Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2011

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2011, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.

Featured[edit]

No Treason[edit]

No Treason is three-part essay on the U. S. Constitution by anarchist Lysander Spooner. His arguments here and elsewhere are interesting, because as a northerner during the Civil War he was both anti-slavery and pro-secession. One of his claims to fame was starting a mail delivery company to compete with the US Post Office and getting shut down. He's commonly cited by anti-government types in the U.S.

All three parts are now fully validated (thanks everyone!), and I'm not aware of any other online version of this work that has page scans backing it. So I propose this for FT. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:58, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support, as far as I can remember, we've never had a polemic or an anarchist work featured. It'd be nice to change that and offer a genre we don't often see.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:06, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
  • Support what they said. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:30, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
This is looking to be the choice for January, though it would have been nice to have more voices. @Spangineer, can we look to beefing up the introductory text, especially as that is useful when doing the construction of the grab for the front page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:42, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I've set up Template:Featured text/January. —Spangineer (háblame) 17:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)


The works themselves are numbered "No. 1", "No. 2" and "No. 6" but they are sectioned out as "/1", "/2" and "/6", and they are on the index pages as "Volume 1", "Volume 2" and "Volume 6". Is there any reason for this? I would like to make it consistent. Hesperian 05:05, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Other than the page moves I think I've addressed the inconsistency. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I don't mind changing the index page names, but it seems unnecessary considering it's an internal page. Regarding roman v. latin numerals, the first of the three pamphlets uses a "1", not a "I", but the other two use roman numerals ("II" and "VI"), so consistency there is difficult. As for subpages, I prefer their names to be as simple as possible; I don't see it as preferable to change the links to No Treason/No. 6, or especially No Treason/No. VI.. If people want the page title to be identical to the text, then realistically subpages shouldn't be used at all, since these pamphlets were published separately. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:48, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I think it should match the text, so I'm going to change the first work back to "No. 1." Regarding the subpages, they should be separate works. I don't see a problem with linking them all in a directory, but I don't know how that should be named. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:25, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
If subpages (which I prefer) aren't used, then I would recommend:
Or replace the commas with colons. Regardless, the important thing is that the text itself matches the page scans, not that our navigation system perfectly matches the book. —Spangineer (háblame) 16:28, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
That looks good. I cringe at the idea, but should No Treason be a disambiguation page? - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:50, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Or is there a parenthetical extension we can use, like No Treason (Collection), in order to distinguish between these three separate works as a single publication? Also, spangineer, I apologize for the removal of the text in the header regarding works 3, 4 and 5; I've spent so much time at WP that when I saw "purposefully" the OR flag went up. The way you have it now works. - Theornamentalist (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
No Treason, under this system, would essentially be a disambiguation page. I really don't like the idea of using the standard {{disambig}} on it... and I think there's a wider need for a template used to tie together works published in serial format. I'm aware of at least three other works that could use such a thing, (1, 2, and 3) and I'm sure there are more.
Re 3, 4, 5, it is a bit confusing, so your reaction makes sense and complete explanation (with the quote) is worthwhile. —Spangineer (háblame) 17:13, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, the notes on No Treason provide a lot of context, however it isn't an excerpt from wikipedia, and the wikipedia article is unreferenced. Also, I am immediately wondering whether there was ever a No. III-V, and this isnt addressed in either the Wikisource note or the Wikipedia article. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:07, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
I personally don't like excerpts from wikipedia in our note sections; usually I find them unsuited to our needs. There is a link to the WP article in the notes section, on the right. As for numbers III to V, it's difficult to prove a negative, but I've never seen them, and various collections of Spooner's works don't include them. —Spangineer (háblame) 14:01, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

Mrs. Caudle's curtain lectures[edit]

I would like to nominate the work Mrs. Caudle's curtain lectures originally mid 19thC English work, it is a piece of social history from the pen of Douglas William Jerrold and originally published in Punch. Much of Jerrold's work is liberal and radical perspective and often employs satire. The comic illustrations drew me to the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

