It would be interesting to have it spelled out in advance what the status of annotations submitted to this Wiki is going to be.
In particular: am I allowed to pilfer them for the Annotated Pratchett File? From my point of view as APF Editor, it would be great if I could use anything that appears here in the same way that I use [A] posts to abp/afp, or mail to email@example.com. (Unsigned comment by Leo Breebaart at 11:12, 4 Jul 2005 (UTC))
- I would say you are. Or should be. There's no point in two seperate places for annotations. The ones that are considered insignificant or not fitting within the APF can always stay on here, I think. --Sanity 16:03, 4 Jul 2005 (CEST)
We haven't really got a proper licensing system worked out for Discworld Wiki yet, and if we have more than just two or three contributors we will need that to be clarified. I suggest that some form of creative commons licensing be adopted to enable material unambiguously to be used in the likes of the APF. The advantage of a Wiki is (or can be) that annotations can be added and refined by many hands--adding an annotation to a Wiki is a bit like posting it on Usenet except that it will become more-or-less permanent (at least, if it isn't completely useless) and this will happen immediately without a wait for the APF to be updated. The APF itself would be more authoritative because of the way in which it's been compiled (at least at first). Mind, we'd need a lot more editors here to make this Wiki work half as well as the APF has. --Tony Sidaway|Talk 16:52, 4 Jul 2005 (CEST)
I have currently chosen a Creative Commons license which allows editing, requires edits to have the same kind of license, and forbids commercial use. The links should appear on the bottom of all pages as well as the icon. --Sanity 18:54, 4 Jul 2005 (CEST)
- Good choice, it's the same I use for the German DiscWiki ;-) --Death 08:59, 5 Jul 2005 (CEST)
Unfortunately, I don't think I can (yet) accept a Creative Commons license for the APF. It gives me the same problem as I have with normal Wikipedia content: I'd have to re-release the APF under the same share-alike license, and I cannot do that, not because I don't want to (because I do), but because hundreds and hundreds of people have submitted material to the APF under quite different assumptions, and I simply am not convinced yet that I have the (moral) right to unilaterally change the APF license this late in the game.
I am not saying I want this Wiki to change its licensing -- far from it. I'm just saying that the APF might not use annotations that appear only here without me asking the submitters explicitly if it's okay first. --Leo Breebaart 22:54, 7 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- If the license is a problem, I think that the best solution is think up another solution for annotations so Leo can use them freely without having to make changes to the APF license (as far as there is a license for it anyway). That license would be specific for the annotations section. I appreciate Leo's modesty but personally, I don't see any objection to fitting the Wiki to suit the APF. --Sanity 12:36, 8 Sep 2005 (CEST)
- Add a "If you post annotations in this section you agree that your annotations will appear on the APF which doesn't use the CC license."-heading and a "don't agree"-heading on the annotation page. People can choose where they want to post and I don't think that anyboby will post below the second heading. --Death 15:29, 8 Sep 2005 (CEST) (auto-login not working...)
Leo: You're more than welcome to use anything I submit. Happy to sign over all rights to you, (although a namecheck might be nice)--AgProv 14:36, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Possible use of the page
This page could be used primarily as a quick and easy way to make a suggestion for the APF -- any annotations that stay a while could be added to the next versions. And it would provide an easy way to get page number references in most of the editions: if a user runs across a quote while reading one of the books he can come here and add the page number from his edition. Golwengaud 03:03, 10 December 2005 (CET)
- Good suggestion about the quick and easy part, for example, I don't have any annotation to add but even if I do, I have no idea at all how to send it to the APF. But for the other thing, I think APF officially gave up about referencing to page numbers of multiple editions, probably the official APF will try to find the quote on the UK hardcover 1st ed. and use that page number. --Vsl 03:13, 10 December 2005 (CET)
Merging the APF with the Wiki
IANAL & IANAG, nor have I much interest in doing annotations, so my only opinion is that Leo should do whatever he wants with his APF, and anyone else can publish new ones if he likes.(If I ever contribute one, he can re-use it if he wants.)...--Old Dickens 21:33, 9 January 2007 (CET)
- What's being proposed now, is the idea of a non-editable APF, with editable sections for comments. This works, technically. The question is mainly how to organize the structure (pagenames). License issues are covered, as the APF parts do not fall under the CC license of the rest of the wiki. --Sanity 16:17, 10 January 2007 (CET)
- To flesh out my proposal (which Sanity mentions above), here's what I want to do (see also APF-the-colour-of-magic):
- For each existing APF annotation, create a stub page like APF-the-colour-of-magic/p77 (but not empty) that includes the original annotation (in a "noinclude" section for reference only) and lets people comment on the annotation.
- The comments on each annotation are then included into a read-only meta-page like APF-the-colour-of-magic, so readers can see all the comments for a given book on a single read-only page.
- New annotations (not currently part of APF) are wiki-included (transcluded) at the bottom of the page for each book (eg, APF-the-colour-of-magic/new). This would be different from Book:The_Colour_of_Magic/Annotations because these would be annotations intended for future publication in APF.
