Wikisource talk:Featured text candidates/Archive 1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Since getting[edit]

Since getting an article proofread by multiple editors seems to be the toughest obstacle to Featured status, I've set up a proofing swap meet. Feel free to check it out and tell me what you think! —Quadell (talk/swapmeet) 15:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We broke the template {{Featured text}} ...[edit]

We broke the template {{Featured text}}, and I have repaired it, and have scratched together an (ugly) example of the means to put together the components of FT, so can preload the future months. Also note that the choice for December can be bumped if something better (seasonal?) turns up for that month. -- billinghurst (talk) 07:11, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We need a text for January 2010, and little in the way of discussion[edit]

It would be helpful if the existing recommendations are commented upon, alternatively there is separate texts recommended for consideration. billinghurst (talk) 12:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

March 2010, is that a yes, not, nothing worthy[edit]

I have bumped February to carry the label for March for the moment. Are none of the works worthy? Is it a case of nothing rather something on which we have a few oppositions. Do we not have a March work? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:02, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I convert Cinderella to use page transcription over the next day or so, that should be an uncontroversial promotion, yes? Hesperian 02:09, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds excellent. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:19, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hesperian
Cyg did someone extra valuable work, and to me indicates some of the issues that we probably should have addressed earlier. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorting out FTs a month ahead[edit]

I would like to suggest that the FT should be considered and declared a full month ahead of schedule, ie. ideally we would have decided April's, or should soon.

As few people are contributing may I suggest some guiding principles

  • Works with unanimous support from established editors are suitable for FT
  • Ideally having being available for discussion for > 1 month
  • A dissent alone is not enough to prevent FT, it indicates that further discussion required, and a demonstrated attempt to address raised concerns
  • Preferably supported by an image file, though not having an image does not disqualify from consideration
  • Works should be proofread by more than 1 reader

These are not absolute rules. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Updated methodology for Template:Featured text[edit]

To make it easier to manage the featured texts, I have amended the template so it transcludes a file that contains the correct month's work. Accordingly there is twelve files (all protected) for twelve months and all linked from the documentation page. The only potential downside is it will pick the file, so that could be the new file we have added, an empty file, or a previous file if we have not updated a previous version. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We didn't update (as Inductiveload noted) and it showed blank until he added a text. I have put in place a {{#ifexist:}} test, and made the April file, the default file. We could look to having a default FT, or other text, show in cases where we haven't a file ready.
I would recommend that we look to have a text selected by approx. 22nd of the preceding month. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT reviewed[edit]

The Black Cat.

This was match and split from whatever version and state the text was in. I validated that with some difficulty, the differences are harder to detect than ocr errors, and it probably needs another proofread. I made a note on the talk, removed the image, and subpaged it to the scan's title. I added a transcript from eapoe.org, the first publication, and subpaged that as well. The redirect to the FT was altered to a versions page, the category, one audio file, and sister and language interwiki links currently reside at that page. The star remains on a page that bears little resemblance to the FT; I'm indifferent, but I thought I should note this somewhere. Cygnis insignis (talk) 16:19, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FT Question[edit]

The Featured Text for October 2008 is Early Settlers Along the Mississippi but the source given for that article is Index:Southern Life in Southern Literature.djvu which hasn’t been proofed or validated. Are there some mixed up links here? Mattisse (talk) 16:33, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Early Settlers Along the Mississippi is a part (i.e. pp 13–19) of the larger work Southern Life in Southern Literature. It was featured at a time when there was no expectation that featured texts be complete works, nor that they be backed by page scans. Since then an attempt has been made to bring it up to scratch by validating it against scans, but no-one has proofed the entire work. Hesperian 23:18, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I modified the work, creating a section with the blurb on the author. I notice that the FT label [now] floats over the 'next' display in the header, and the pdf ad was untidy, I feel we want something inline that we can wrangle within the notes. The simple star, with explanation on the talk, is what happens to the best articles at the other place; FT is an example of a high standard, lacking a label doesn't mean it isn't just as good. cygnis insignis 03:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I added that work. "Southern Life in Southern Literature" is an anthology which was available on Google Books at the time I added this. The story "Early Settlers Along the Mississippi" was originally published elsewhere, I forget if I was ever able to track down where it was originally collected for certain but I remember trying to. We didn't have ProofreadPage back then and proofreading the entire anthology was never considered as it did not seem doable. The ProofreadPage Index of "Southern Life in Southern Literature" and the featuring of the sketch where done long after the piece had been originally contributed and proofread the old-fashioned way.--BirgitteSB 16:18, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary measure as lacking November text[edit]

I know that I haven't had time to focus here due to other things, and noticed that the front page was empty. As a temporary measure I have edited the #switch for featured texts to select October rather than the empty November. Someone may want to manage that space, and revert to the previous version when there is a new text in place. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:42, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If someone wants to rotate and crop those last nine images, I'd support featuring Houston. Sorry, I would do this myself, but I won't have time to take it on until 11:00 UTM Wednesday at the earliest. Hesperian 05:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

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.)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Fair enough. Developing FTC with this view in mind would mean splitting Featured Texts from the Featured Text of the Month (like Wikipedia does), would it not? Keep a list of featured texts, with certain criteria: validated, good formatting, high-quality scans, best edition, etc. Then choose the most interesting of those for the main page? This might drive additional nominations too (no qualms about "my work isn't interesting enough"). —Spangineer (háblame) 13:36, 29 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Wikisource_talk:Featured_text_candidates/Archive_1&oldid=4042589"