Wikisource talk:Featured text candidates

• /Archive 1

It may be worthwhile recommending that nominations for FTC be tested through a site like http://browsershots.org/ I know that I am pretty one or two dimensional when it comes to thinking of all the browser types and how each might render :-/ Billinghurst (talk) 01:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

That's a great tool. Apparently there is a cap per website unless there is an account. Should we create a "Wikisource" account for all of us to use and to link to for login from ws? - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:39, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Created a generic login:

Username: Wikisource

Password: engwiki

-Theornamentalist (talk) 03:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)Reply

Does anyone know what happened to Charles von Hügel? It was the featured text for August 2009 but it is not on the list. I can't find anything about it being delisted (like Charles Kennedy's speach, which was deleted as a copyright violation). Is the list wrong or is this text no longer featured? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

The person who contributed the work and took it through FTC later voluntarily demoted it; I don't know why. Hesperian 00:22, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

I can't find any good reason why it was demoted. I don't think it can be demoted by a particular user. It went through a process to get promoted, it should go through a similar process to be demoted. I say we restore it to its rightful place again since there seems to have been no justification for the change.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 04:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

In that case, I've re-added the missing elements. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)Reply

Have the issues with this text been resolved? I think so, personally, but I can't really see the negative point of view here to begin with. I ask as it is coming to the end of the month and this technically has the most support (there is certainly no outright opposition to it). If not, what actually still needs to be done? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

I had initially raised concern about the amount wikilinks (out of en.ws) but I certainly support it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)Reply

We keep having periods of no featured text (or repeats of last year's featured text). As of June 2012, we are actually repeating the 2010 featured text because nothing was chosen in 2011 either. I've tried to do this for a few months and aimed for a minimum of two supports. However, is is acceptable to feature a text on only one support? This would make it easier to actually feature something. Given the lack of attention this page appears to get, it seems the best way forward for the time being. As a bonus question, is is OK to update the June 2012 FT even though June has already started? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I vote that one vote is enough in the context that you present. However, what if there are two works with one vote--do we have dual featured texts? (Yes, why not?) I firmly believe that every month should have a different featured text--and perhaps all of the featured texts should be so noted as featured texts for all time if possible. There should never be periods of no featured text or repeated featured text. We have a lot of good works that should eliminate those two instances. WS would look lame if it had no featured text! I prefer two or three featured texts if we have them lest a good text would be left in the shadows where we endeavor to remove these old books. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II^Talk 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

The pace of Wikisource is more of a monthly cycle at the moment. Hopefully in the future it will pick up. If we get more than one text approved in a month, it can be held for a future month, which will help solve the problem of having no new featured text and having to repeat one from last year. (November appears to be a particularly bad month, the 2009 featured text was repeated in 2010 and 2011.) Once the pace picks up and (for preference) we have a "buffer" of a few months just to be sure, we can try moving to bi-weekly, weekly, and then maybe daily. At the moment Black Beauty looks like it will be October's selection, with The Jewish State as a potential November. (NB: Old featured texts are still listed as such, with a star in the title and sorted into Category:Featured texts.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Adam, I saw a very nice book when browsing recently that (I think you did) and that work should be a featured text if it wasn't. It is a book on Nepal. I have no interest in the old story of "Black Beauty" (if it is the horse) or "The Jewish State". I think we should have two featured texts, one serious and historical or scientific and another more colorful and pleasing to the soul such as that "Comic" you, (or Theornamentalist ?) someone mentioned. In length, one should be short and the other long or two medium sized ones (page count and based on difficulty) so that we can have two works per month. What did you conclude with your question and feedback about one vote being enough? Oh, cheerful me, have a great day, Adam. —William Maury Morris II^Talk 15:23, 31 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

Another question: Should pages in the Page namespace be locked as part of the featured text process? I've done this with September (Mexico, as it was and as it is) using the cascade option but it has not been done in the past (or not in any of the texts I checked). Logically, protecting the Page namespace is more important for text integrity than the main namespace. On the other hand, it stops people being able to fix typos or other errors. The Page namespace is also a little more obscure than the main namespace; I doubt most vandals would know how to vandalise the text that way. So, I'm asking for opinions on what needs to be protected in a featured text? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:31, 26 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I vote to lock it and if someone finds an error then that person can contact an administrator. Errors do happen but I feel it is safer being locked. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 02:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I'm opposed to protecting featured texts at all. I have never yet seen someone vandalise a featured text, but I have seen fixes to featured texts months or even years after validation. A simple punctuation fix to a featured text could be the hook that brings us a great new editor. Hesperian 02:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I am not as experienced as Hesperian in watching over featured texts over the years, month by month. I have paid little or no attention to them until now. With that being stated I would suggest this. From my own recent (hours ago) experience in finding two spelling mistakes and watching Theornamentalist resizing his text in some areas he has worked, it perhaps would be a good idea to allow a period of time for text to be looked over once again after people know what the featured text/s will be -- but after that time lock the featured texts. This is my take. But Hesperian states that s/he has "never yet seen" anyone vandalise a featured text which causes me to wonder why that has never happened. It looks like a prime target for vandals to me after all is said and *enough time has passed*. Kind regards to all, —William Maury Morris II^Talk 03:14, 27 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

