Wikisource:Featured text candidates/Archives/2010

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.


The English Constitution (1894)[edit]

This text is a fine output of the Proofreading of the Month project. It is well done and looks great. Plus it is an important text. That is why I recommend this text. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:34, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support--Lookatthis (talk) 23:35, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would like to see more context and commentary around the piece before we lifted it to feature text. I like to see a book situated in place and time as an educative tool to our visitors. billinghurst (talk) 11:33, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—Support without external links. A flexible page format, indented-page, is preferable to forced width and a guillotine right margin..
We should not be editing the works in our catalogue or using them for pedagogical purposes. Nor should we be directing the user on the way to discover more information - this or that wikipedia/wiktionary entry. Reason #47: My ancient computer has a context menu item that goes to a selected word in my dictionary, it doesn't work if the word is wikilinked. If there is any consensus on this issue, it is that annotated versions should be alternates to the wikisource version. Other wikimedia sites are geared to this sort of thing. These few links may appear uncontroversial, but where does the external linking stop, a case of 'slightly pregnant'. The possibilities for mischievous or pov links are endless, the level of 'instruction' subjective, and the application of these is not constrained by notability, reliable sources or the rest of the wikipedia community's policies and guidelines. Featuring this stuff opens the floodgates.
The inflexible page style creates a lot of wasted space, resizing the window around content is more difficult, and several other reasons make showcasing this unconventional (and untested?) format problematic.
Ditto for Omnibuses work above, which is unfortunate as both are interesting products of collaboration and are otherwise ready for FT. Cygnis insignis (talk) 06:57, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that we have to be wary nominating our formatting preferences (prejudices?) as the only usable format onto any work to decide whether it is Featured or otherwise. One should also look at in the perspective of the book which itself is exactly of the format that you deride. Personally, I do not like the look of this trial indented-page for its screenloads of text. (If the use of commons.css classes is a discussion point it belongs at WS:S with the whole community.) If we get caught up in that 'battle' here, we may never arrive at the destination where A vs B have absolute preferences in divergent directions. As noted elsewhere, I have requested of Pathoschild the ability for the viewer to choose their preference of available display styles.
I presume that you reference to external links is crosswiki links, rather than links to external sites. With regard to wikilinks, I am of a differing opinion, viz this is a wiki, it is one of our advantageous and can be one of our strengths. Links should be highly relevant, NPOV, local (WP, WQ, Wikt ...). The possibilities for positive and neutral pov are endless, and we have processes for dealing with mischievous and pov links, especially within FTs. To link to an external site would be out of the normal, and not preferred, though I would not take an absolute position against such a link without knowing more.
Can you clarify your reference to editing? I am unsure of your meaning here. We should reproducing the text as is, so an example of matter would be helpful. billinghurst (talk) 00:18, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I assume that users will be joyous about finding 'screen loads of text', as pointed out elsewhere this is what WP and millions of other sites do. Left text and prose are the unorthodox versions, it is not a personal preference (or prejudice). Forced width and guillotine right-margin is a description, not derision, I have used it when I thought the advantages justified controlling this. I did this with fingers crossed, hoping it didn't produce an undesirable result on a user's platform. I haven't tested it as widely as the format that wraps to the screen width. If a user doesn't like it they can resize their window, this flexibility is lost when using anything other than indented-page.
"you" ...?! My opinion is the the product of a great amount of time considering and modifying what may eventually become viable guidelines. I don't see links to sister sites appearing inline at WP, they appear in external links; they are not considered 'local'. This is a good thing. I can think of one recent FT that was POV, I cannot assume it was intentional, but the effect of repetitively linking a phrase in that context gave it sinister overtones. I saw it as bias, an example of Said's 'Orientalism', I can't ask for references for that editorialising or resort to the other guidelines and policies at wikipedia that restrict this sort of thing. If linking biographies at one particular source is uncontroversial why stop there, why not link all the places, the concepts, the terms, and the myriad of other articles at wikipedia until the page is a sea of blue. How would the relevance of these links be guided and maintained without dragging the elaborate structures of the WP editing community as well?
So, editing is what wikipedians do. Librarians do not 'edit' their institutions holdings. Changing and adding to text is fraught with disaster, should we clean up Lady Chatterley's lover to make it appropriate for wives and servant, bowderlise the bard for access by schools. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A few points on context links. We aren't going to escape editor discretion entirely while maintaining the usefulness of Wikisource. Two pretty crucial and to my knowledge unchallenged organization and presentation tools--the notes section of the header and categories--are entirely beholden to it. Imagine, for example, the Protocols of the Elders of Zion under Category:Forgeries and not under it, or more drastically under Category:Leaked classified documents. Each of the three editions gives an utterly different message, and the text itself isn't touched. Yes, each of these different domains in which editors have freedom is a vector for the mutilation of the text, as the example you cited. That doesn't make them inappropriate for our project, just demanding of particular care. Regarding the necessity of importing Wikipedia's regulatory horrors if we open the floodgates, it seems to me a problem of scale rather than degree of user discretion. That we don't appear to have substantial problems with the presently allowed mechanisms given above is proof.
Aside: When I wrote the world "mutilate" it occurred to me that the context introduced by the category and description of the Protocols seriously changes how the text reads from the text in and of itself. Dunno how I feel about this. Prosody (talk) 23:03, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Something else that occurred to me after I submitted the above: contra interlinking to Wikimedia sites not occuring on Wikipedia, Commons images are regularly transcluded, and internal links to Wiktionary aren't entirely uncommon. Prosody (talk) 23:11, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I emphatically disagree with CI on the matter of enhancing our content with notes and interwiki links. Without them, adding most old public domain works to this project is a complete waste of time, as Gutenberg and others have far wider selections of text-only works. We have a real opportunity to make works truly accessible to everyone, not just people with special dictionary tools installed on their computers. That said, I would prefer a more generic format to this work; I don't see the need for the weird margins. --Spangineerwp (háblame) 19:54, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have converted it over to class=indented-page. I still think that it needs some explanatory notes. billinghurst (talk) 16:37, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Added notes from WP, add link to WQ.
  • Promoted to Feature Text, put into the rotation for January. billinghurst (talk) 05:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Omnibuses and Cabs[edit]

