Wikisource talk:Requests for comment/Annotations and derivative works

WikiLinks
I was going to try and create a list of the types of wikilinks, with 3rd or 4th level headers and Base it on all the possibilities and types that are developing in the discussion. The task is greater then I would care to attempt on main page. So I am going to attempt start it here. Please feel free add that I missed, We can move it the main page for discussion after we have captured them all.

I am indecisive on if red links for each should be a separate header, sub header, or combined discussion. OK, this is a start, it is open for expansion. Jeepday (talk) 10:05, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have copied this to Wikisource talk:Wikilinks. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Classes of Wiki Links
A list of types of wikilinks for individual consideration as appropriate annotations on Wikisource.

Main Direct
Example: The Prince and the Pauper

Main Piped
Example: That story written by that tugboat guy

Author Direct
Example: Isaac Asimov

Author Piped
Example: best known science fiction Author ever

Category Direct or Piped
Example: Category:Early modern authors

File Direct or Piped
Example:

Index Direct or Piped
Example:

Mediawiki Direct or Piped
Example:

Page Direct
Example:

Page Piped
Example:

Portal Direct or Piped
Example:

Help Direct or Piped
Example: Help:Maintenance tags

Template Direct or Piped
Example:

User Direct or Piped
Example:

Wikisource Direct or Piped
Example:

Module Direct or Piped
Example:

Special Direct or Piped
Example:

Media Direct or Piped
Example:

Translation Direct or Piped
Example:

Cross Wiki Direct
Example:

Cross Wiki Piped
Example:

External Direct or Piped
Example:

Internal to the work
i.e. Index Example:

Questions relating to above
— billinghurst  sDrewth  10:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Wondering whether there is value in adding whether a link is factual or interpretative. Noting that some direct links will still be interpreted as for any reference to Author:John Brown which is not more specific, or contextualised.
 * I am presuming that we are talking specifically about links are from the main namespace, and are we talking body or header, or what?
 * I would think only from the main (or translation) space, as it relates to annotations of published works. I would also think just the body, we can address header if needed another time. Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * "factual or interpretative", so easy to say so hard to define. Clearly we would have the same concerns as w:WP:V, and we don’t really have a comparable policy here. I would think we would want to have a standard expectation, it is not black and white, there is a lot of grey in the middle. In my work on The Necessity of Atheism (Brooks), I discovered there are two options for Author:Socrates, and it gets more complex in more modern times. Actually I would offer that work, and my links in it, as fodder for discussion.  Pretty much every potential range of verifiability/clarity is available in it and I am not too shy to discuss any perceived errors in linking I made.  I believe all the links are to Author, Portal or main space. Jeepday (talk) 16:02, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I have copied this to Wikisource talk:Wikilinks. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2013 (UTC)

Derivative and/or Annotations name space
There are several discussions about creating Derivative and/or Annotations name spaces, and what might or might not happen there. With the heaviest (and hardest to follow) in Foundations for all points I was considering adding them as two different headers, so hopefully those who followed the discussions better then I could give a summary of where they see consensus falling currently on those topics. Was anyone else having similar thoughts? JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 15:06, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Actually, yes, I was. I was thinking of breaking out the large thread into its own section, as it has diverged from "Foundations for all points".  NB: There seems to be support for a separate Translation namespace too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * I Agree about the Translation name space support, I would say that has consensus, and we can (assuming things stay stable), close that discussion next week as consensus to create. Still details to work out, but we can do that in separate discussion. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * As for Derivative and/or Annotations, it/they never really had their own section, just kind of evolved. So yea if you want to create that section(s) I think it is great idea. Unsure how much computer time I will have over the next couple of days, so if you want to, don't wait for me. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 19:19, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I didn't have time to really sit down and do stuff either. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:38, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Cleaning up
I've closed a few points that appeared to be entirely at the consensus stage (and one that turned out to be unnecessary) and summarised them at the top. I don't mean to be premature and they can each be re-opened by anyone (I left a note to point that out) but I thought this would help with the overall progress of the RfC. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:41, 20 March 2013 (UTC)