  • Support. This is a neat little work.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 21:35, 12 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support Hesperian 07:09, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose The illustrations are inadequate, using djvu as a source is inappropriate. cygnis insignis 15:12, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
They are not from the djvu, they are taken from the inline version at archive.org and cleaned.— billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
Every image I looked at states the "source" is the djvu, which is mentioned again in the author and other versions fields, I wrongly assumed that was the cause of the muddy look. The yellowish tint could be eliminated completely by conversion to greyscale. My concern about the 'author' and copyright, mentioned elsewhere [1], is amplified by its nomination here. cygnis insignis 06:26, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Working towards fixing the artefact of how they were loaded into Commons as the indication is that they came from the source (being the book, of which the local copy is the djvu), though that fix also incorporates a stream of other work about the fuller identification of the images, and other metadata that eventuates. Not sure how or why the source/referencing at a sister site should effect the proposed status here, nor how the concerns about copyright again are relevant to it being a featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:07, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Illustrations link through to pages, and all relevant links on bibliography, though most are duplicates, one or two extras. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:41, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Support John Vandenberg (chat) 18:59, 28 February 2011 (UTC)


Later comments

  • I marked this as featured and put it on the front page, as Cygnis's oppose was struck. —Spangineer (háblame) 22:57, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
I thought the problem was being addressed, it hasn't been. It is not appropriate to showcase this as an example of the best that can be reasonably achieved. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

The Velveteen Rabbit[edit]

I don't know if there is enough time to gain consensus by January 01 for a featured text, but I would like to nominate The Velveteen Rabbit. It is beautifully illustrated, a nice story, and fairly popular. All that separates it from full validation is the images, which I marked as proofread (I've seen image pages validated). It also has a sound file which compliments the story nicely. I would like to point out that the sound file has, as I can recall, two differences from the text, I believe a missing word and maybe an extra at one point, I would hate to see it moved because I love the reader's calming inflection. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:01, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Is there any particular reason for a January '01 target? Hesperian 01:23, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I thought that it was monthly (assumed it started at the beginning of the month). - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:51, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Yeah it is... so it could be featured for January, or February, or March, or April.... Hesperian 00:33, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I didn't see a large consensus on any other candidates, and saw that November did not have a featured work. I thought that might occur again, which isn't a big deal but presumably not preferable. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:02, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The December text had meant to be featured in November, however, there was a hiccup so we bumped it to December. That said, this space is a quiet, and seems that we have people focusing on their own texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:32, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Support. A well-known classic. And, pretty pictures. --Eliyak T·C 01:58, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Comment: A good work, but the images are causing mid-sentence line breaks. I don't remember offhand how to fix this, but it should be addressed prior to featuring. —Spangineer (háblame) 15:12, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Because it is coded with {{page}} and there are interrupts to insert images, hence the text will be discontiguous with the breaks. I would like to see what looks like if we set fully to <pages>. Look at an example with bigger images.

Nice work, though I think that we can do some more tweaking to get it be more improved and then it would become a feature. Suggest that we play and look again, which means we can consider it for February. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:38, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

I will test out using <page> today. Thank you for the feedback. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:56, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Sorry to preempt you, I didn't see your comment. At any rate, I fixed it. <page> didn't work, I had to transclude each picture directly from the actual image file. --Eliyak T·C 16:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
<pages> can work, though it sometimes takes fiddling within the Page: namespace if two images need to be combined. Books that were specifically designed for being pages in a book often need to be sandbox'd, to look just as pretty when converted to the web where browsers, fonts, and monitors are so variable. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Messed around with some of the formatting, and combining the pages for the images (see here). I can't get them to combine tightly against eachother though. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:51, 3 January 2011 (UTC)
I think I see better scans, are the illustrations from the djvu file? cygnis insignis 11:40, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
They are from images that were localized here, without listing a source (here's one). I moved them to commons recently. - Theornamentalist (talk) 11:47, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
The quality of illustrations in djvu is average to bad. More could be done with the jpeg at the source, better colour, balance and contrast than File:The Velveteen Rabbit pg 43.jpg. cygnis insignis 11:58, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Images Yes check.svg Done except pages 2 and 56 (Page 2 previous editor put it as no text and page 56 image missing) --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
pg 2 validated, pg 56 proofread. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
You replaced the images with better versions? cygnis insignis 12:24, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
I've upload a better quality file from archive.org (your link), but its not linking properly because my computer automatically added jpg to the file--I'm using Vista. (See recent changes) --kathleen wright5 (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
Having jpg added should not be a problem, make the adjustments and upload over the existing images at commons. cygnis insignis 13:53, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

┌─────────────┘
To my understanding the discussion is at this point

  • The work is a suitable candidate
  • Some further work is required on the quality of the images, and presumably on the size. There has been some progress on identifying the images to be extracted
  • Review of the pagination to see if we can fix some of the page breaks.