In the month of June, we took the work Omnibuses and Cabs from nothing to completely validated, which is marvellous. I would like for us to consider the work for Featured Text. -- billinghurst (talk) 10:09, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It was WS:PotM several months ago, so there was that link. Neither its text nor images were featured. billinghurst (talk) 05:26, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • promoted 16:51, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestions for Feb 2010[edit]

Do we have any suggestions for February, as we are close to the point of needing to implement, esp, if there is any fine-tuning needed. billinghurst sDrewth 15:05, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Omnibuses and Cabs has garnered no oppose votes and has been waiting to be accepted/rejected as an FT for half a year now.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:15, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cinderella (Dalziel)[edit]

I have already proofread this once, but it still needs to be proofread by one more person, so if anyone wants to help, here's the index: Index:Cinderella (1865).djvu. I also intend to look for someone willing to do a recording of the text after it's been proofread. diego_pmc 11:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The reason i did not use transclusion is because there are sentences that don't end before an image. I really think that's pretty unpleasant. Also, is there a reson this shouldn't be style=prose? diego_pmc 09:10, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By all means revert me if you disagree; I'm not sensitive about such things. My support stands regardless. Hesperian 14:59, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
My means around such matters in another text was to link the images in twice. One shows in situ in the Page: namespace, and the other transcludes at the end of the paragraph at the main NS. It worked fine, see Omnibuses and Cabs billinghurst (talk) 05:36, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, having read the text but not having proofread. Perfectly willing to proofread, though. Question. I'm not sure how all this transclusion works. Does proofreading in this case mean just something like looking at this page and checking that the text on the left is the same as the scanned text on the right, or does it mean having that page open, side by side with Cinderella (Dalziel) and checking that Cinderella (Dalziel) matches the scanned text on the right of the "Page.djvu" versions? Stratford490 (talk) 09:43, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • For proofreading we use pages like this one. Anyway, I see it was proofread already. Thanks for that! diego_pmc (talk) 08:01, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I like the presentation style. Cirt (talk) 05:15, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Proofread index pages, then compared with text. Added index and cover image to talk, suggest moving {{PDF}} there also. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with conditions - I would be happy to support this — I really enjoy the images — but I don't understand why the text isn't transcluded from the djvu pages. I would do it myself, but perhaps the contributors have a reason not to. In any case, until it is done, I withhold my support. Psychless 14:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Psychless on how the page can make FT. Available DjVu should be our standard, unless reasons are presented to override this standard. billinghurst (talk) 05:30, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • That makes three of us, I having already converted it once; but as I said above, my support stands regardless. Hesperian 06:24, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

