Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion or the archives index.
The idea is that when the previous volume finishes the next volume will auto-advance. So if Volume 2 is done, Volume 3 will be added. Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
I've very conflicted about this one. I absolutely think that we need to do this series, but we already have Caryle, The Philippine Islands, Wells, and Verne. I'm worried that it might be too much. However, I'm happy to say yes, if this gets a second. Languageseeker (talk) 01:36, 27 May 2021 (UTC)
Also, these texts are well OCR-scanned as electronic gazette version. I believe that the workload on proofreading (but not transcribing, though) will be less than other older scripts.廣九直通車 (talk) 08:22, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
廣九直通車: The first work of these two needs its name corrected: the closing parenthesis is missing. While I am not necessarily opposed to proofreading law works, laws in general are quite formatting-heaving (and rather dull). The two laws shown here are 1428 and 587 pages, respectively. The latter of these is on the longer end of works (without formatting) that would be completed normally, and this being a law, I believe that the time which would be expended on formatting would be undue for a community-orientated project such as this—to say nothing of the longer work. I think that another work (perhaps some court opinions or other general legal text) of a more contracted length, and not requiring so much formatting, would be better.
Support: This work looks fine. I do not think it necessary to formally nominate works of this brevity, as they would only require a minimal amount of effort to fully proofread and/or validate. (I believe that The Happy Hypocrite would fall into this category, as well, though not the Eastern North Carolina Encyclopedia, owing to the double-column formatting.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
The nomination process is kind of informal (there are no hard-and-fast acceptance/rejection criteria). I think it's nice to list all nominations here regardless of "triviality" because then we have a decent list to pull from into the staging area towards the end of each month, ensuring a good spread of works (e.g. if I nominated another Hardie work, we might choose one for next month and one for the month after). Also means people can see what's coming up and propose better ideas if they know of one. Inductiveload—talk/contribs11:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Support Sounds good to me. In general, we should be vary of overloading on US stuff (e.g. at least get Chesterton done first), but this is short and a little unusual. Inductiveload—talk/contribs18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
It seems to be that we more short works may be a good idea as they naturally end sooner and give us a chance to mix it up with slightly oddball works on a wide range of topics. Inductiveload—talk/contribs20:00, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Inductiveload: I made a list of shorter works here; nominate what you think good from that list. Only Remarks on the British Quarantine Laws, Attainder of Treason and Confiscation of the Property of Rebels, and Appeal to the Wealthy of the Land were completed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Index:King Alfred's Old English version of St. Augustine's Soliloquies - Hargrove - 1902.djvu I have already proofread this work and it needs validation by a second editor. This might be interesting for more experienced editors looking to do something different (validating an Old English text) or to newer editors as a way of showing Wikisource's diversity. There is a lack of editions of Old English texts on English wikisource, especially regarding prose works. The Soliloquies are an example of Alfredian prose and I have also uploaded Indices for two other Alfredian texts, so there's scope to follow this up with more OE texts. Rho9998 (talk) 14:20, 26 July 2021 (UTC)
I would suggest scan-backing the works of Marx / Lenin (starting with Capital and Left Wing Communism) as much as we can because many of the translations hosted here and elsewhere have suspect lineages so having scans would be good hygiene in addition to the historical importance. MarkLSteadman (talk) 16:41, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
“Left Wing” Communism looks good. Das Capital is somewhat long, and is being actively worked on by another user, so I would demur from that selection. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:56, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
The Chaldean Account of Genesis, by George Smith (1876) (external scan): The original translation of the Epic of Gilgamesh; although it is a longer work, maybe it should wait until the current group of works have been sorted through. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:36, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Various, The North Carolina Historical Review, started in 1924, only Issue 1 is created thus far (transcription project) A still running publication that talks about different parts of NC history. Reboot01 (talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC)
Neutral It's short, but perhaps a little dry for non-NCers. Unless we have nothing else to fill in for US regional works, I'd be inclined to change the state (assuming we do E. NC Encyc., above. Though never any objections if there's appetite to actually proofread it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