With that progress, we can look to confirming whether this will be the work to feature in February. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:31, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

  • Updated the images; they are now larger. About a month ago I tried to modify, the double page images in my sandbox, in order to preserve the pagination, but ultimately could not get a perfect alignment, and could not remove the space in between the two images. - Theornamentalist (talk) 20:26, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
  • 'Oppose' (pending clarification) The illustrations are inadequate, using djvu as a source is inappropriate. cygnis insignis 15:13, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
The best quality is the tiff file, but a jpeg source will probably do the job. If these images are derived from the djvu they are surprisingly good, nevertheless, the file type is designed for text and they usually foul any images, eg. Cinderella FTC The online version at IA.org source should give better images, if you zoom in and save you will get 1MB if data to play with. As this is a short work, one could grab the jpeg zip file. The quality is the issue though, size is not important. Removing the background (the page colour) would also be an improvement. Converting from djvu to jpeg is not the solution (a silk purse from a sow's ear). I would have done it myself, but I don't have access to my IMP. If someone can do that, and there are no other objections, I don't see a problem with this being the February text. cygnis insignis 21:14, 30 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I've uploaded newer, much larger versions. - Theornamentalist (talk) 00:47, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
The predominant colour has shifted from red to blue in the reprint, goodness knows what that is about. At a glance the whole thing looks a lot better. cygnis insignis 06:43, 31 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Support I would prefer a bit more whitespace around the images, but it is good to go as-is. John Vandenberg (chat) 08:54, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Broken in IE6

Template:Dotted TOC page listing is broken for IE6 in that the tables are situated top left of the page, rather than in situ. This makes it an FTC-breaker until either the template is better behaved or a simpler ToC is in place. Billinghurst (talk) 01:07, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any change to the work to address this issue. Has this work progressed anywhere? Billinghurst (talk) 15:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
I removed the Dotted TOC template. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:44, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Stops of Various Quills (1895)[edit]

The following discussion is closed: July 2011

With some great help, this text has been fully validated, and I am hoping it can be considered for featured status... I can't sell fruit to a fruit fly, so all I can do is ask that you take a look... Illustration scans were done at 600dpi. I can clean up any images you think need cleaning, or change any formatting you think needs changing. If I have skipped any necessary steps in the getting-it-featured process, please let me know! Thank you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:57, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Sorry... Am I supposed to put {{featured text candidate}} on the Talk:page, or someone else, or not at all? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:56, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
I did that, fwiw. Anyone can nominate a text by opening a discussion here (and adding that template to the talk). CYGNIS INSIGNIS
and potential overlap of text and images. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - is this something anyone might be interested in reading for accompanying sound files? Or maybe it could be split up amongst readers? - Theornamentalist 20:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Beautifully done. I have no problems with those three pages rendering, nor on any other pages. No overlap of text and images for me. Mattisse (talk) 18:04, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Definite quality work prepared with precision. I have no issues with the rendering with the three pages in any of the three layouts. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment I'm going to make some updates due to some issues I believe may be inhibiting this from Featured. This will include:
  • Using {{Page| instead of {{Page:
I understand LJB's concern for creating PDF's, but I haven't seen any other work, especially recent featured texts which do not use the {{Page}} template.
I would like a second opinion on this. I created a book and downloaded it, but it does not render that nice anyway. I think it is more important to stay consistent using {{Page}} and in order for the readers to see each page upon request instead of having to o the index and search via the Source tab. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I'm going to update this; LBJ, once the PDF renderer is working, then the formatting will not make a difference. But for now, I think it is better to stay consistent with not only other works, but featured. I know PDF rendering is important to you, so I apologize if this finds you as bad judgement or hastiness. If other input goes against changing to {{Page}}, I will not object. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:46, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
I "resign" pretty easily... I agree with you in this case, as certain pages ("Burden," etc.) wouldn't render well in pdf anyway... Thanks for your concern on my part :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:04, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I can also upload the generated PDF, if you'd like, so that a user can download one if they want until our renderer is fixed. - Theornamentalist (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
I think we're good... If users come a-knockin', a way can be made then. I can just as easily build one on Word and convert it to PD too; for now I'm good though... Thanks! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:56, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
In my preoccupied haste, I have failed to mention how I have noticed all the touch-ups you're doing with the text, the addition to WP, etc., etc.,—and I do appreciate it! Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:14, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Remove redundant PD tags.
Yes check.svg Done - only on title page - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
I was gonna ask... Is it only necessary to have the PD tag on the title page? I'll fix my other books in that case as well...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:06, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Potentially general copyediting.
Moved a note to talk page - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
  • Try and create a stub page at en.wp
Yes check.svg Done - borrowed some of LBJ's talk page info. - Theornamentalist (talk) 23:28, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