billinghurst (talk) 12:16, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I'm just working on the images, they were derived from the djvu. As noted elsewhere, the advantages of this file-type do not include high quality image reproduction. The first couple seemed to be equivalent to the jp2 files, but the quality could be better for the file size. Compare File:Cinderella 1865 (3).png[doh!] File:Cinderella 1865 (5).png to File:Cinderella 1865 (3 redux).png, I messed with the white point and put a bit of a border. If I hadn't converted to png, the file size would be one tenth of the size! If could get some comments I would be happy to do the rest. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Look fine to me (for my grade of work and I am useless on graphics). billinghurst (talk) 06:55, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So I thought, until I had a closer look
Some char woman. 11MB png derived from 1MB djvu
The shoe fits! 13MB png derived from 1MB jp2 in zip file at source. Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am wondering whether we would be better off to hardcode the image size in these docs to something like 300px. For me they are displaying at my default size, which is 180px. While that is normally fine, for such a work, in such a display, it makes less sense to rely on the thumbnail size. billinghurst (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The images are especially important to the work, but very large. Overriding the default could be balanced by using smaller jpg versions, with links to the larger files. Cygnis insignis (talk) 05:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Diego hasn't edited here since April. If they were here I would champion their right to lay out their projects according to their own whim; but they are not, and in their absense there seems to be consensus that this should be paged out, and then featured. I have already done this once, so it should be as simple as reverting to my version, and reinstating more recent tweaks to the header. Anyone want to stick their neck out and do it? Hesperian 04:50, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on the right to lay out to one's whim, at the same time this is about featured texts and the standard(s) that community wishes to apply to achieve featured text. billinghurst (talk) 05:19, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hesperian has suggested that we transclude the work, and use this for March. I think that it is a marvellous idea. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Diary of Ten Years[edit]

The diary of George Fletcher Moore is arguably the single most important document in Western Australian social history, and the best known published version of it is Diary of ten years eventful life of an early settler in Western Australia and also A descriptive vocabulary of the language of the aborigines (1884). We now have this 584-page tome, backed by page scans, and—thanks to Cygnis insignis, Moondyne, Zhaladshar, and possibly others—fully validated. We also have another published version of Moore's diary, Extracts from the letters and journals of George Fletcher Moore, now filling a judicial office at the Swan River Settlement (1834), complete but not yet validated, and these two versions of the diary are cross-linked via the notes section. I've also cross-linked numerous other authors and works mentioned or alluded to by Moore; see for example the several linked literary allusions in the chapter entitled "The voyage". These texts back the English Wikipedia article w:Diary of George Fletcher Moore, and are cited in several other Wikipedia articles. Hesperian 06:03, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Is there a better month for this to tie in with a significant date? billinghurst sDrewth 06:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Hugely important document which H. has put together here. Moondyne (talk) 02:45, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • In lieu of other firmer suggestions, I propose that this work be April 2010 FT. — billinghurst sDrewth 04
    55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Anthony Roll[edit]

An important inventory of ships of the English Tudor navy of the 1540s. It is a primary source frequently cited by British naval historians and is unique in that it contains illustrations of all ships. I decided to make the original text available here when I was working on an update of the Wikipedia article. Having it finally available online in full text makes it so much more valuable since it now can be properly studied by the general public.

The text of the Anthony Roll (three rolls originally) was published in full in 2000 along with all the illustrations and with the original spelling. I based the text on that publication with some minor layout adjustments. However, a full facsimiles of the handwritten text has so far not been published. The closest thing I've found is a sample from the second roll that covers most of the entry for one ship. This is the same basic formula repeated for all entries. I know some of this goes against some of the featured text criteria, but I've been advised to submit a nomination anyway due to the unique circumstances.