I continue my opposition to this nomination, on the grounds of formatting (of a similar difficulty to the York Shakespeare editions) and the great use of Middle English text and letters. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:13, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
I am not aware of it, but I don’t think so. If there were only a few foreign characters in the entire work—or a line or two of Greek interspersed—that would not be too prohibitive. However, there are many of the Old/Middle English characters on these pages, and I believe that such a quantity (and on so many and such a large proportion of pages) makes this work ill suited for efforts by multiple people. I would not necessarily be opposed to the inclusion of this work for this project (as opposed to the other proofreading project), but I believe that the proofreading would only work if one person, with a knowledge of and patience for using the characters, proofread the entirety of the poem proper, with a collaborative effort for proofreading the preceding introduction and the succeeding notes. I think that a similar problem exists as to the creation of images, especially in a work where there are many images, such as July’s When We Were Very Young. (While a collaborative effort could proofread the text, it would be better if one person created all of the images.) I believe the two situations to be thus analogous. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:56, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Index:Manufacture Of Soda by Hou Te-Pang.pdf (1923). Chemistry, China. A book by Chinese chemist Hou Te-Pang/Hou Debang who described his Hou's process, an improvement on the existsing Solvay process on sodium carbonate production. I concur with Inductiveload's view that we have little text about China here, and the book's large amount of images, tables and technical challenges (like the chemistry equations inside the book) also makes collaboration helpful.廣九直通車 (talk) 13:35, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
The images in this scan are awful. Is there any other source available? If not, I must oppose, because those images are effectively useless in their current condition. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
South Carolina Legislative Manual
South Carolina Legislative Manual (1917) (transcription project) — There are many legislative manuals for South Carolina with scans. Most if not all of them are in the public domain. The 1917 manual is the earliest available one of them all. Having a pre-1926 state government work would be nice. Also, since this is a pretty long text in terms of formatting etc., it will get done faster if it's a collaboration. It will also set the standard for future SC Legislative Manual transcription projects, making them a bit easier to format by example of this one. PseudoSkull (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
A Selection of Cases on the Sales of Personal Property
A Selection of Cases on the Sales of Personal Property (1872) (external scan) by Christopher Columbus Langdell — a pretty lengthy resource on older case law (just over 1000 pages long. For those interested in US legal history and constant italicizing when editing. I'd love to see works like this be finished. PseudoSkull (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Oppose. This work, though short, contains many tables and lengthy lists, and for that reason I believe it inappropriate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:33, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Petition from the Citizens of Massachusetts in Support of Woman Suffrage
No strong topic for this nomination. An easy work, with little text per page, and with a few images. (We’re low on nominations, I hear.) Also, the first work of this guy on Wikisource. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
First work of this author, too. A mediaeval woman, which is probably the more valuable. A few images. Not too much text/page, really, especially with the good OCR. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:23, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
We currently don't have any literary criticism in the challenge and this is considered to be an important part of American literary criticism, most notably for helping to establish Herman Melville's figure within American literature. BaldwinLife (talk) 14:09, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
Neutral; support in principle, but we do have quite a lot of Dickens already so a lot of the collection will be duplication. @Languageseeker: you seem to have a handle on the value of various Dickens editions: do you think we'd be better served with a "complete works of" collection like this or targetting a list of individual editions to fill the gaps at Author:Charles Dickens? Inductiveload—talk/contribs12:03, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
The majority of Dickens are not scan backed. The Charles Dickens editions (from which this edition takes it plates) is the last edition revised by Dickens himself. However, the general consensus is that the quality of the printing declined throughout the editions because the printers introduced more errors than Dickens did corrections. I think it would make more sense to start with either the first editions or the serials. For me, the serials would provide a new and unique way of putting Dickens online. They're also exceedingly rare, so having them here would be quite a feather in our cap. Languageseeker (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