If there are issues with actions, let me know. - Theornamentalist (talk) 01:33, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Closed, selected for June 2011

Can I ask that we look to have some introductory text in the notes section, even if it is something that can be taken from the WP article. Can I also ask that someone look to start the typeset the article into Template:Featured text/July. When those bits are done, we will start protecting all parts of the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

  • Put up the first poem and a brief introduction; feel free to change any of it. - Theornamentalist (talk) 15:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

A Witch Shall Be Born[edit]

The following discussion is closed: selected for August 2011

A Witch Shall Be Born by Robert Ervin Howard is one of the Conan the Cimmerian stories and the source of the famous crucifixion scene, described as the most memorable scene in the series. This has been on Wikisource for a while but now its backed by a scanned copy and fully validated. It's a little different from previous featured texts; it would be the first piece of pulp or fantasy fiction on the list. (Personally, I hope it will become featured as this is the first Robert E. Howard text I've managed to source properly, based on scans I made myself.) If it could be scheduled to coincide with the upcoming film it would be nice but not important. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • Support sounds like a grand idea for a variation, and to align with happenings. I would also be suggesting that you want to look to a lead at WP which then feeds to WS, and then you can revel in glory.wink Which month would you be recommending then? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
If you mean the banner template, "Wikisource has original text related to this article:", in the article, I also completely overlooked it. It is there, but I reckon it should be in a section 'External links'. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Template moved; also, the film is released in August according to IMDb. If there's a nothing for June or July, however, it doesn't need to be featured in the same month as the film. AdamBMorgan 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • I want to give enthusiastic support for the reasons outlined in the nomination, but I reckon it needs some tweaks.
  1. Only one cover image (both are given in the article at en.wp) is relevant to this edition.
  2. It should be sub-paged to the source, though I'm not bothered the rest is not validated (its probably not cool pulp).
  3. The missing text should be included, the lede and chapter titles. One benefit—aside from 'completeness' between the headers and footers—is that the "source" tab would appear at the top of the first page.
  4. The couple of annotations should be excised, conceptually this a problematic precedent for what remains a proposed guideline (this is now a mature site, and the integrity of clean text allows incoming links to be unproblematic, not circular (or incestuous)).
Yes check.svg Done AdamBMorgan 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
BTW: I'm totally guessing, but I reckon the cover artist for the Avon publ. is either Basil Wolverton or a swipe of him, if that gives some clue to finding a plausible credit. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
There doesn't seem to be anything on the internet that either confirms or denies this. I'll keep it in mind. - AdamBMorgan 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Support Although I like to see the white space reserved only for text and images appearing in the print. A solution, though of course not a requirement for this I have found in using the "sections" field in the header; and I think it may work here with only 5 chapters. An example being in The Swiss Family Robinson, In Words of One Syllable, where there was no contents in the print. I agree with Cygnis' suggestions as well. - Theornamentalist 15:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
Is the Table of Contents a problem? It is an addition not present in the original but it's just functional item for Wikisource navigation. Listing chapters in the header Swiss Family Robinson-style wouldn't be intuitive to me. - AdamBMorgan 20:01, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I think this may be addressed in a way which you may like from a prior Featured text, check out The curtain lectures. - Theornamentalist 20:18, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
What Hesperian and I (others?) have done where we have added/created a table of contents, and inserted it among transcluded text is to wrap "our" creation inside class=headertemplate to separate that component. Various ways to do it to make it look okay. One example is a recent FT, though other examples exist.
Yes check.svg Done Thanks for the advice. I've templatised that code, {{AuxTOC}}, so I can use it elsewhere easily. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:55, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think that the image should be transcluded on the individual works' page. - Theornamentalist (talk) 05:20, 19 June 2011 (UTC)

I have made the work active. I had another admin in IRC to review, though others may wish to check and amend. The commentary text is a little longer, though to me seemed have some value. Edit if you so wish. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

