Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
archived suggestions
Shortcut:
WT:PotM


Please help start a list of text that need to be proofread. Larger text are preferred because we hope to have a large group of people working on the text of the month. Here is a great place to start looking for text to be proofread.

List of suggested works not actioned[edit]


Links[edit]


Short works requiring validation[edit]

Have problematic pages
Translations, not eligible for simple listing

New works of less than 30 pages to be added to QUEUED

*

it:Wikisource:Rilettura del mese/Testi brevi

A list of potential PotM candidates[edit]

On the transcription project, there is a good list of text that are ready to be proofread. That list is available here. This list continues to grow so it would be great if we could knock it down. --Mattwj2002 11:03, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

My person opinion, If people keep bringing in projects (and I have seen it) then they should do a good part of the editing. Some, whoever they are, bring in works for others to do and the work-load adds up. Too, if the texts are brought in and left for others, then others may not like the topic so the work load keeps building up. It would be nice to know [who] likes what to work on. *I* like history and specifically illustrated history* but not children’s books or poems. I have several more volumes to do and more I want to do after that. This way I work on what I brought in, or have another bring in because he/they like the same kind of work. --Maury (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Calendar 2019[edit]

List[edit]

Month Work Category Status
January Index:The History of Ink.djvu
Index:Violin Varnish and How to Make it.djvu
Index:Principles preservation fish by salt.djvu
Index:Old Castles.djvu
Index:The Examination and Confession of certain Witches at Chelmsford in the County of Essex.djvu
Quirky Yes check.svg completed
February Index:Japanese Wood Engravings.djvu
Index:Theory and Practice of Handwriting.djvu
Fine arts Yes check.svg completed
March Index:Cather--One of ours.djvu Wikipedia:WikiWomen's History Month / Woman author Yes check.svg completed
April Index:Poems by Cushag.djvu
Index:Cyrano de Bergerac.djvu
Poetry / Drama Yes check.svg completed
May Index:The Present State of Peru.djvu Geography (North Africa?) Yes check.svg completed
June Index:Guy Mannering Vol 1.djvu Fiction: Novel Yes check.svg completed
July Anthropology, Mythology, or Religion
August Index:Biographia Hibernica volume 1.djvu Biography Yes check.svg some pages worked on
September Index:Floating City (1904).djvu
Index:Kéraban the Inflexible Part 1 (Jules Verne).djvu
Fiction (SF/Fantastical/etc.) Yes check.svg completed
October Index:Optics.djvu Science/Technology selected
November Language
December Fiction: Short story collections

January 2019[edit]

Symbol support vote.svg Support both of these —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I’ve created the former as this, so that work may be completed on it whilst the plates from the latter are created. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
  • As another potential work, “The Examination and Confession of certain Witches at Chelmsford in the County of Essex(external scan); which includes the confession of Mother Waterhouse. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC).
    Symbol support vote.svg Support as fourth work —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:45, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
  • It has been created here; an additional page was added at the end of the index, which I will remove in a short time. In all other matters, the index is normal. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 01:08, 24 January 2019 (UTC).
    • Whilst the text has been fully proofread and transcluded, although not yet validated, the transclusion is likely not the best. I ask anyone here if they would be able to provide a better alternative to the current system. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC).
  • Hand-book on Cheese Making (1889) 59 pp. (external scan) --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:56, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

February 2019[edit]

