Talk:Poems That Every Child Should Know
| Information about this edition | |
|---|---|
| Source: | Project Gutenberg |
| Contributor(s): | Mattwj2002 |
Untitled[edit]
This is a fairly complex book to add to Wikisource, but I think it is an important one. Here is the source of this book [1]. --Mattwj2002 20:47, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Parts 3, 4 and 6 look dodgy[edit]
@Londonjackbooks, @Beeswaxcandle: Parts 3, 4, and 6 just seem to be links off to poetry on site that is (un)sourced from anywhere. To me, I think that we should delete those parts and leave them empty until someone appropriately fills with the poetry from the original. Thoughs? — billinghurst sDrewth 06:40, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I think the whole thing needs junking and replacing with scans. The pages that are from the book are just copy/paste with layout foibles brought across, limited linking and only ad hoc curation. The three parts you mention have been added later by a different editor who didn't seem to understand the ethos of text production here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:09, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Scan available at https://archive.org/details/poemsthateverych00burtrich Hrishikes (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- I will ditch parts identified above, and we can see if we can salvage the other parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:28, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Scan available at https://archive.org/details/poemsthateverych00burtrich Hrishikes (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Many (if not most) of the poems are duplicated at WS as well, with text and notes taken from this work (but not attributed). See "If I Had But Two Little Wings." I don't believe any redirects point to the poems in the text itself. I agree with Beeswaxcandle that it should be replaced with scans. It would be right up my alley to take it over if I hadn't just started Shelley's collection. I'll keep it on the backburner—maybe work on it as a change of pace... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:19, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- The work has been dishevelled for years, and it can remain so for longer unless someone feels inclined to propose the less worst parts for deletion, or to fix it up. I have got rid of the problematic parts (as I saw it). — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Billinghurst: I decided to tackle it, and have uploaded a scan. I didn't realize that the poems were actually transcluded—at least the first few poems: [{{#lst:The Arrow and the Song|poem}}] (a method I am unfamiliar with). I am going to do something somewhat drastic to Part I (the only Part that has transcluded poems)—merely offer links to the poems—as I work through moves, etc., so poems that were existing on the page don't appear blank. Hoping this is acceptable. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:04, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: That is Wikisource:Labeled section transclusion and is exactly what we do now except that is the antiquated language, compared to our modern use of <page> with its "to and from" or "only" sections. Our dear mate Matt did it, and it is an early piece. He would have no issue with you evolving/modernising it, if that is your recommendation. I would presume that we would turn any existing pages into redirects, rather than deletes. Apart from that, you are the lead exponent of these types of works, and I trust you implicitly to do the best thing such works with your expert knowledge. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I have performed some moves to title subpages due to updating the title to include the word That. Resulting sub-page redirects (ex: Poems Every Child Should Know/Part I) with the original titling were deleted; however, the original title redirect (Poems Every Child Should Know) was kept by Neo-Jay in case the alternate use is used in a search. Otherwise, individual poem pages in the Main were moved to link to the Indexed source, with the redirect retained. Hoping this is good to go. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: That is Wikisource:Labeled section transclusion and is exactly what we do now except that is the antiquated language, compared to our modern use of <page> with its "to and from" or "only" sections. Our dear mate Matt did it, and it is an early piece. He would have no issue with you evolving/modernising it, if that is your recommendation. I would presume that we would turn any existing pages into redirects, rather than deletes. Apart from that, you are the lead exponent of these types of works, and I trust you implicitly to do the best thing such works with your expert knowledge. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Title[edit]
Poems Every Child Should Know was recently moved to Poems That Every Child Should Know. That's good since the full title includes "That" per Page:Poems that every child should know (ed. Burt, 1904).djvu/11. But Poems Every Child Should Know does not need to be deleted. It is used in Page:Poems that every child should know (ed. Burt, 1904).djvu/7 and Project Gutenberg and can be maintained as a redirect page. So I reverted the speedy deletion request of Poems Every Child Should Know and its subpages. --Neo-Jay (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- It does seem beneficial, then, to leave a redirect for the Title page (Poems Every Child Should Know), thank you; but why do you feel it is necessary for all of the alternatively titled sub-pages (Parts, etc.) to remain redirects as well?
- BTW, "Poems Every Child Should Know/Julius" is an actual titling error, and the redirect can be deleted. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:36, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: You are right. I have reverted my reverting of the sub-pages and placed them back to speedy-deletion request. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Eek... I don't necessarily want to be "right"; sorry if I ask a lot of questions. I hope to gain different perspectives that way and broaden my often too narrow views. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: You are really right for this time. I change my mind on the subpage redirect issue after considering your opinion. Many thanks for your discussions, which broaden my narrow views. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- For long outstanding pages we would normally replace with redirects in case of any incoming links. Redirects are cheap for the system to manage. On the rare occasion where a redirect is pointless, and it is a long standing page, we would usually degrade gracefully in having a soft redirect page using a substituted {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- I will make note of that. Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- For long outstanding pages we would normally replace with redirects in case of any incoming links. Redirects are cheap for the system to manage. On the rare occasion where a redirect is pointless, and it is a long standing page, we would usually degrade gracefully in having a soft redirect page using a substituted {{dated soft redirect}} — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: You are really right for this time. I change my mind on the subpage redirect issue after considering your opinion. Many thanks for your discussions, which broaden my narrow views. :) --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:49, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- Eek... I don't necessarily want to be "right"; sorry if I ask a lot of questions. I hope to gain different perspectives that way and broaden my often too narrow views. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:35, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
- @Londonjackbooks: You are right. I have reverted my reverting of the sub-pages and placed them back to speedy-deletion request. --Neo-Jay (talk) 21:30, 27 January 2016 (UTC)
Section (Part I, II, etc.) placement in Main[edit]
I am debating whether to give Parts their own Mainspace page (as seen here) or whether to include them on the page which contains the first poem in the section (as seen here). Any opinions welcome. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)