According to The Cambridge bibliography of English literature [1][2] Gadshill Edition is the fullest standard and authorised edition of Dickens' works. It also contains all the original illustrations with many additional ones. Ratte (talk) 12:48, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ratte: Obviously I don't include non-scan-backed works, but some Dickens is scan backed. I don't have a handle on how much, but it seems a shame to use MC effort to duplicate editions. Just a thought that a hand-picked list of editions might be a better list to work from that a collection, even if the collection is convenient. Also, I am vaguely aware that Dickens editions are not all created equal. If Gadshill is the edition to use, then great, but I still suggest picking the "fresh" volumes rather than just starting at 1 and grinding though all 34 volumes regardless of if that work is adding new material to WS. Certainly we can loop back and fill in gaps as a follow-up, but I'd rather see a new blue link on another author than spend the effort on re-proofreading a work we already have. Inductiveload—talk/contribs13:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ratte: I'm not sure that the entire Gadshill Edition would make sense. Dickens died before it was produced and it seems to a combination of the Charles Dickens edition that Dickens revised in 1867/1868 and another edition. For Dickens, there is no definitive edition before the Clarendon Dickens which are in copyright. The Clarendon and Norton editors agree that the first edition/serial version are the best and I would start with those. Maybe, we can do the serial of The Pickwick Papers. Languageseeker (talk) 20:11, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
According to The Cambridge bibliography of English literature [3][4] Gadshill Edition is the fullest standard and authorised edition of Dickens' works. It also contains all the original illustrations with many additional ones. Ratte (talk) 10:17, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
that is persuasive to me, with grudging respect to Lang for compiling illustrations [which reduces the desirability of creating another edition for those, again, for me] CYGNIS INSIGNIS18:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ratte: I think I would like to see individual volumes rather than the entire series. I understand what the Cambridge source says. Yes, Gadshill is the most complete edition published by the publishing house that held the copyrights to his works, but I don't think that it was the result of careful curation of the existing material. Rather, Chapman probably used the sterotype plates for some of the works and reset others to make some money off a deceased author. At best, Gadshill is a combination of editions. I'd rather proofread an edition that Dickens directly contributed to. From the Gadshill, maybe we can do volumes 35 and 36 that Cambridge identifies as being unique to this edition? Languageseeker (talk) 00:43, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
"I don't think", "rather", "probably"... All I can see that you refuse to include a good source to MC because of contrived excuse. I had a better opinion about this project. PS. Scans of vols 35 and 36 are not available at the moment. Ratte (talk) 10:59, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
@Ratte:Oppose I'm sorry that you feel that way. I care deeply about this project and I am trying to support most proposals and be polite which is why I used such language. To be clear, the Gadshill Edition is the most complete edition, but it is not the best edition. It's best described as an attempt by the publishers to make a pile of money off one of their most important assents. The Clarendon Dickens, the standard of the field does not use them. Instead, they base their editions on mainly first editions. For David Copperfield, they used the 1850 printing; for Dombey and Son, it is the 1848 text; for Great Expectations, it is the 1861 text; for Dombey and Son, it is the 1857 text; etc. Nobody uses the Gadshill editions anymore and they sell for next to nothing. I would love to have more Dickens, but I'm against this particular edition. In general, I'm opposed to the idea of adding a long-term series that would run for several years for something that is at best a mere reprint. Languageseeker (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Note: there is no requirement that we have to use a single collection as source material for an ongoing MC "series" - we can pick from multiple different editions as we please (and go in any order). It's my understanding (from Languageseeker) that Dickens is somewhat unique among authors in that there are many posthumous editions and there is some feeling that the works he personally "authorized" while living are in some sense superior to some later editions. For me, personally, I don't really care which edition of each work we use — I'm more concerned with avoiding blindly chunking away at thousands of pages of books that we already have equivalently-useful scan-backed editions of (e.g. Index:Nicholas Nickleby.djvu, 3 vols of Index:Oliver Twist (1838) vol. 2.djvu, Index:Christmascarol1843.djvu, etc. I'd only really support use of MC slots for different editions of the same works if the editions are substantially interesting in their own right.
