Requests for new languages/Wikisource Esperanto

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Esperanto Wikisource[edit]

main page Requests for new languages (Wikisource Esperanto)
submitted verification final decision
Application-certificate.svg This proposal has been approved.
The Board of Trustees and language committee have deemed that there is sufficient grounds and community to create the new language project.
Proposal summary

Prosfilaes
Blahma
(EO, IT) → Airon
Frglz
Petrus Adamus

Please read the handbook for requesters for help using this template correctly.

The test project has over 550 texts and interested editors (some already registered). The Esperanto Wikipedia has more than 120,000 articles and is one of the 25 biggest project in number of articles. The specific subdomain would make more easier to link the sources and the Wikipedia articles, and it would help to integrate the two projects, and also the other Esperanto projects (we already have specifics Wikctionary, Wikiquote, and Wikibooks). Since the begining of 20th century, many important texts, which are now in public domain, has been translated to Esperanto, and many others has been written in the Universal Language. The Project Gutenberg lists more than 120 Esperanto books, and there are other specific projects that contains free texts in this language, but this descentralisation difficults the improvement of the Esperanto projects, which uses them as their bibliographies. Even the translation of some content from other languages projects could be improved by more Esperanto related sources. CasteloBrancomsg 10:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)


Arguments in favour[edit]

  • Esperanto has a very large literature, of original works in Esperanto as well as of translations into Esperanto. I give my strong support to the creation of an Esperanto Wikisource. Evertype 12:08, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
  • I've been translating Esperanto for the English Wikisource (en:s:The Last Kiss, for example); I would love to have an Esperanto Wikisource properly interwikied in with those pages.--Prosfilaes 19:53, 5 January 2010 (UTC)
  • Myself and friends of mine have already started or are willing to start uploading digitized documents to Wikisource, yet the difficulties of the test project and the impossibility to link properly to such documents from within the Esperanto Wikipedia hinder these efforts. In the meantime, some use Wikibooks and do not think about Wikisource, yet this should not be the case. I am strongly in favor of an Esperanto Wikisource. Blahma 23:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
  • There's so much documents in Esperanto. I think that Esperanto should have a separated wiki. --→ Airon 20:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment Comment I'm quite glad if a new wikisource takes off. But as far as Esperanto is concerned I'm a little wary about copyright issues: Esperanto has a very large literature, but how muche of it is explicitly outof/free from copyright? Esperanto is a rather recent language, and Wikisource is much more easily affected by these issues than Wikipedia: this could be a problem. Should eo.source be thought as a repository of free translations into Esperanto, rather than a library of free printed texts? I'd like some comments about this topic (which could heavily affect the future of such project). - εΔω 16:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
    • If we follow en.WS's lead in using US copyright only, we're looking at 33 years of work between 1890-1922. That's not completely inconsequential. Several people working with PG have found it not hard to get copyrighted Esperanto material released as PD. Like most other Wikisources, we will permit and encourage new translation; I don't see that as a major change in scope.--Prosfilaes 17:51, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
      • I'm thinking about the free translations, too. Maybe this project could be the major repository for them, in this time. The eo-community seems to be receptive on the use of this kind of licence (GFDL, PD, etc.). Our main motivation is not in the copyrights, but in some tools to practice the language between ourselves and this project could be a good place to do that, and also read texts already published in public licenses. The possibility of creating free collaborative translations must be a plus, but we do have many free texts that are in public domain because of their age. The period 1890-1922 includes all original works by Zamenhof, Elski, Eska, Schulhof, Kriss, Bicknell, Hankel, Flourens, Luyken, Merchant, Sharpe, most by Privat and some by Kalocsay. Translations from this period includes Homero, Goethe, Shakespeare, Pushkin, Byron, Tennyson, Molière, Schiller, Balzac and many others, such as the Bible. I agree we must pay attention on checking the text sources (when it's free), elimination of non-free texts, and inserting indications in translating texts, in order to avoid copyrights violations, as the other projects usually do, but I don't think it will be a special problem for eo.ws. Arno Lagrange is native speaker, sysop and bureaucrat on eo.wp, and he's a supporter. As sysop and bureaucrat on pt.wp and sysop on eo.wp, I can also help with this issues. We both know that the copyrights violations are not quite common in wp, and will not be a greater problem for the ws project too, but we can deal with that, when necessary. CasteloBrancomsg 23:37, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
  • A separate Wikisource domain for Esperanto would be very welcome. The test project at oldwikisource is quite active and there's plenty of Esperanto literature to be found. A separate domain will allow editors and readers to work in a fully Esperanto-language environment and will also simplify linking between different projects. Jafeluv 13:07, 5 August 2010 (UTC)