Susan B. Anthony petition for remission of fine[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Featured text September 2011

This text was created using high-quality page scans from the US National Archives. It has been fully transcribed and proofread/validated by Prosody, Kathleen.wright5, and Zhaladshar. I believe this would make an excellent featured text as a unique and significant historical document. (Also note that I mentioned it, a favorite of mine, in an interview. :-) ) Dominic (talk) 18:56, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

  • support CYGNIS INSIGNIS 19:39, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • Support - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:17, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
  • comment what is historically significant about the work? To me it means nothing and displays like any other document. Can it have some text that explains why it is significant and links to Wikipedia etc. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
If one is interested in the 'significance', there is a load of text … 1, 2 clicks away. The text here supports the article, consider the path by which readers arrive at it (not FT reviewers), which is properly from the big sister. It is an excellent example of what is achievable here, that it happens to be an FT is incidental to the background facts; any exposition would be POV, silence won't offend those who think women's suffrage was a bad thing ;-) CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:04, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
Support It is easy to describe and put works into context in a NPOV fashion, as long as you don't comment on it. We just need a short, neutral description of the work in the description field along the lines of "A petition by Susan B. Anthony, a United States women's suffrage proponent, requesting the remission of a $100 fine for, as a woman, voting illegally in the 1872 presidential election. This fine was never withdrawn but Anthony never paid it." There are no POV words there, and I think we should look to at least allow our works to stand alone without being ornaments to the enWP article, and without an interested reader from our end (the shock of it!) having to get to the Susan B. Anthony article at enWP and comb the text for the word "fine". With a description like that, a user doesn't have to successfully find context at enWP to understand what is going on here. The Wikipedia link in the header could go to w:Susan B. Anthony#United States v. Susan B. Anthony (we should probably make a note at enWP saying that this is a deep-linked header title). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:53, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
WP and Portal added to the header; also added a remark about link on the subheading at WP — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 25 July 2011 (UTC)
I have put up some text and rather than add commentary on the document, I have added a commentary on Wikipedia-in-Residence, and Wikisource:WikiProject NARA. Please double check that and make desired changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:06, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Not passed[edit]

The Time Machine (Holt text)[edit]

When I embarked on this, it was with the idea of paging out our featured text of The Time Machine, so as to bring it up to our current expectations of what a featured text ought to be. However I soon discovered that two distinctly different versions of The Time Machine exist. Our current featured text, not backed by page scans, is the "Heinemann text", whereas this new version is the "Holt text". So things are not as simple as I had anticipated. Nonetheless this Holt text is now completely proofread (thanks to Matisse) and validated (by me), and I believe it meets our featured text standards.

I propose a transfer of featured text status from The Time Machine (Heinemann text) to The Time Machine (Holt text). This breaks down into two independent requests: one could vote to defeature Heinemann without featuring Holt; or one could vote to feature Holt without defeaturing Heinemann. But I do think it makes sense to do both at the same time.

Hesperian 13:12, 17 October 2010 (UTC) (P.S. No expectation that this would hit the main page again.)

The following discussion is closed: discussion to talk page
:I think that texts are featured as of at that time, and if that isn't explicit, then let us make it so. We approach it differently from WP, in that they were works that we featured, not looking to be features forever after. Our works are not necessarily dynamic. So I would not vote for a defeature. Whether we wish to feature the other text is something that we should discuss about how and what we feature, as it may be a time for a rethink on that proposal now that we have so many more works, and based on scans. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:45, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally, I disagree that substandard works should not be defeatured. Yeah, I think there is plenty of discussion to be had on "how and what we feature", and yeah, it may be time for a rethink. Let's take the broader discussion elsewhere; perhaps Wikisource talk:Featured texts? It is a pity that FTC is in the doldrums at the moment, or we might have expected more participants in such a discussion. Hesperian 23:39, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
This would be an interesting discussion to have. Personally, I have a tough time seeing how one validated work can be considered better than another, so if "featured" means "of highest quality" (as it does on WP), all our validated works could be considered "featured". But "featured" in the sense of on the front page is different, because for that we want a text that's interesting, not similar to something else put up recently, etc. Drawing this distinction, however, would mean that this FTC process is really only a way to choose things to put on the main page, not a way to recognize particularly high quality works (of which some might be put on the main page). —Spangineer (háblame) 15:05, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
I think that's an interesting point, and one which generally echoes our sentiment regarding FTC (even if we don't explicitly state it). It might be worth having a discussion on featured texts to make explicit what we're doing. After all, nowadays we wouldn't dream of featuring a non-validated text, so we already recognize there is a special status about validated works, but how they related to FT is a bit laden with unconscious practices.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:10, 24 November 2010 (UTC)
Personally I see a very clear difference between validated and featured, and strenuously disagree with "all our validated works could be considered 'featured'". I have a validated work that I would not propose to feature, because the scan is poor. Further up this page I have objected to featuring both a work with unnecessarily low resolution images, and a work with images that needed rotating and cropping; both were validated. Speaking broadly, I would even feel uncomfortable featuring a later edition of a work if a first edition scan was available. In short I see featured as something we give only to transcriptions that can't really be improved; validated simply means proofed twice. Hesperian 23:35, 24 November 2010 (UTC)