I do not attach much special attention to completing collections like Gadshill just because we can if the effort required to do so is mostly reduplicative for the average reader. Anyone extremely interested in the typographical minutiæ should probably be looking at scans anyway. If there were no other works left in the world, then sure, but the work to do is functionally infinite, so we should act accordingly. Inductiveload—talk/contribs18:17, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
We're losing two series for September and have nothing lined up to replace them. This was suggested off-wiki by @User:MSG17. While it's a bit US-centric, it covers a good chunk of time compared to, say, UNTS, which only started in 1947 (because the UN itself start then). Also, because the documents are bi/multilateral, this provides a fair spread across other countries, even if the US is a common factor.
Thanks for nominating the series! I would also like to add that we can use these to replace a bunch of non scan-backed versions of treaties, particularly versions which might have a dubious copyright situation. One example is First Geneva Convention (1864), where I used the US government translation to replace one from a 1988 book (which was rehosted on the Red Cross' website). MSG17 (talk) 21:01, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Also, there is a text layer embedded into the text (courtesy of the Library of Congress, I assume) so that would make things a bit easier. MSG17 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree about replacing a bunch of the treaties with scan-backed varieties, having the US and England is naturally going to be a focus as this is English-language wikisource and providing primary sources for those two countries will dominate much of the historical time period. One issue with the UN series is the number and size of treaties has expanded immensely so it will be a lot more work so it will end up being much more interest driven rather than comprehensive. As an aside, I uploaded Wheaton's two books on international law, maybe we want to start a section under Wikiproject:Law around international law, treaties etc. MarkLSteadman (talk) 00:40, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to promote this, since we need a series to replace Jules Verne and Ruskin and at least this one is a different tack (not-author-centric), divided into separate chunks, global in scope and allows scan-backing of various paste-dumps and we have at least one user who is directly interested.
I've been thinking about using the Long-Term Series to plumb the depths of the amazing literature that is locked away in periodicals. Instead of focusing on proofreading an entire periodical, I think it makes more sense to run a long-term series to focus on either a particular text or series of texts that were originally published in periodicals. To start and figure out the mechanics of this, I'm proposing running Sherlock Holmes as a long-term series. There are 56 Sherlock Holmes short stories and each one is around 15 pages long. So, it would easy to proofread one story. A major feature of the original periodical versions is the inclusion of illustrations that were largely omitted from the collections. Furthermore, I propose that we add a new story once the previous one is proofread rather than once a month. Languageseeker (talk) 02:15, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Languageseeker:Support I agree. We need a list of the periodical issues in question so we can setup the scans and auxiliary structures.
Re "instant-rollover", that's pretty much what we do already (when we're paying attention) - the next part of a series is brought in as soon as the previous one gets proofread. There is a status override in the config to allow us to mark an index "proofread" if we have proofread the bits we care about, as opposed to the whole index. Inductiveload—talk/contribs09:05, 8 September 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Great! I'm starting to upload the scans of The Strand and trying to figure out the best way to highlight the stories. At the Index for the first volume Index:The Strand Magazine (Volume 2).djvu, I've labeled the pages with SH1, SH2, .., SH6. However, they seem buried in the overall pagelist. Would it be possible to do a subpage list that would be above the full page list so that it would be easier for users to see what needs to be proofread. Something like <sublist "A Scandal in Bohemia" 62to76> <pagelist>?
