l] Creating family tree chart while proof reading

Look at it as a table, with borders for some cell. It.wikisource uses a Template:Cs (calling a Module:Cs ), that makes easy to add specific borders to individual cells. A little bit of colspan and rowspan, and

[Wikisource-l] Creating family tree chart while proof reading

Hi all, There is one particular book I am proof reading in Tamil language. There is a page which has a family tree chart. How to proof read that. The page I am talking about can be found here https://ta.wikisource.org/s/938 . In the current format if downloaded as epub of rtf etc., the

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

2017-04-11 13:17 GMT+02:00 David Starner : > > On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 2:46 AM ankry.wiki wrote: >> >> I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD translations into each Wikisource language, including Latin and Sanskrit. >> It would be hard to find 10. Mostly

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

Yes I agree - totally wonderful. And there are more ways to make a more meaningful query out of this (In Dutch #1 is Barbapapa and in English the Simpsons take 1st place), by either specifying it can'be a film, or just filtering for inception date before 1970 On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 12:51 PM,

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

Hoi, Classification as we have it is a wonder. It is there and it cannot be explained. It does serve a purpose though. Thanks, GerardM On 11 April 2017 at 12:44, Jane Darnell wrote: > Interesting query, thanks! How odd that "sitcom" is a subclass of > "literary work"! I

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

The 500 most important (as in, number of Wiki sitelinks) literary works that are (at least partially) in "original language" German, according to Wikidata: http://tinyurl.com/mzhd8na "The Big Bang Theory" item might need some review, but the rest look good... Just change the Q188 and the language

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

In it.source we made a similar Canon: https://it.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Canone_delle_opere_della_letteratura_italiana Ideally, we should have an item (a "work" item, so basically the one with a Wikipedia article) on Wikidata for each one. Than we can count how many Wikipedias have an

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

I doubt we can find 1000 works with PD translations into each Wikisource language, including Latin and Sanskrit. It would be hard to find 10. Mostly ancient. Unlike Wikipedia, we present content that has already been created by somebody. We are not creating that ourselves. (except few ws

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

A maybe simpler metric: the top 1000 Wikipedia articles about works per page view. Thomas > Le 11 avr. 2017 à 09:42, mathieu stumpf guntz > a écrit : > > Hi Nemo, > > We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should have" > (with

Re: [Wikisource-l] Wikimedia Strategy

Hi Nemo, We may establish a list a the "1000 works that every Wikisource should have" (with translation possibly needed). What metric could we use to define such a list? Maybe reference frequency, but it requires statistics whose availability is unknown to me. Statistically, psychoslave