I would have expected some vandalism but if not, we can try leaving October's text unprotected and see what happens. Then go to Scriptorium for an official change of policy if everything is fine. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2012 (UTC)Reply

This is just an estimate of how the near future looks, assuming the following texts are acceptable and thoughts on timings are respected. From the available potential featured texts:

October 2012: Halloween themed month - trial of four or five different texts including Betelguese, a trip through hell.

November 2012: Bull-dog Drummond? No timing issue but this is the next available text in the next available slot.

December 2012: Black Beauty, for Christmas (135th anniversary on 24 November 2012).

January 2013: The Art of Nijinsky, 2013 is the 100th anniversary of publication and this is the first available slot in that year.

February 2013: (none yet)

March 2013: (none yet)

April 2013: A Jewish State to coincide with the 2013 Israeli Independence Day.

May 2013: Amazing Stories, to coincide with the 2013 Nebula Awards.

Thoughts, comments, objections or questions? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:06, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks exciting, especially the various timed themes! :) -- Cirt (talk) 12:38, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Looks great to me! I think the Halloween one should be great for some of the shorter works (Betelguese included) whereas Amazing Stories should definitely have its own month, given the breadth of the publication. What else can we scrounge up for Halloween?

In the heat of the excitement for the themed month thing, I started working on another "though Hell" text. Do you think we could simply use the {{Random number}} in some way for alternating the FT during the Halloween season? I know Wikibooks uses this for their main page. I can look into it tonight if you think it's an appropriate, if not simpler, way to handle several texts within a month, without a given preference to them. - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:33, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

I already use something like that on Portal:Featured texts, for the past text. I can easily implement it for October if we want to do it that way. Random selection will solve the problem of timing within the month. I'll test it in a moment.

To see a quick and dirty version, go to Main Page/sandbox. The text and components can all be refined later and there are only three options at the moment (so you may get the same one a few times in a row) but as a proof of concept I think it works. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

Brothers and Sisters, let us not forget Wikisource Social Media. While we ferret out whatever is to be displayed on Wikisource as a Featured Text for the month of X, there are many excellent works that would be left behind——"buried" once again as it were in our own archives or walled up by the likes of Poe. Therefore, let us not forget placing works on Social Media areas——those not chosen as Featured Texts of the month displayed by our beloved Wikisource. —William Maury Morris II^Talk 19:43, 17 September 2012 (UTC)Reply

All of the works except the text in French (1921) have been validated. Could this series as a whole be a candidate for Featured Text? If so, what would be required to bring it up to standard if it is not already? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Two of the lectures—The English National Character and Humanism in Education are validated, but are works within works that as a whole are not validated. The rest are fully validated stand-alone works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:36, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Just some added info: May 2014 marks the 120th anniversary of George Romanes' death. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:47, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I think this can work as a nomination, so I'm copying it to the non-talk page. A link to the 1921 text on French Wikisource would be nice but should not be necessary. I think "The English National Character" and "Humanism in Education" are OK as they are. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:35, 6 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I created two banner design candidates to be considered by the community for the main page when the portal gets featured during May. Comments welcome! - DutchTreat (talk) 09:31, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

Re: fr:Roland à Roncevaux (1921) I removed the {{incomplete}} from the portal. However, I acted prematurely. I later realized the work was not validated. I started the task which is now only partly validated. I hope to get this done (with some help) before the portal is featured. -- DutchTreat (talk) 09:41, 24 April 2014 (UTC)Reply