Peter Isotalo (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a nice text, but it should obviously be complete, and proofread. When it is it will be worthy of featured text status in my opinion. —innotata (TalkContribs) 19:54, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I would have love to have images of the text, though Peter just shook his head in despair, so an indication of how we might organise a second proofread would be nice. I support the work for the nature of its topic matter, and rarity, and it is a feature whether it is second proofread or otherwise.— billinghurst sDrewth 02:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if it is rare, surely it ought to be complete? —innotata (TalkContribs) 18:38, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that the work is incomplete? It is not labelled that way on the work. Above text says three rolls, and that is what I saw on the work. Care to elucidate? I am misunderstanding something. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:54, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly the issue is that it is in Category:25%. Hesperian 01:46, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That was my mistake, so sorry for that. I hade rated the actual content of the three rolls as 75%, but I forgot to check the "title page".
Peter Isotalo (talk) 20:19, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Seems fine if others are OK with bending the guidelines this way, and more impressive than the other proposals. —innotata (TalkContribs) 01:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Our principle is for quality and diverse works. Guidelines are for guidance, not to bind. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Support then. —innotata (TalkContribs) 21:29, 17 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  2. Support a nice work of difference, and worthy of being featured if uniquely on line — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 1 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  3. Support. Agree with Billinghurst, and the pictures are of high quality. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 19:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  4. Symbol support vote.svg Support, and due to recent and unanimous support, I am going to go ahead and use this one, as the front page has a hole on it now, and it needs plugging! If anyone disagrees, or I have not done this properly, feel free to change it. I was acting quickly to stop the front page getting a huge blank space. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 03:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted May 2010 Featuredbillinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Celtic Fairy Tales[edit]

This is a validated collection of fairy tales from Great Britain, and has some nice illustrations and (for those interested in scholarly work on fairy tales) references and sources for the tales.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:09, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support blithely for having worked on it, and knowing the detail that in the illustrations and artistic large drop initials. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:25, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support ticks all the boxes. Hesperian 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as the above users think it meets the featured text criteria. Well done and a nice book. —innotata 16:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there is any comment that is adverse to making this FTC for June, please speak up by the end of this week. — billinghurst sDrewth 13.56, 16 May 2010 (UTC)
CLOSED, Featured text June 2010. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Prepared page at Template:Featured text/June. A check by someone would be appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Songs of a Sentimental Bloke[edit]

A boshter book o' poims thet gits a bloke
Fair in the brisket 'ere, an' makes 'im choke.

A push 'o three 'ave eyeballed it 'n' they
'ave given me the orfis fer to say

This 'ere book's Sir Garneo—spare me days!—
it's in good nick an' waiting your bokays.

(Nomination poem credits to Hesp.) First published in 1915, The Sentimental Bloke is one of the highest selling verse novels ever published in Australia. Its wildly successful sales during war years took Dennis from mild obscurity to Australia's most popular poet overnight, and spawned several follow up books based on the main characters. In 1916, the publisher printed a smaller "pocket edition for the trenches", to fit the Australian army uniform pocket. The vernacular verse is probably very different to anything else you've ever read, but is an immensely enjoyable read containing what is essentially a simple love story. This edition is a faithful reproduction and includes the signature cherubic artwork by Hal Gye. Moondyne (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Grossly biased support, as co-contributor. One of my favourite books, and one of my favourite Wikisource collaborations. Hesperian 13:15, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support though in the notes it would be useful to put some evident context that it is Australian and that it is written to be spoken to represent the accent. Otherwise we are going to lose people. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Moondyne, if that text was from my response, I had meant on the main ns page. — billinghurst sDrewth
No it wasn't. I meant to add this when writing the nom but got distracted. I get your drift. Moondyne (talk) 15:45, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
selected for July 2010 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

First cut at Template:Featured text/July, other admins may wish to update, or editors to discuss. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A Study in Scarlet[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
August 2010 — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The first Sherlock Holmes novel. Text contributed in 2006. Paged out by me in 2009. Validated by the Proofread of the Month guys. Seems to be an important text that meets the FTC criteria. Hesperian 12:58, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support It would be good to get some historic data for the notes that adds context. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:48, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—I know its deserving, without even looking. I made a couple of tweaks with links to the sisters, and the author subpage was moved from previous. I'll drop it into the next available month if there are no objections. Cygnis insignis (talk) 15:56, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Selected FT August 2010
Would someone please do sanity checks on what I have undertaken. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Makers of British botany[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