Kellyterryjones 01:36, 15 January 2007 (CET)
- But why now use the existing notation of Book:Title/Annotations for the meta-page? That would be much clearer. The way you propose it we end up with 3 annotation sections - suggestions (Book:The_Colour_of_Magic/Annotations), new ones (APF-the-colour-of-magic/new), comments on the APF (APF-the-colour-of-magic/p77), and the APF (APF-the-colour-of-magic).
- The main annotation page would be un-editable. People would have to do a little extra work and edit the "/new" page instead
- Not all Book:Title/Annotations pages are currently blank. We'd have to move what's there to "APF-book/new" before overwriting them.
I think neither of these issues is serious.Kellyterryjones 03:04, 17 January 2007 (CET)
- I agree that the issues arent serious. The simple solution to is place a template on the annotation with a copyright notice and a redirect to more annotations.
- Note that each book page would need 2 sections. One for the APF annotations and one to hold the new annotations.
- Fhh98 03:59, 17 January 2007 (CET)
- Whose final ok do I need to proceed here? Or is this on hold for now? Kellyterryjones 17:20, 20 January 2007 (CET)
- There's no such thing as a final okay. Any material you're permitted to put here, you can put here. If we agree on the basic layout of the annotations (with that I mean the place where the meta-page is put), you can proceed. As far as I'm concerned, we use the current standard Book:Title/Annotations with whatever's there right now into the /new annotations. --Sanity 23:45, 20 January 2007 (CET)
Unfortunately, we now have annotations under Book:Title/Annotations, Title:Annotations, Annotations, and maybe places I've missed, some duplicated. Clerk Drumknott would have to go and have a lie-down.--Old Dickens 00:08, 26 April 2007 (CEST)
Dear L-space Wikians! I am working on the next update to the Annotated Pratchett File, and as per our original agreement from ten years ago (!) I'd like to incorporate (some/a lot of) the work done on this Wiki over the years. Would someone reading this be willing to export the relevant Wiki pages into something vaguely text-based and send it my way? A proper text export would be best, WikiMedia markdown format is also fine, and in a pinch I can take HTML dumps as well. Or maybe there's some sort of Wiki export format I'm not familiar with? Either way, none of this is that important or urgent -- I can download or scrape or cut-and-paste all the relevant bits I need client-side. But if there is a way to make the process easier for me that'd be great, so I thought it couldn't hurt to ask...
- Hey! You're still there! It's not a big job to copy and paste them: I assume you mean only Book/Annotations pages with the appropriate license (all the page annotations would take a while). Are plain .txt files, one file per book best? Send them to you @lspace.org? --Old Dickens (talk) 16:15, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
- Then I wonder if you're going back into version 9.0 or you only need pages since A Hat Full of Sky. --Old Dickens (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)
Solution to messy annotating
I've noticed annotations are still messy. Maybe it's time to force The One Way Of Annotating here.
- All general book annotations go into Book:Title/Annotations. Even if there's only one.
- In many cases, it adds to an article to place an annotations there (as character annotation, etc). In this case the author will have to consider what to put in that article, and what in the book Annotations page, and link between them ("more on this in The Truth/Annotations" or the other way round.)
- Because of licensing issues, no copy/pasting of the APF Annotations except in the specially licensed zones
- If it's a new annotation, notify the APF-maintainers as they won't be able to find it here.
- Linking to external sources for lots of further information is encouraged.
Oh, and Talk pages are in my view not the appropriate place for annotations. They're to discuss the contents of a page, not to put stuff that might not fit on the actual page.
If nobody objects we can start shifting stuff around a bit and put this somewhere formal. --Sanity 00:25, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
Blame? Three or four cheers, I'd say.--Old Dickens 19:41, 4 May 2007 (CEST)
- Sounds great to me :) Fhh98 05:39, 5 May 2007 (CEST)
Apologies. I tried to add an annotation for Reaper Man and I've ended up spoiling the look of the page. Nor can I get to retrieve and delete it. as it becomes invivsible when I hit "edit" Help? What have I done wrong? --AgProv 17:00, 11 May 2007 (CEST)
- The history shows no modification since last October. You may need to refresh it or dump your cache.--Old Dickens 19:44, 11 May 2007 (CEST)
Hi, newbie here. I'd like to add an annotation for Mostrous Regiment, but don't know how to create the new page for this book's annotations. Please help!--Hibiscus 14:32, 23 July 2007 (CEST)
- Use this link: Book:Monstrous Regiment/Annotations and type away. --Trublu 22:00, 23 July 2007 (CEST)
Done! There's probably tons more annotations to get through in that book, but its a start at least. For example, did you know that Shufti is an actual military term?--Hibiscus 15:16, 3 August 2007 (CEST)
On Book:Reaper Man/Annotations I tried to add CSS approximately like APF does. If this hits general approval, I'd like to generate templates and add this to all annotation. --Trublu 22:27, 23 July 2007 (CEST) PS: Can somebody activate subpages for the book-namespace? --Trublu 22:27, 23 July 2007 (CEST)