Wikisource:Featured text candidates

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured texts (candidates)
This page hosts nominations for featured text status in accordance with the Featured text guidelines. A featured text should exemplify Wikisource's very highest standards of accuracy. If you nominate a text, you will be expected to make a good-faith effort to address objections that are raised.

Any established user may nominate a text or vote (as long as it matches the criteria). Every month the nomination with the highest support ratio, weighted in favour of nominations with more numerous votes (equation forthcoming), will be chosen as featured text. All nominations with under 70% support after a week will be archived. The most promising nominations (up to 10) will be carried over to the next week, during which time established users may continue to place votes.

Featured texts edit
Date Text
January Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm
February The Clandestine Marriage
March The "Bab" Ballads
April Pro Patria (Coates)
May The Panchatantra (Purnabhadra's Recension of 1199 CE)
June Australian Legendary Tales
July Resistance to Civil Government
August Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains
December Author:Beatrix Potter
  1. The Black Cat was originally featured, but this is now a disambiguation page, and featured status has been transferred to Tales (Poe)/The Black Cat.


Nominating a text[edit]

  1. Ensure that the text meets all the featured text criteria and style guidelines. Nominations that are flagged as not meeting the criteria will be unlisted after 24 hours, unless the criteria are met in that time.
  2. Please ensure that "download option" from the sidebar produces a full work
  3. Note the nomination on the talk page by adding the template {{featured text candidate}}.
  4. Begin a discussion at the bottom of this page. Note your reason for nominating the text.
See also


  • If you believe an article meets all of the criteria, write Support followed by your reasons.
  • If you oppose a nomination, write Object followed by the reason for your objection. Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. If nothing can be done in principle to "fix" the source of the objection, the objection may be ignored. This includes objections to an text's suitability for the Wikisource main page, unless such suitability can be fixed.
  • To withdraw an objection, strike it out (with <s>text</s>) rather than removing it.

Closing a nomination (administrators only)[edit]

  • Failed nominations
    1. Add a comment explaining why the nomination failed.
    2. Archive it.
    3. Place {{featured text not passed|year|title}} at the top of the work's main talk page (adding the year and heading of the archived discussion).
  • Passed nominations
    1. Add a comment noting the selection.
    2. Archive it.
    3. Add the work to {{Featured text}} (inside the respective month) and {{featured schedule}}.
    4. Place {{featured}} on top of the work's main page {{header}} template.
    5. Place {{featured talk|May 2017}} at the top of the work's main talk page (changing the numbers to the appropriate date if not next month).
    6. Protect all the work's main namespace pages.
    7. Indicate the work's featured status on its associated data item at Wikidata.


For older nominations, see the archives.

Views in India, chiefly among the Himalaya Mountains[edit]

The following discussion is closed and will soon be archived: selected for August 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:01, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
This work, although full of whimsical and archaic spelling and displays a significant lack of knowledge while discussing local culture, is nevertheless noteworthy for being one of the earliest works presenting before the world a visual display of Himalayan and other Indian scenery. The watercolors are quite good, this author's paintings discussed/listed at 1, 2, 3. Hrishikes (talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
At present I can't support for technical reasons. The display version of the images need to be drastically reduced in size. The first image on the main page is far too big at 9 Mb. I had to kill the page load to get my computer to respond. I see that the other images are of a similar size. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:56, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
Rectifications done. Hrishikes (talk) 16:36, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
The scaled-down duplicates you have created will be candidates for deletion at Commons. The Mediawiki platform contains features that make it unnecessary to host multiple versions of an image at a range of resolutions. These features are accessed by using the standard [[Image:...]] wikicode to embed images. The problem here is that you have used {{FI}} to bypass those standard features. This problem should not be "solved" by uploading multiple versions of the same image. The solution is to embed the images in the standard manner intended by the Mediawiki platform. Hesperian 00:34, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Can you please rectify one image by your method, so that I can understand the procedure? I understood that BWC was objecting to the actual size in mb of the images and took action accordingly. Hrishikes (talk) 01:40, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
[1] Hesperian 02:57, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
Is it ok now? Hrishikes (talk) 02:00, 17 January 2016 (UTC)

@Hesperian: It would help us here on Wikisource if mw:Help:Images were more widely known. I've been bumbling around using various image templates. Can a note be put on the image template pages to guide Wikisource editors to mw:Help:Images? It lists all the options/pipes. Outlier59 (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment This nomination has been up for nearly a year, and awaiting comment for 8 months. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:16, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:34, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Catholic Hymns (1860)[edit]

Not a notable collection, but includes many notable hymns, many of which were not previously on WS, or were not scan-backed. A better option would be Lyra Catholica, which is the original source of the notable hymns' translations, but who knows when that will be complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support - it would be good to see us "show off" one of the numerous songbooks and hymnbooks we have available out there, to maybe get more people interested in adding them here. unsigned comment by John Carter (talk) .