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you for digging this up! This saves from having to find this particular scan. My idea is to start with the first short story "A Scandal in Bohemia" and then work up to the end. There is one or two stories that are copyright until 2023, but the majority are/will be in the PD. The series will create a scan-backed version of all the Sherlock Holmes stories that appeared in periodical with the accompanying illustrations. Languageseeker (talk) 02:46, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
Languageseeker: I have created a pagelist as an example for The Strand, vol. 2. As for the idea, it seems good; but there should be some way to subdivide the volumes for enumeration purposes on the MC-side of things. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:04, 9 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Thank you so much! That is absolutely perfect. It's exactly what I was hoping for. As for enumeration, I might just move the pagelist for the stories not featured yet to a temporary page in my user profile and then move them back once the previous story gets proofread. Not automated, but it'll work. Languageseeker (talk) 00:26, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if waiting makes that much sense. My own theory is that users certain projects that they are willing to proofread and others that they simply don't want to. The Monthly Challenge is mostly about displaying a certain number of books and hoping that someone will adopt them. If a book is adopted, then either it will be proofread very quickly or will be slowly proofread over time. Making a book visible is more likely to get it proofread, but won't really affect the speed. In the end, most works will be mostly proofread by one to four users. Therefore, displaying more books is more likely to attract more users and get more pages done. My idea is that featuring more works will result in more works being done.
I think the greatest irony about ebooks is that the importance is inverse to importance. Most of the great works of English literature were put on line in the 1990s from dubious sources and have never been scan-backed. Hopefully, we can begin to reverse this trend, but one or two books a month will just take to long. The 1874 edition is one volume and, hopefully, it will get adopted. It'll be nice to finally have a free, legal copy of what many consider the greatest work of Victorian fiction that is actually based on an original edition. Languageseeker (talk) 01:55, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Index:The Sundering Flood - Morris - 1898.djvu by William Morris. "... perhaps the first modern fantasy writer to unite an imaginary world with the element of the supernatural, and thus the precursor of much of present-day fantasy literature." Warning: template has been deprecated.
The map is especially obviously a precursor to very many other fantasy fiction maps.
To continue adding to our Old English texts. I think the Soliloquies have been quite successful, so just putting this out here too: Index:Gospel of Saint Matthew in West-Saxon.djvu. I will have finished proof-reading the main text by January, so will also be halfway there.
Public Domain Day (1st Jan) is coming again, bringing all works published in 1926. I think the January challenges should use that as a focus to hammer out some PD works ASAP after they drop (and then publicise it!). However, the difficulty here is that the scans cannot be uploaded ahead of time because they're not PD until the day. Perhaps we should still create the Index pages and even the file pages (if enWS-local: Commons might not appreciate that) , do as much ground-work as we can, and then upload the scans ASAP on 1st Jan?
We should also think of a list of works we want to select from:
@Inductiveload I had the same exact idea. Great minds think alike? :) I'll try and do as much as I can. I think it's probably best to hold off on adding them to the data file until we have the actual files. Perhaps, we can make January a rolling month where we add texts as they become available. Languageseeker (talk) 12:44, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Support. Languageseeker (talk) 21:42, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
Neutral It's short, but perhaps a little dry for non-NCers. Unless we have nothing else to fill in for US regional works, I'd be inclined to change the state (assuming we do E. NC Encyc., above. Though never any objections if there's appetite to actually proofread it. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:29, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
Oppose I'm sorry that you feel that way. I care deeply about this project and I am trying to support most proposals and be polite which is why I used such language. To be clear, the Gadshill Edition is the most complete edition, but it is not the best edition. It's best described as an attempt by the publishers to make a pile of money off one of their most important assents. The Clarendon Dickens, the standard of the field does not use them. Instead, they base their editions on mainly first editions. For David Copperfield, they used the 1850 printing; for Dombey and Son, it is the 1848 text; for Great Expectations, it is the 1861 text; for Dombey and Son, it is the 1857 text; etc. Nobody uses the Gadshill editions anymore and they sell for next to nothing. I would love to have more Dickens, but I'm against this particular edition. In general, I'm opposed to the idea of adding a long-term series that would run for several years for something that is at best a mere reprint. Languageseeker (talk) 11:13, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Done only validation is needed 2001:4450:8123:7E00:84FB:4998:F6C3:F70 00:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
![[2]](https://i5.imageban.ru/out/2021/06/13/d07a4e9f997e00b978f99722473ec780.png){kind=link}