| Language | Esperanto |
|---|---|
| Requested by | LaPingvino (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2017 (PST) |
| Requested on | 17 Sultán 173 |
| Contact | User talk:LaPingvino |
There is need for a place for e.g. provisorial Esperanto translations and information about Esperanto speaking Bahá'ís, communities and projects.
Individuals in favor
- LaPingvino (talk) 00:10, 3 February 2017 (PST)
- Brettz9 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2017 (PST)
- salomono (talk) 00:40, 6 February 2017 (PST)
Discussion
Thank you for making this request. Would you like me to setup eo.bahaikipedia.org for this project? If the primary purpose is to present translations I can also offer eo.bahai.works. Another site I run, but one that focuses exclusively on Baha'i documents, and has more advanced search and display features for text. See for example the Baha'i News page. Let me know what you think. David (talk) 01:08, 4 February 2017 (PST)
- I think eo.bahai.works would be really nice, we have stuff we can put there, provided provisional translations are welcome on bahai.works. I think they can both be useful, so if it's not too much effort I would be very glad if you can set them both up. LaPingvino (talk) 17:10, 6 February 2017 (PST)
- Two new sites are available: https://eo.bahai.works and https://eo.bahaikipedia.org. If things don't work as expected send me an email. Feel free to direct each project as you see fit. If you see features being used somewhere and want to replicate them I can show you how. Also, you can embed images on those sites too, using any file available on bahai.media. I put an example on the home page of eo.bahaikipedia.org. Links in the sidebar are controlled by a page called MediaWiki:Sidebar. Eg: https://eo.bahai.works/MediaWiki:Sidebar David (talk) 19:17, 6 February 2017 (PST)
- Would be nice to have this info somewhere. There is also http://bahai-library.com which has a specific collection for provisional translations. I can ask the owner to add "Esperanto" to the language pull-down if you are serious about adding such documents there. It differs from the wikis in not being easily editable by others, for better or worse. It also has the benefit of asking for potentially searchable categories like publish date, but the software hasn't to date exposed these much to searches beyond author or language (though it is a pretty well-used site). MediaWiki allows categories too, and one can easily extend them, but it suffers from not being type aware (like to allow searching by date unless you manually add a category for a date range). But for frequent development tasks like proofreading and collaboration, it is more ideal, and being used by Wikipedia, it is well-maintained. Brettz9 (talk) 01:31, 4 February 2017 (PST)