I think this ticks all the boxes: fully validated, high quality images, fully cross-linked including the index, and a great read! Hesperian 00:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support.Zhaladshar (Talk) 13:54, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, lots of red links to work on now! —Spangineerwp (háblame) 15:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but it'll useful before nomination to create the most known author red link to decrease the number of red links.(striked works in progress) Phe (talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support subject to Phe's comment.--Longfellow (talk) 17:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Though it might not look it, many of the most common author pages were indeed created before nomination. The problem is this work has a long tail: there are about 500 redlinks that occur exactly once each. I've dumped a list of those few remaining redlinks that occur more than once into User:Hesperian/Script, and will work through them over the next few days, but I don't think it will have much visual effect on the sea of red. Hesperian 23:36, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Are we talking about the same set of author ? in Page 9 I created Leonhard Fuchs a few minute ago and it remains Bock and Gesner who are also well known. I've not sampled many page so I'm perhaps biased by finding accidentally one with a few author to create. Phe (talk) 13:53, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps not. I agree that well-known authors like Fuchs and Boch (and Joseph Priestley!) ought to be created. I'm just saying that creating a few well-known authors isn't going to have very much impact on the appearance of red links. Hesperian 23:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point now. I was just looking through the full list of redlinks and found Antoine Lavoisier there. That is a bit embarrassing.... Hesperian 00:01, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was more on "create one or two dozen of the most konwn authors" road than "try to decresase the number of red link" as I said... I striked my objection. Phe (talk) 07:48, 24 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well and good to have it promoted, but what about the formatting and bits so it shows on the front page, and the other bits for the nomination. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:15, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is all well and good … cygnis insignis 09:05, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Life of Captain Matthew Flinders, R.N.[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Text for October 2010

This is a fully validated work about exploration of Australia and neighboring areas. It's a large work and doesn't seem to be a type we've yet featured in FTs.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:18, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It looks good; I'm more than happy.--Longfellow (talk) 19:40, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can we stop and re-think this one please? I've always thought of featured texts as those transcriptions that we honestly believe cannot be improved any further; or at least not without an unreasonable amount of effort. That is, if there is an obvious and easy way in which a text might be improved, it isn't ready for featuring yet.

As cygnis insignis has pointed out, the Internet Archive scan upon which this transcription is based is very high resolution, making it an easy matter to obtain very high resolution illustrations. (There are two ways to do this. The easiest way is to click on "Read Online", navigate to the desired page, zoom to 100%, and save the page image. The harder way, which is only for those obsessed with obtaining the highest possible image quality, is to click on "HTTP", download the (huge) zip file of .jp2 page scans, and manual convert to jpg/png according to desired encoding parameters.) At present the images in this transcription are very small, very low resolution, and—again as pointed out by Cygnis insignis—in some cases this actually affects the utility of the transcription. Therefore I'm just not comfortable with this promotion—I feel it dilutes the FT brand. Hesperian 00:47, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been useful if your concerns had been raised earlier during the discussion. Have you a solution for the gap on the front page that would result? There seems a general malaise around featured texts, especially as originally they seemed to used to be small works, whereas now we have gone to complete works of sizeable productions. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, sorry. I really ought to have commented much, much sooner. Hesperian 00:30, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I see your point. I guess I favour leaving this on the main page now that it is there. Hesperian 00:31, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[You, your? I raised the concern and you ignored it.] It is said that, "size is not important",—though it is admitted as desirable where that is the case—how this relates to the current discussion is question raised by the creator of a large work?! The solution is to do what has been done when nothing was promoted, the same solution applied to past features that were deleted as copyright violations, the month contains no feature text. The layout of the main page should not be a consideration. There are heaps of eligible candidates, if they are only nearly ready I have been willing to spend hours getting past features to a high quality - short or not.cygnis insignis 08:59, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly better if we can have a substantial, book-length work as a featured item. However, if there is none available it can't be too hard to get a short story of a few pages up to scratch.--Longfellow (talk) 16:18, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Houston: Where Seventeen Railroads Meet the Sea[edit]