Arguments against[edit]

  • There are not people who can drive a community. Esperanto has got Wikipedia, Wiktionary, Wikibooks and Wikiquote. The first two project seems to work, the other two not. I think that before opening a new project we should create a community, in order not to abandon the project to noone. --→ Airon Ĉ 21:42, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
    • A Wikisource is one of the lightest weight Wikimedia wikis. A Wikipedia takes a large body of text that has to be kept reasonably current. A Wikinews takes such a huge body of current changes that I don't even think the English Wikinews is successful. But even a small Wikisource can be useful, as both the Esperanto Wikipedia and the other Wikisources act as references into it, and the material in a Wikisource never gets stale. Also, different projects attract different styles of editor, so having multiple projects can be a help. I would compare this to Wikiquote; it's not huge, it's not quickly growing, but it is a useful body of work even now.--Prosfilaes 01:11, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Other discussion[edit]

@Blahma: For linking to multilingual Wikisource from any other Wikimedia project, try typing [[oldwikisource:Main page|Main page]] (that is, Main page). For linking from multilingual Wikisource to any other wiki, try typing for example [[w:eo:Main Page]]. -Aleator (talk) 17:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I think Blahma was talking about the interwikis (in the sidebar), not the inner links. CasteloBrancomsg 22:14, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
There was a redirect established from the apart Esperanto Wikisource (not existing so far) to the common Wikisource in order to enable creating of interwiki links, that won't need to be changed after launching of the Esperanto Wikisource. See https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=17008. --Petrus Adamus 10:16, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Yes, Petrus, you're right. By this solution, the eo.wikipedia articles can now link to the eo.wikisource. In other hand, there's no solution to link the eo.wikisource to the Wikipedia articles, and to others wikisources. And after this project will be accepted (I hope so), we'll have a lot of work inserting the interwikis and the links to other projects, particularly to the eo.wikipedia in hundreds of texts. It's not a very estimulate thing to think about, when we are creating new pages. Personally, I prefer to wait a little bit and then create the texts with the interwikis and project links. They can help our reader to find another translations or additional information about the text he's reading, and in my opinion, this is such a thing that improves the participation. CasteloBrancomsg 16:37, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Approval[edit]

Language committee has been approved Wikisource in Esperanto and while we are waiting 4-7 days for Board to give the final word, please fill the next questionnaire:

  • Language name in native language (not needed for the setup, but needed if it is a completely new language for updating Meta pages)
  • Language code: eo.wikisource.org
  • Logo (135x155px PNG image; a derivative from a decent SVG image):
  • Project name ("Wikisource" in native language):
  • The name of the project namespace (usually the same as the previous):
  • The name of the project talk namespace (something like "Wikisource talk" in your language):
  • Default project timezone (something like: CET (UTC+1)):

--Millosh 04:00, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Language name in native language: Esperanto (not needed, isn't a new language for Meta)
Language code: eo.wikisource.org
Logo: File:Wikisource-logo-eo-small.png (135x155px PNG image)
Project name: Vikifontaro
Project namespace: Vikifontaro
The name of the project talk namespace: Vikifontaro diskuto
Default project timezone: UTC+0
CasteloBrancomsg 17:09, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
There's now a translated version of the logo at File:Wikisource-logo-eo-small.png. Jafeluv 21:11, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Updated. Thanks, Jafeluv. CasteloBrancomsg 21:16, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
Do we already have a final word from the Board? Should we do something else? CasteloBrancomsg 09:05, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes? No? Maybe? CasteloBrancomsg 00:10, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for mistake. I forgot to ask for creation of Wikisource in Esperanto. I filled the bug now: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=26136 --Millosh 03:42, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

New Wikisource projects should also have namespaces created for Proofread Page ('Index', 'Index talk', 'Page' and 'Page talk'). two are here [1] The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Vandenberg (talk • contribs) 10:47, 3 December 2010 (UTC).