  • The Theory and Practice of Handwriting (external scan) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:53, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Japanese Wood Engravings (external scan) --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:57, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I prefer the latter work, as its shorter and has fewer diagrams. They’re both rather short, however, and could be easily completed within a month. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:54, 11 October 2018 (UTC).
Yes check.svg selected Both of these, with Wood Engravings first. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Other options:
    • A History of Japanese Colour-Prints (external scan)–A longer work (194 pp. text), with a few images representative.
No djvu available on IA. The conversion tool is too inclined to add extra pages to be satisfactory for a non-personal project. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • A History of Wood-Engraving (external scan)–A great work on an art quickly vanishing (~200 pp.).
Also no djvu available on IA. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Painting Illustrated in Three Diallogues (external scan). While there are a large number of pages (~350), their isn’t much text per page. The book is a great example of painting, and provides a great deal of information upon the subject.
This one isn't appropriate because of the long-s. Odd characters don't make for successful PotM works because we lose the drive-by editors and as a result lose the chance for people to potentially stay around. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:51, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
Some pages missing in this scan (e.g. pp xii & xiii in the TOC). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
If both the first two works above are completed in time, we'll take this one as a third work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
    • Symbol support vote.svg Support all the above. The World's Earliest Music is the most interesting IMO. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:18, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
      • It's also the only suggestion not in the suggested theme for the month. Music is a "performing art" (class M), not one of the "fine arts" (class N). --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
  • Whatever the decision, I’d like the work to be chosen and uploaded before the month begins, so that we may avoid the problem of last November. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:08, 30 January 2019 (UTC).
In the past when I've made a decision on the consensus early and uploaded the file quite a chunk has been done before it gets put into the templates. This is part of why I stopped doing the monthly awards for PotM. It was getting really messy to work out which contributions were entitled to an award and which weren't. The main disadvantage to the current system of uploading shortly before putting into the templates is managing damaged files. I assume that when people nominate a work that they have checked that the file they link has been checked for completeness. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:48, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
  • If it wouldn’t be too difficult, could we proofread “Certain Noble Plays of Japan?” (external scan) It is a short work of under 50 pp. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:26, 1 February 2019 (UTC).
    We could, but again, it would be outside the scope stated for this month. The performing arts are separate from the fine arts. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

March 2019[edit]

Yes check.svg selected . I've gone with this one anent finding scans of Ten Days in a Mad-House. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Felix Holt, (Commons file (multiple parts): Part 1, Part 2, Part 3), the only novel by George Eliot that we don't currently have; this year marks Eliot's 200th birthday. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
  • The Stanford renewals database shows no renewal for Arthur Waley’s translation of Murasaki Shikibu’s The Tale of Genji, originally published 1935 (external scan). The work may still, however, be under copyright; if it is so, please redact this comment. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:48, 9 November 2018 (UTC).
    Even if this is PD in the US (and I do not know whether it is), it will remain under copyright in the UK until 2036. Our UK proofreaders typically do not participate with items still under UK copyright, and we prefer to avoid selecting works for PotM that would disenfranchise participants. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:49, 9 November 2018 (UTC)

April 2019[edit]

Yes check.svg selected as first work while the Copyright discussion for Roswitha is happening. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:42, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

May 2019[edit]

June 2019[edit]

  • Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ (transcription project) by Lew Wallace. Out of all the entries on w:List of best-selling books, this is the only work that is in the public domain but is not hosted on enWS. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:34, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Not quite the only one, since we don't have Dream of the Red Chamber either, and Khalil Ghibran's The Prophet is at Bibliowiki until 2019 because of US copyright. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:14, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Fair, I didn't notice how woefully incomplete Translation:The Story of the Stone is. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:25, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Part of the problem is that no complete English translation was published until about 40 years ago. The longest English translation in PD translates only the the first 58 of the 120 chapters. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2018 (UTC)
    Comment: Do we have an alternative? It looks like Ben-Hur might be completed before June. I suppose that we will still have Felix Holt left over from March as a possibility. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:12, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
Have a look for a Walter Scott novel. I know you've been wanting us to do one for a while and this would be a good opportunity. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:40, 28 March 2019 (UTC)
Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg selected I've selected Guy Mannering as the earliest red-link on Scott's page with an edition that matches for date and country of publication. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:01, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
  • Continuing with the theme of w:List of best-selling books, perhaps we can work on a translation of Dream of the Red Chamber? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:13, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
    Not worthwhile to do Dream of the Red Chamber, I think. The longest English translation in PD translates only the the first 58 of the 120 chapters. We'd end up with a permanently incomplete copy. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:40, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
  • War and Peace (transcription project), translated by Louise and Aylmer Maude; the translation (of 1922–1923) has entered the public domain, and the copyright on the linked scan, if valid, was not renewed. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2019 (UTC).