Can I withdraw this nom? It straddles a disagreement over the fundamental question of what it means for a text to be featured. There doesn't seem to be much enthusiasm from anyone (including me) to get to the bottom of that question right now, and this nom will languish here until we do. Better to sweep it into the too-hard basket for now. Hesperian 07:18, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Poems by Wilfred Owen[edit]

This is a fully validated transcription of a nice clean scan of a first edition copy of Wilfred Owen's Poems, or rather "Poems by Wilfred Owen" according to the title page.

This is a culmination of the efforts of numerous contributors over several years. Owen's poetry was the target of some really solid effort back in 2006 and 2007, before we had the ProofreadPage system in place. Two of the poems in this book—Dulce et Decorum est and Anthem for Doomed Youth—were accorded featured text status back then, and rightly so since their provenance was thoroughly researched, making them some of our best work back then. Now, however, our standards have changed, and I believe it to be community consensus that our featured texts must be backed by scans.

The scan of the whole book was uploaded in 2008, and transcribed, validated and somewhat hesitantly paged out in 2008 and 2009. I say 'hesitantly' because there seems to have been some reluctance to step on anyone's toes by fiddling about with the featured texts. Me, I have no such scruples. :-) Over the last few days I have been through and thoroughly cleaned up both the transcription and the transclusion, and I now believe this to be ready to be featured as a whole. Obviously this would imply de-featuring the two individual poems, since they would form part of a larger featured work.

Hesperian 05:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

This is terrible edge case in many ways, so I don't mean to critical about the way you handled it. But the previously proofread text that has been overwritten was the scholarly Stallworthy edition rather than the earliest Sassoon-Sitwell edition, which is the text that is now set-up in ProofreadPage. The Oxford First World One Digital Archive has been revamped and the old links from the talkpage don't really work but this is the source. As you said it was all done before ProofreadPage, I really believe that the Oxford Project took pains to make accurate digital copies of the Stallworthy edition, but we do need to convert to ProofreadPage now that we have it. This offers some insight into the significance of the differences between such editions. I think it would be best to untangle the histories and setup a disambiguation page. In general I don't think anyone should worry about overwriting existing texts, except for they were brought up to the "Proofread by several users" stage. Since anything that was brought to that level before ProofreadPage will be a short work this shouldn't be too onerous.--BirgitteSB 22:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm happy to do this, but can I get some clarity on the copyright status of the Stallworthy editions? Stallworthy is still living, and his editions of Owen's poems were published in 1984. To the extent that the Stallworthy editions differ from the first editions, doesn't that imply creative input by Stallworthy above and beyond mere compilation? Hesperian 10:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The Sassoon edition is known to contain several errors. We could argue that it should remain here as a historically very important edition, with better versions uploaded where there are serious errors. I did this for Strange Meeting; this has a whole extra line, though I hope that this is not enough to cause a copyvio issue.--Longfellow (talk) 18:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
The copyright issue would be like the Book of Mormon (See: Talk:Book of Mormon) where we could not replicate the preface and any editorial additions like chapter headings or footnotes. The differences come from there being different versions of the poem in manuscript form.--BirgitteSB 17:40, 19 December 2010 (UTC) To clarify: If there is creative input beyond Owen's work (which I question), it is largely considered to be in the earlier editions. This is why scholars of Owen use the Stallworthy edition.--BirgitteSB 18:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)
Done. Anthem for Doomed Youth and Dulce et Decorum est are now disambiguation pages, and the old versions with their histories now reside at Anthem for Doomed Youth (Stallworthy edition) and Dulce et Decorum est (Stallworthy edition). Hesperian 00:49, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
Strange Meeting is now a versions page. cygnis insignis 05:05, 20 December 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose, for the now. This edition definitely should be featured as it is the best we can present, cover-to-cover, but the page currently lacks a notes field, which should at least say that it was published posthumously. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:18, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
There is further information on the poetry within two clicks, but I tentatively added | wikipedia = Wilfred_Owen#Poetry anyway; I wouldn't object to its removal, it ought to be linking an article on the work. The page Poems by Wilfred Owen gives much information on the book and its author, "He was killed on 4th November 1918, while endeavouring to get his men across the Sambre Canal", I don't see the point in adding that to the notes as well. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:58, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Typically(Historically?) when a FT lands on the front page, someone write a brief introduction to the piece, which usually comes from the notes field. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't think the name of the work is "Poems by Wilfred Owen" (although it is made somewhat unclear by this page); regarding sister-links, I think that it should link specifically to an article about the work. IMO, it is okay pointing to a section within his article, but maybe this publication is notable enough to warrant its own? - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:17, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
Support - Still believe that the ambiguity of the title, and where it ends, should be addressed though. - Theornamentalist (talk) 21:19, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