I would like to propose that featured text candidates, and especially successful nominations, should have the requisite data added to Wikidata. It is one of our the additions that I believe that we should be moving towards for our quality works. The advantage of that approach is that we can also utilise the "Featured text" components of WD to badge the works, from which people pulling data can see our featured works, and what ever benefits that can be derived from WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Can Wikidata yet support the semantics of situations like Daisy Miller, Daisy Miller (James), Daisy Miller: A Study and Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879)? If not, would your proposal have prevented promotion of Daisy Miller: A Study (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1879)? Hesperian 02:09, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Further: A Christmas Carol (Dickens) links to wikidata:Q62879 and our featured A Christmas Carol (Dickens, 1843) links to wikidata:Q16335032. Looking at Q62879 and Q16335032, I am unable to see how they can possibly represent a general work and a specific edition respectively. Frankly they look like messy dups of each other. Or maybe I just don't grok Wikidata. I guess my concern is this: your proposal implies that it is always desirable to link to Wikidata, and that our best works will always have those links. But it seems to me that if we are (as I am) putting a lot of effort into correctly identifying and carefully distinguishing works, versions and editions, then it is going to detract from that effort to add a semantically superficial mapping to a Wikidata page that is probably a dup if not just plain wrong. Adding crappy links should not be recognised as best practice. (Or maybe I just don't grok Wikidata.) Hesperian 02:21, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Wikidata can fit the semantics of publications and editions, and is best explained at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books. While there are still has unresolved aspects, it is perfectly situated to record a point in time publication of any work. The given example implementation of "A Christmas Carol" is an example of something not done well. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:17, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

The problem here is that I have yet to see Wikidata produce anything that is well done. Their cross-linking of Wikipedia articles is worse than it was before the data was moved off Wikipedia, and the folks heading things up have no understanding of the problems, and no desire to set standards limiting the enthusiatic yet misguided edits of folks who are permanently banned from Wikipedia. I've also interacted with them on efforts to coordinate with Wiktionary, and it became very clear very quickly that they had no idea what they were doing. It is way too early to consider adding any Wikidata requirement to our FT candidates. Wikidata still has no secure footing for managing the data. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:37, 16 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

It's the end of the month, and we don't have any featured text for November. Can we get a little action on some of the items on the list? We have a few good candidates to promote, but no one seems to be voting/closing nominations. I've voted on some of them, and am either the only voter, or one of two, so I'd prefer not to close any myself.—Zhaladshar ^(Talk) 12:32, 31 October 2014 (UTC)Reply

Rudyard Kipling's "If—" has come a long way since it was first added to Wikisource in November 2003 (one of the first WS adds). I have recently linked the page to its 1910 source in Rewards and Fairies—which is not yet fully proofread. I would like to eventually nominate the poem (not the whole work)—which could use validating—for Featured Text for November 2018 as it will mark the 15th anniversary (as I understand it to be) of Wikisource. Does only the poem itself need to be fully validated in order to be nominated? If so, can someone possibly please validate so I can properly nominate it? The WP excerpt in the notes section—should it stay or go? I figure if the poem makes Featured status, most of that info will go into the blurb anyway. Am I missing anything? Thoughts? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

Moved portions of above to FTC main page for nomination. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:45, 16 February 2018 (UTC)Reply

I am noticing that for January 2021 that the length of the main page featured text is visibly longer than that for the neighbouring new texts. If we are going to have that size disparity, then can we temporarily increase the size of the presented new text and make a temporary note of the increase. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:35, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Maybe we should have a separate section for a handful of films in the new texts section? If were going to see film coming up more as the copyright horizon marches on, might be good to have a separate queue? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:09, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Different conversation, for a different place. Here, I am just looking to manage the whitespace in adjacent cells, not introduce and manage new queues. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:49, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think we could probably beneficially expand this to ten items. In bigger terms I'm wondering if we should fix the height of the featured text box, and thus also the new texts, and then make the new texts scrollable (overflow:scroll) so we could just include everything from the last month or so. The featured text box would be a natural thing to cap with max-height of some number of lines. --Xover (talk) 08:53, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

I wasn't trying to fix issues on main page here, I was just looking for a temporary measure for the times. I was wanting to see how it looked for February before saying or proposing anything. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 30 January 2021 (UTC)Reply

Hi, is this process still active? There are proposed texts dating back to 2018 without closure, and only a few edits this year. If it's not still active, is this process worth keeping? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 21:08, 23 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

This process has never moved rapidly. The attention generated by Featured Texts has been positive, and we do have a mechanism in place to prevent broken Main Page issues. However, nominations have tapered off and discussions have dried out here, so some kind of re-evaluation might be needed. Even when the process was active, a nomination would have been listed and considered for several months, followed by Featured status, and once it was on the Main page then people would complain about problems in the text, rather than during the nomination discussion. So whatever we consider should take that issue into account. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:36, 24 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: It's been 9 months since anyone posted any comments on the candidates page and over 2 years since anything was promoted. I suggest that we mark the page as historical so that no one inadvertently posts new nominations expecting timely evaluation. Nosferattus (talk) 19:06, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

I disagree with use of the {{historical}}, since content generated from the process still appears on the Main Page. Another banner, explaining exactly the situation, or a text box with a colored background, explaining the situation would be better than the use of that template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2022 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: I've created a custom banner per your suggestion. Feel free to modify it however you like. Nosferattus (talk) 02:38, 8 October 2022 (UTC)Reply