July 2019[edit]

August 2019[edit]

  • Scans of the 1794 edition of The Lives of the Most Eminent English Poets are now online (Vols. 1, 2, 3, 4). All include fairly high quality embedded text from the original HathiTrust scans, although the use of the long-S form (ſ) periodically yields some inaccurate results, which will require careful human proofreading. Tarmstro99 18:18, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg SupportBeleg Tâl (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)
    Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment The formatting on this one is odd: quoted text indented with slight redcution in size and quotation marks at the beginning of each line, as just one example. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support Orlando the Cat (talk) 03:43, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
  • Biographia Hibernica: A Biographical Dictionary of the Worthies of Ireland (1821) is now online here, based upon newer HathiTrust scans that greatly improve upon the earlier versions and include high-quality embedded OCR (Vol. 1, Vol. 2). A few early entries from Vol. 1 may be ready for match-and-split. Tarmstro99 16:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
    Symbol support vote.svg Support --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2019 (UTC)
Yes check.svg selected this because good OCR and no long-s characters, which never go well in PotM. Also Lives of Poets has a lot of already proofread pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

September 2019[edit]

Yes check.svg selected Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Neither of the linked scans of Voyage to the Moon are suitable, so I've selected a second Jules Verne work that already has scans uploaded here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:13, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
  • Why were they unsuitable? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:23, 21 September 2019 (UTC).
a) pages are offset so that obverse and reverse are the wrong way round throughout; b) a Google scan, so automatically poor quality scans and OCR. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:46, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
    • This scan appears to have no serious issues with its OCR. In addition, I see no problem with the offsetting of the pages, as, when proofreading or validating the pages, you would only see one at a time. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 02:22, 22 September 2019 (UTC).
Offset pages is a problem when using clean-up scripts that depend on obverse pages being on the right and reverse pages on the left. There can also be problems with page-level metadata and transclusions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:49, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

October 2019[edit]

Neither of these has a DjVu file on IA and the last time I used the IA-Upload tool to convert to DjVu it made such a mess that the file was not suitable for PotM. If either of these are wanted, then can someone please do a useful conversion of the jp2 file. Otherwise, please suggest other options. [I'm too jet-lagged right now to think straight enough.] Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:45, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: Is there any reason why it has to be a DjVu and can't be a PDF? In any case, the previous POTM isn't done yet, so there isn't really much need to rush finding a new one. DraconicDark (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
The templates are set up for DjVu only and PotM should demonstrate best practice. The previous PotM was completed mid-September. The work currently in the templates is a supplementary one. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:55, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

November 2019[edit]

  • Hausa Proverbs, by G. Merrick (132 pp.) (external scan)
    Note: Hausa is a language primarily of Niger and Nigeria. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2019[edit]

Books parked for consideration[edit]

Noting the list at the top of the page too
  • Amusements in Mathematics by Henry Ernest Dudeny. In an effort to find some popular public domain publications for inclusion here at WS, I found that the HTML version of this book is the most-downloaded text at the Internet Archive. Plus, someone has already gone to the trouble of extracting and cleaning the images [1]. There is a tiny amount of text cut off on pages 63-64, but the missing letters can be determined from context and from the Archive.org HTML version --Eliyak T·C 22:52, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
Pros:
(a) It's a key work of a great English writer;
(b) Johnson's text will be fun to read;
(c) It will add biographies of several writers.
Cons:
(a) It's in multiple volumes, so we might have to start with just the first one and see what transpires;
(b) There will be many uses of long-s and the like;
(c) We may not be able to get a first edition to work from, and I'm not sure that I could find a complete set of a single edition in IA.

Would a work of this sort ever be a good selection for PotM, and why or why not? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

