All this is way more complex than what we have at he.wikisource. We only link the main ns0 page of a work, and usually we have only one edition of it. We don't use the index NS much, (since most of our books are either manually typed-in or OCRed privately and the text uploaded, either before or after having been proofread. If not proofread, we add a template).
This is the way our veteran users have gotten used to run things. I guess it drives would-be newcomers away. But we've been experimenting with a few works done with the Index:/Page: interface and it seems even more confusing to newcomers who don't know how to create a book from the proofread pages and see an accomplished result for their efforts. On Sat, May 21, 2016 at 12:53 PM, Nicolas VIGNERON < [email protected]> wrote: > > > 2016-05-21 11:50 GMT+02:00 Andrea Zanni <[email protected]>: > >> Thanks Tpt for the quick response. >> >> I feel that that is the situation for most Wikisources: the problem is >> that it's a static model, and not a procedure. >> > > Exactly what I tried to say : the problem is practical not theorical. > > >> For example: >> I put a new book in my Wikisource, what should I do? >> * check if is a new edition of a book in WS >> if not >> * check if there is already an item on WD >> ** if so, check if is work or edition >> ** if edition --> ok, link it >> ** if work, create edition, then link it >> >> Workflows like this, I think, are not in place. >> We would need a WikidataWizard :-D >> > > \o/ we definitely need that ! > Who could build such a WonderfulWikidataWizard ? > > Cdlt, ~nicolas > > _______________________________________________ > Wikisource-l mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l > >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