The following discussion is closed:
Text for December 2010

The work, fully validated and proofread, includes many detailed images and is referenced to a copy of the work. Houston: Where Seventeen Railroads Meet the Sea documents what Houston was like in the early 20th Century. WhisperToMe (talk) 20:01, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Three comments:
  • The illustrations are high resolution but merely loosely cropped. Many of them obviously need to be rotated by up to five degrees; and, once rotated, they could be cropped right to the edge. Normally these issues wouldn't bother me much, but this being essentially a book of illustrations, I think it is very important that the illustrations actually look good.
  • All the images are run really close together in transclusion, which looks awful; and, also in tranclusion, the captions are allowed to extend beyond the width of the image, which looks really odd, because it is not what captions normally do. I've fiddled with the layout of Page:Houston, Where Seventeen Railroads Meet the Sea.djvu/33, to show you how I think this could be fixed. You can see the effect on transclusion at Houston: Where Seventeen Railroads Meet the Sea/Illustration captions#33.
  • The division of the document into separate "/Introduction" and "/Illustrations and captions" sections does not follow the structure of the book itself, which has no sections—it is simply some untitled text followed by some captioned illustrations. Of course it is sometimes necessary for us to manufacture our own sections, but I see no need for it here. The entire work could be on a single page. This would better represent the layout of the original book, and it would be much easier to read.
Hesperian 05:50, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, one last thing: I can understand representing the decorative header at the top of page 8 as an image, but why not crop the "BY JEROME H. FARBER" underneath it out of the image, and render it as text? Hesperian 06:07, 7 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the division of the book, I am perfectly fine with fitting it all on one page. As for the image suggestions, I'm not that good of an image editor. Who should I place these requests to? Also I am alright with cropping the "BY JEROME H. FARBER" WhisperToMe (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I started cleaning up the images but found myself edit conflicting with Xxagile, who started doing the same thing. I'll watch for a few days, and whatever image cleanup doesn't get done, I will do. Meanwhile I've addressed the other issues. Hesperian 13:17, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much, Hesperian :) WhisperToMe (talk) 11:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • First draft of the Featured text at {{Featured text/December}}. Please either make suggestions for improvements/alterations here, or undertake on the work. We have about 24 hours to get it into place. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The draft looks good to me. Do I need to do anything else? WhisperToMe (talk) 20:02, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Nope, beyond sit back and glow.wink We will call it final, and now look to nominations for January. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 1 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not passed[edit]

Waltzing Matilda[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

An iconic folk song by Banjo Paterson, Waltzing Matilda is immensely popular in Australia and is considered an unofficial national anthem. Proofread by myself and John V based on a photo of the manuscript. —Giggy 09:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support; it would be great to have other editions in addition to this, but they appear to be plauged by copyright issues. John Vandenberg (chat) 11:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, but with a suggestion Just like I said at A Description of a City Shower: "I'd rather like it better if this one wasn't transcluded. The "[ page ]" text is over the first letter [...] which I find pretty disturbing". diego_pmc 11:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nice work, good formatting, validation, etc. Cirt (talk) 05:09, 1 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose "The transcribers hyphens and dots should also be included, the version without is at wikipedia. I made some changes for discussion, then reverted them: Page:no links and a 'clean version' are what I would have done. Linking and mirroring wikipedia, etc., should be done with caution (if at all), the explanation can only be provided in an article with refs. The reasons for this are legion; for example, if reader clicked the link at the bottom of w:Waltzing Matilda to locate one of the sources, they would find a mirror of a section of the article and a sea of other links. This is redundant and disorientating. The attempted explanation of Tucker bag, billabong, and jumbuck is given at wikipedia's article on topic; the links here give little or no relevant info, are not supported by references, and are a subjective inclusion. I think that this is a valuable inclusion, we should objectively transcribe what it is given in the scan and avoid editorialising where possible Cygnis insignis (talk) 13:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC) [Strike oppose and hide comment] Cygnis insignis (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I'm fine with the links. I don't think the dots and hyphens should be included, so I disagree with that oppose. I like the audio file and sheet music. Psychless 13:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: this was never validated in the page namespace (see Page:Original Waltzing Matilda manuscript.jpg). --Spangineerwp (háblame) 12:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Validated, though, I am, not categorically sure about the Matildta and sic. billinghurst (talk) 04:01, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • mild oppose. Like Cygnis I think this should be a faithful transcription, which means including the hyphens. Arguably it also means including the musical score, a thing beyond our ability at present. I also don't like the Wikipedia links. Wiktionary links would be much more palatable, since surely the purpose of the links is to define the terms; but I think it would be better still to move them into the notes section of the header. Hesperian 06:22, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Garden of Proserpine[edit]

The following discussion is closed.

A faithful reproduction of the original, to which a link is provided. — The Man in Question (sprec) 22:51, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support, document has been proofread by John Vandenberg (talkcontribs), good notation, interesting work, and nice free use image. :) Cirt (talk) 23:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose until it is part of a transcription project. All the work has been done, but I don't think a text should be featured until it has scans on WS to correspond to it. If people are set on having this a featured text, I don't mind turning the PDF into a DJVU file.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 15:18, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we should have the PDF as a DJVU whether we FTC or not. There is such a capacity to match and split, we simply should be looking to do these as a matter of course. billinghurst sDrewth 07:04, 1 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]