  • EncycloPetey, et al, we could take one or more per month not as PoM but as something yet to be finished every month starting with the easiest and shortest texts that are not complicated to work on. For that we should have a different kind of an award, perhaps the only the image of "The Thinker" to be used. I like collecting the awards, it shows achievements as well as the dates show the years we are here working and the icon shows our work - again using only something like "The Thinker. It separates everything from PoM. It is an obvious aside from PoM. Poms are often slow anyhow so that gives us time and the PoM’s often also, well…..I dislike this word but to convey the idea, often SUCK and are boring chosen by a few, so I typically, these days, only do one or a few pages in them. I am working on 9 thick and illustrated volumes of Cassell’s Illustrated London but I would step aside and do pages on "The Thinker" (or any other icon but the same icon to stand out, each time so as not to get it mixed up with PoM. and I would expect an award for working on those extra "abandoned books" books. Something along these lines of thought. Feel free to modify. —Maury (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
EncycloPetey, I think the idea of finishing "abandoned books" is a very good idea. I am working on two of them now. If we all did this together we could finish them up quick and add them to our library here. THESE should be "Proofreads of the Month" instead of finding more before we have finished these sitting here.. —Maury (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
Maybe creating some sort of WikiProject regarding these abandoned or unfinished texts might be a way to get more attention to them? That project could then be listed as the existing community collaboration. Having said that, I think it might be a good idea. John Carter (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
John Carter (have you met any Terminators yet?) I figure the "abandoned books" have to have an attraction and many people like earning awards - especially "Special Awards", ["build it and they will come";] use that and they will come. —Maury (talk) 17:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I think you meant John Connor there. :) Having said that, is there any sort of page indicating the "progress bar" or similar out on the various indexes which have been started to date? Also, maybe, having something on the community portal listing the number of completed indexes might help too. And, of course, like you said, some sort of "award" or w: Wikipedia:Barnstar available for such might be useful. Do we have any such yet here? John Carter (talk) 18:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
@John Carter:(gone to Mars yet?) I think this is a great idea. I'd participate even without a reward. Is it started yet(speaking of John Carter, are the books on him on wikisource)? JustinCB (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
I think those in the public domain are but not all are PD yet. So far as I know though the bot generating progress bars doesn't exist yet. I hope those were the answers you sought.John Carter (talk) 00:25, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Author:John Lloyd Stephens (listed on en WS)[edit]

Author:John Lloyd Stephens wrote several grand books and they are illustrated. Let us choose something a bit more exciting lest we have an *another* unfinished work. —Maury (talk) 18:40, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The Tale of Old Mortality[edit]

We don't have Walter Scott's The Tale of Old Mortality, which shocked me. Actually, we have very few works by him at all, despite his stature as an English writer, but The Tale of Old Mortality (or simply Old Mortality) is considered one of his best novels, and is a pretty high-profile English novel for us to be missing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

EncycloPetey, what is the url for the version you have found? I wish to look at it. —Maury (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, to clarify first off (if you didn't know), Old Mortality is one in a series of loosely associated novels collected under the title Tales of My Landlord, though each is an independent story and novel. Of the first four volumes that make up "series 1", volumes 2 through 4 are Old Mortality (volume 1 is a separate story entitled The Black Dwarf). So, here then are the first edition (1816) volumes: Vol. II, Vol. III, Vol. IV. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

Proposal of Proofreading Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Series in 2019[edit]

Currently, I'm not enrolled in the Proofread of the Month project, but I noticed the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal series is currently not even proofread, and it consists of a large number of pages to work on. I've proofread some of the content, but I think this should be done with others. (Link of Volume 29 of the series, which I currently am working on) Albert Micah Hang (talk) 23:20, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment That's a lot to do in a single month, and with complicated formatting. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:22, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @EncycloPetey I know, but I think we can do some volumes first (like Volume 1 or 29). Albert Micah Hang (talk) 23:25, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
Even single volumes have complicated tables and lots of diacriticals. Works such as those usually do not attract as much participation, and remain incomplete at the end of the month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:49, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
The lack of an text layer in the file is of concern and rules out a PotM collaboration for the time being. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:42, 28 December 2017 (UTC)

Note: I'm now enrolled in the project now, so feel free to contact me. Albert Micah Hang (talk) 23:28, 27 December 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to revise monthly categories for October and November[edit]