The Decrees of the Vatican Council[edit]

Highly important documents in the history of the Catholic Church. On the other hand, Canons and Decrees of the Council of Trent are much more important so maybe we'd want to hold off until the latter is complete? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Eight or Nine Wise Words about Letter-Writing[edit]

I think this little work by Carroll is interesting, fun, and quaint. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church[edit]

This work brings together several translations of seven highly notable mediaeval hymns. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment A good selection, as I don't think we've ever featured a work on music before, but this needs some cleanup of format and links. There are at least some links in the work that are red and will always remain so, because they link to titles of works that were not written in English. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
    • I'd be willing to clean up further. I don't believe redlinks are a problem, as all of the linked works may be added in the future as translations. I don't know what further cleanup would be desired with formatting. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
      • It's not the existence of re links per se, although such links do indeed attract vandals when present in FT. No, my concern is for red links to non-English titles. Yes, we might some day have a translation here of Dante's Cantate spirituali, but it's extremely unlikely that the English translation would have that title. It's also my experience that red links to titles often use an incomplete or even incorrect title, so the link is not completed when the target work in finally added to Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:11, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment I'm not a huge fan of the navigation between the English and Latin sites, but maybe it's unavoidable. For example, the "next" link on The seven great hymns of the mediaeval church/The Celestial Country/Neale takes me to Latin, which has a very different page layout. --Spangineer (háblame) 14:15, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
  • no support taking them off to another wiki, with another style, is not realistic for our featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
    • Is there a better way to handle this? I can put the Latin text here if it's preferred. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:34, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
      Conventional policy says "no". The Latin text is at the Latin Wikisource, while the English is here. Alternatively, the whole work would be moved to "multilingual" Wikisource, at which point it would all be in a single location, but not eligible for FT because it's no longer here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:40, 12 March 2017 (UTC)


This is a classic children's book which not only is a cracking read, even for an adult (speaking as one), but also had a significant cultural impact. I think it would make a great Featured Text. BethNaught (talk) 11:58, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg Support, it looks like this would be an excellent choice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 03:07, 29 August 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support obvious classic with great influence. John Carter (talk) 19:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support, but since the similar Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm is already scheduled for January 2017, I recommend we hold this until January 2018. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:54, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

The Tale of Peter Rabbit (1910)[edit]

This beloved classic is now scan backed and would be an excellent featured text. Alternatively, any other Beatrix Potter work with a finished scan would be a good option. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:45, 20 September 2016 (UTC)

  • So I was actually just thinking that it would be interesting (and a little different) to feature Beatrix Potter as an author (eg. feature all of her works at once, maybe under the heading "Peter Rabbit series") once we finish transcribing the four remaining works of hers. Given that we'll have the entire Peter Rabbit series minus the one that's still under copyright. Each of the books themselves is quite short, all of our transcriptions so far are of excellent quality in terms of images and scans, and the books themselves have a certain amount of continuity in terms of characters, settings, and so on.
But given that we've never actually done that before as far as I know, I'd Symbol support vote.svg Support just featuring The Tale of Peter Rabbit individually as an alternative. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 20:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
We've done something similar, I believe, with the Romanes Lecture feature a few years back. I would support waiting until all the Peter Rabbit tales are validated to better feature the whole public domain corpus.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:53, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
All hosted works by Potter are now validated. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 11:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support either the work on its own or as one of the available PD works by the author. John Carter (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support. This would make a good read for the holidays, so after December has ended, I'll set this one up for December 2017. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Good idea. I'd also support featuring the complete PD tales of Beatrix Potter; in particular, I'd point out that the Tale of the Tailor of Gloucester is a holiday-related story. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:34, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I've created User:Beleg Tâl/Sandbox/Beatrix Potter for drafting the mainspace blurb for the Tales of Beatrix Potter, if anyone wants to take a stab at it. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:46, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposed blurb:
I'm not very good at blurbs so improvements are welcome. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:22, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

A Princess of Mars[edit]

Nomination for October 2017, which will mark the 100th anniversary of its publication in book form. It is the first of the "Mars / Barsoom" series by Edgar Rice Burroughs. We've not had an adventure novel since the start of 2014, we featured only two novels in 2015, and none at all in 2016. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Spangineer (háblame) 14:07, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg Support --Because, well, duh. ;) John Carter (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The Art of Bookbinding[edit]

It's been a very long time since we featured a work on manufacture or of practical value. This volume not only describes the traditional practices but also includes many fine illustrations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:28, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Would be nice to have a uniform formatting of captions for pictures.— Mpaa (talk) 23:47, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: Index:The pilgrim's progress by John Bunyan every child can read (1909).djvu[edit]

I am wondering if this should be considered for FT status now that's been fully validated and transcluded.

If there are specfic concerns please don't hesitate to list them below.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:58, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Neutral for now—I validated this particular version of Pilgrim's Progress and I don't recall anything particularly outstanding about this abridged edition. What would make it worth featuring on our Main page for a month? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
Also neutral. The Pilgrim's Progress itself is arguably one of the most important pieces of religious English literature, but -- like Beeswaxcandle above -- I'm not sure that this particular version merits the same distinction. --Mukkakukaku (talk) 02:20, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
  • not support pushing works that are at the edges of style guide is not my favoured approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:47, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the style concern? In any event this is an abridged edition and so might fail on those grounds alone. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

The Subjection of Women[edit]

We now have a validated copy of what is (as far as one can tell) the first edition of this essay by J. S. Mill. It's a major work in the history of feminist philosophy, with Mill being one of the earliest male feminists and the first member of the British Parliament to advocate female suffrage (per Wikipedia). It's a powerfully written text and although its aims and many of its arguments will be familiar to us nowadays, it is nevertheless very educational in terms of learning about the historical subjection of women; moreover it remains highly relevant to today's world. For these reasons I think it would be an excellent featured text. BethNaught (talk) 19:04, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Assuming this is selected (I haven't looked it over yet), should we use it in one of the remaining slots at the end of this year, or hold it until March, 2018, when WP has their women in history month? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:50, 5 April 2017 (UTC)
I'm ambivalent. On the one hand it would certainly fit the theme. On the other, if we are going to have an on-theme work for women in history month, I would find it a little odd—not wrong, just a bit odd—for it to be by a man. That said, we have FTs allocated up to and including August, so (assuming this work attracts support) we can afford to hold off deciding—if something better comes along for March about women, put this in 2017 (probably September to have a decent spacing), otherwise put this one out in March. BethNaught (talk) 11:45, 6 April 2017 (UTC)