Rule,_Britannia![edit]

The following discussion is closed: Unsuccessful

Let's try this one. Big, high-quality scans of the sheet music, and the lyrics in both the original poem's format and as sung. The recording quality isn't that great, but it is almost a hundred years old.

A few notes:

  • There are standard rules for punctuating repeats of music: You add a comma just before the repeated section. Verses 3-6 are printed with the repeats left out in the sheet music, but, as we're giving the original poem, this isn't quite right. So I followed the standard rules.
  • "Rule, Britannia!" is only given as a quote the first time. Guardian angels are singing it in the first verse, not in later verses. I've gone without quotes in the music version, with quotes in the poetical version. Of course, I haven't actually seen the poetical version myself, and it may well have been printed as Rule, Britannia, etc. and expanded out with the quotes by someone not paying attention. However, I went with the original contributor's version.

Adam Cuerden (talk) 19:57, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

  • Support Complete picture, with images, audio, text, all-in-one. Cirt (talk) 05:19, 1 January 2009 (UTC)
  • Support Very nice. Psychless 14:11, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
  • oppose an assemblage of things with this title; an unseen poem, interpretation, unnecessary decisions on transcription, not fixed to scans, see archives for general objections raised since original nomination. My guesswork is the annotations are ours, widowed from full context and citations at wikipedia. The solution is to create separate works, and any versions, I expect there are others. Like the current form of Star-Spangled Banner this work is important and well-trafficked, numerous other sites provide this sort of thing with their ads and blather wrapped around it. We should be encouraging users to create content at the other place and give access to verifiable and unadulterated sources for people. There is nothing 'wrong' with it, it is just not what we do best. If someone makes it more 'boring', I would probably give my enthusiastic support. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC) And O Canada 19:45, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
  • Oppose I think it's a good article, just maybe not featured quality at the moment. With a few tweaks, I would be supporting this. 1) The sung version of the song contradicts the sheet music and transcription. Albert Farrington and chorus do not sing a drawn out "never" on the ("[L:1/8] B/G/c/A/ d c" in w:Abc notation) but rather sing a "nev-er, nev-er, nev-er" on those notes. 2) I don't think we need to keep reprinting the Chorus -- if we are going to reprint it with every verse, then we don't need to explicitly say "Chorus". 3) Given that the song doesn't explicitly call for indention (I presume that's just to set off the rhyme scheme), I wonder why we need both a song and poem. Banaticus (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
  • Oppose per above. I'd love to see sheet music featured, but we need transcription of the actual sheet music to be the primary component, and we don't have the technology for that. John Vandenberg (chat) 09:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)
Unsuccessful at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:00, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Life and Journals of Kah-ke-wa-quo-nā-by[edit]

The following discussion is closed: Withdrawn by nominator as apparent M&S

I recently went through this work for formatting, and am currently reading through it myself. Other than finding it interesting, it is fully validated, referenced several times at en.wp, and also the author's article is featured at en.wp. - Theornamentalist 20:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

  • oppose Errors, inconsistent and improper formatting. I would list these and other problems, if someone wanted to apply them, though it seems that a second-hand transcript was placed against a scan. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 20:04, 14 July 2011 (UTC)