I propose that beginning next year (2019), we revise the monthly categories by eliminating "The end of the Great War" (which was topical when we were approaching the 100th anniversary of WWI, but will no longer be topical in 2019), and replace it by moving "Natural History" from October to November, and making October another fiction category, but with a focus on the fantastic (fantasy, horror, science fiction, and the supernatural). My initial thinking was to make October something more of a Halloween theme, but I realize that Halloween is not universally observed, nor is it observed the same way everywhere. Nevertheless, these themes are broadly associated with October, and I think this would be a good new tradition. I would propose starting with Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, as proposed for a different month above. BD2412 T 14:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Up until this year November has been designated as Validation Month—a month in which to catch up on validating several works. However, last year we completed no works, so as a one-off I went for the Great War. I've been trying to keep a broad range of domains covered in PotM and have hence kept fiction to only a couple of months each year. However, if people feel that we can sustain a third one and not have other domains lose out, then by all means we can put the fantastic into October in addition to the other two. We also need to decide if we want to restore Validation Month in 2019. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't aware that the change was that recent. I would think that December would be a better validation month, since it is the end of the year, and seems like a time for cleaning up after ourselves. BD2412 T 01:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
We might consider separating the Validation Drive from the PotM, and having its section on the Main Page year-round. Pick and list three works separately from the PotM (maybe listed below), and rotating a new work in once one is finished. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
Validation of the Month? BD2412 T 18:06, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
I prefer the idea of having three current titles to a single one set to rotate on a monthly basis. That way it's less formal and people have options to select from. Validation can happen at any pace, but stating that one work is "for the month" restricts what we validate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:09, 1 July 2018 (UTC)
That is reasonable. A "validation month" is always less fun than starting a new work from the ground up. BD2412 T 03:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment On a related issue, I suggest broadening "natural history" to "science / natural history". --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:37, 30 June 2018 (UTC)
    • I would support that change also. BD2412 T 01:36, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Moved from November 2019[edit]

I have changed this year’s November proofreading to validation so that WS:PotM can validate all of the works that it has started in previous years. The works are: Index:Life of Octavia Hill as told in her letters.djvu (May 2012); Index:The European Concert in the Eastern Question.djvu (September 2012); Index:The Botany of the Antarctic Voyage.djvu (June 2014); Index:Great Neapolitan Earthquake of 1857.djvu (March 2015); Index:The Fauna of British India, including Ceylon and Burma (Birds Vol 1).djvu (July 2016); Index:The Mythology of the Aryan Nations.djvu (August 2016); Index:Plutarch - Moralia, translator Holland, 1911.djvu (September 2016); Index:Savage Island.djvu (May 2017); Index:The Boy Travellers in the Russian Empire.djvu (May 2017); Index:The Story of Nell Gwyn.djvu (June 2017); Index:Life and Times of Frederick Douglass (1892).djvu (September 2017); Index:Modern poets and poetry of Spain.djvu (April 2018); Index:Weird Tales volume 31 number 02.djvu (October 2018); Index:In bad company and other stories.djvu (December 2018); Index:Theory and Practice of Handwriting.djvu (February 2019); Index:Cather--One of ours.djvu (March 2019); Index:Cyrano de Bergerac.djvu (April 2019); Index:The Present State of Peru.djvu (May 2019); and Index:Guy Mannering Vol 1.djvu (June 2019). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:27, 13 October 2018 (UTC).

We used to do that every November, but declining participation led us to switch to a topic for November instead of validation. See the previous discussion on this issue below, wherein we concluded that Validation is no longer popular for PotM, since the last time we did it we validated no works that month. I have therefore changed it back on the basis of the prior community discussion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
    • I changed the topic for precisely that reason: the previous disinterest, or whatsoever caused the numerous works above to not become validated, would be greatly aided by a dedicated effort to cause those indeces to be so validated. This would forgo the need to create another index for proofreading and validation, as is the usual. The discussion has not been concluded, and your personal opinion on the matter should not influence the community’s decision; as the sole contributor to that discussion that was in favour of the alteration was you. The results of previous validation months are irrelevant, as this one is specifically dedicated to finishing works already selected for WS:PotM. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2018 (UTC).
      You misunderstand. The community discussed this issue and came to a consensus. Please do not unilaterally seek to override community consensus, but seek to change the community's opinion first. You have misinterpreted the discussion if you came away thinking that I was the sole contributor in favour of the alteration, or indeed that I was even in favour of the change. I neither proposed nor supported the change; in fact I made some suggestions concerning possible retention of the Validation month. Please re-read the discussion and re-open if you like, but changing the calendar against consensus is inappropriate.
    • The current 2019 Calendar was proposed by Beeswaxcandle, and BD2412 proposed changes for 2019 back in 2018. BD2412 and I agreed with Beeswaxcandle that the prior Validation month pattern was not successful and discussed the possibility of a separate Validation of the Month. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
      • I have yet to note where the community has so come to this consensus of which you speak. The discussion has not been closed; therefore, no consensus can be derived from the discussion that it contains. I have started a discussion here as an effort to inform the community of this problem and to propose the use of a previously-implemented activity as a solution to that problem. I would also like for you to not revert my comments on this discussion, so as the community may be so informed of my proposal. If you wish to create a larger discussion on the matter, you may do so wherever you believe that such a discussion would be appropriate. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:47, 13 October 2018 (UTC).
        Wikisource does not formally close discussions in most of its pages; Featured texts, Deletions & Copyright issues are the only three fora where discussions are formally closed. Discussions that have sat idle for more than a year without comment and in which all participants were agreed are assumed to be resolved. If you would like to enact a change different from what Beeswaxcandle has proposed (and which I agree with), then you should wait for further responses before enacting changes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2018 (UTC)
        • The discussion hasn’t had a comment in approximately three months, and not all of the participants came to an agreement. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:58, 13 October 2018 (UTC).
          Three months, yes, sorry. But the question raised was "Do we want to restore Validation month?" and no one spoke in favor of doing so. The discussion instead turned to have a separate Validation project distinct from PotM. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:02, 14 October 2018 (UTC)
          • One month of inactivity is sufficient. SpBot archives discussions that have been inactive for one month on the forums where it is active. In the discussion below, there was no disagreement to retire validation month, and no disagreement to implement a monthly validation, over the period of a month, so we can consider consensus to have been established. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:42, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
            • I continue to agree that a separate "Validation of the Month" would be more fruitful. BD2412 T 23:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)


Validation of the Month logistics[edit]

Per the discussions above, there is consensus to have a Validation of the Month instead of using November's PotM for validation. I've accordingly started Wikisource:Validation of the Month and I encourage the community's input regarding the logistics of the change. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

My only concern: Of course, every stage of the proofreading process should be performed with care, and not casually. But particularly so during the validation stage. It should not be treated, imo, merely as a second proofread, but with a meticulous eye focused on the minute details as well as on the work as a whole—particularly when it comes to formatting consistency throughout an entire text. This is more difficult to achieve with "drive-by" validation (which a VotM, or even validation month can unwittingly encourage). Not sure how this can be addressed necessarily. Just thinking out loud. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:07, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
P.S. It concerns me as well when I see almost-immediate validation of pages during the course of a PotM, knowing that having multiple contributors will likely lead to multiple formatting practices (even if/when guidelines are listed on an Index:Talk page). One sees green, and one assumes done... but perhaps not done with a high (consistent/holistic) standard. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
This can be one reason to establish a separate Validation group, who can support each other and train newer arrivals in Validation practices. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:15, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
We also need to be sure that works proposed for validation are ready for validation. Not every work that goes through POTM has had every page created, even. BD2412 T 04:09, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
VotM would not have to be limited to works from PotM. Other proofread works requiring Validation could be selected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:46, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Just picking up on the thought in the previous section on putting up a few works that require validation and rotating those as required. This would be my preference rather than putting up a single work. For the mainpage, we would need to maintain a template within the VotM space and then transclude it. Some possible wording as a starter: "These texts need another pair of eyes to check they have been proofread correctly. See How to Validate."

We have an ever-growing list of works that people believe are ready for Validation at Wikisource:Proofread of the Month/validation works#Queued to be validated. When updating the list of four works that are on WS:PotM I've been selecting from this list and trying to cover a range of domains at the same time so that validators might have something of interest to them. The other source of works ready for Validation is Category:Index Proofread. The caution with both of these sources is that they haven't been checked that they really are ready for Validation. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)

We could use that as a starting point... I've created Template:VotM using that directly for now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:48, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Contest scores[edit]

Just as an experiment I added January PotM's index pages to the wscontest tool and these are the results: https://tools.wmflabs.org/wscontest/c/10Sam Wilson 08:07, 7 March 2019 (UTC)