Template talk:New texts

Add topic
Active discussions

Linking corporate authorEdit

How do I get the author field of the template to link to Portal:Australian Freedom League for the work Facts About Conscription? The only other option I can think of is removing the work from the list so it doesn't show that annoying red-link.Misarxist (talk) 06:45, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Explained at Template:New_texts/item and I have updated accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:02, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Thx, will remember that next time.Misarxist (talk) 04:36, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Scope to extend the list length ?Edit

We seem to be churning through new texts, and they disappear off the bottom in a wake or two. Should we be thinking about having a longer list? Obviously we would need to look at the impact on the main page where it transcludes. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:18, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Is that in terms of "wake of a ship"; or the term of a laying-out?
In short, Yes; a couple more items should not upset the current layout; and/or a slightly smaller font perhaps would allow a more significant lengthening of the list. MODCHK (talk) 09:35, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
A slightly longer list would be OK. The right column has seemed to be a bit short lately anyway (NB: I've just added a text without removing one; there was some white space under the column on the main page, so it worked out). Alternatively, reducing the font size by a notch or adjusting the page could free more space. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:45, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
The longer list works this month, but the list of 7 was too long in February because the FT commentary was shorter. If we want a longer list, is there something else that can go onto the left column under the collaborations? Or do we add a fourth collaboration such as WikiProject of the month? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:29, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
Although I'm sure there could be overlap, what if we split up new texts? Like New Poetry, etc. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:54, 9 March 2013 (UTC)
I like this proposal by Billinghurst (talkcontribs), I think a slightly longer list to try out is a great idea. -- Cirt (talk) 18:32, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
Adding something to the left column could work. While I do like the idea of WikiProject of the Month, that is very similar to Community Collaboration which has been the same for a long time now. New poetry would be the simplest (or some other separation of new texts, such as non-fiction vs. fiction/poetry) as all the templates and support structure already exists. We could also feature something else each month; perhaps an author. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:39, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
"some other separation of new texts, such as non-fiction vs. fiction/poetry" = this seems like the best idea and easiest to implement. -- Cirt (talk) 20:16, 11 March 2013 (UTC)
Looks like nothing was ever done with this. Was it abandoned due to work on a new main page? --Doug.(talk contribs) 17:23, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Suggested work for inlcusionEdit

Incorrect linkEdit

Below the list of the new texts is a line that says: "A partial listing of some new texts". But when I click "new texts" I go to the New Pages, not to "New Texts". Perhaps this can be fixed? Dick Bos (talk) 16:06, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe that it is the correct link, so I have modified the text accordingly. If it is not what people consider the right link, ie. it should be main namespace only, then let us have that conversation in WS:S to seek a consensus on what it should be. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Validated vs proofreadEdit

I used to think this was only for validated works, apparently not, few if any are validated when posted. However, considering the issue of churn, works would get more attention and present more quality if we restricted the list to works that had been validated. If a work isn't 100% why are we considering it "completed" and why are we displaying it on our mainpage? This might also encourage validation rather than sending the message to editors that the work is done.--Doug.(talk contribs) 17:26, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

I understand this to mean simply "new" works. Unsourced? Not yet validated? Maybe a couple of images missing? Doesn't matter, so long as the work is present in its entirety and was not there previously. In fact, I would say that it's better to include unvalidated texts, as this brings them to the forefront so that hopefully they will be more likely to be validated in the near future. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:36, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
Oh, that's definitely a change. I always understood 'complete' to mean 'done'. Definitely not unsourced. I disagree that it brings unvalidated texts to the forefront and makes them more likely to get validated. This is advertising our works to our readers not our editors.--Doug.(talk contribs) 20:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
You may be right, in which case I've been doing it wrong this whole time. Oh well. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:18, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Let's see if we get some input from someone like @Billinghurst: or @George Orwell III:. It may be that we've always allowed works on here when they reach 100% proofread and I'm just not aware of it or that this has changed through consensus (including silent consensus). My thought would be that such works should go on a works to be validated list such as Wikisource:Proofread_of_the_Month/validation_works and not placed on "New texts" until they are 100% validated but that's just my opinion. I do note that /validation works uses the phrase "completed works" to mean 100% validated, but that may simply be relative to the context of that page.--Doug.(talk contribs) 19:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Completed, yes, in that the entire document should be there. But this template should be "not a big deal", and not expected to be as high quality as Featured Texts. -- Cirt (talk) 20:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

I think the front page of this project should serve a multiple purposes: presenting (1) valuable, complete material that is the best representation of what we do here (i.e., validated texts); (2) valuable, but incomplete material that helps readers understand this is a collaborative project, and allows them to "peek under the hood" even as they consume material that is good enough for many purposes (i.e., texts that are mostly proofread); and (3) stuff that existing community members might be interested to know is here, and available to work on.

After all, we are a wiki; it's important to help readers understand the implications of that in multiple ways, as it takes a while to sink in for most people.

All that said, though, it might make sense for this to be split up differently from how it currently is -- e.g., a section for "Newly validated texts" and another for "Texts nearing completion" -- or similar.

While I like the "collaboration of the month projects," I feel it's important that there be a lower bar, and more ephemeral, way to point out stuff that is in progress, but has come far enough along that it may be of use to readers. How exactly that is defined -- 100% proofread, or 60% proofread, or whatever -- is not a major concern of mine, but perhaps it should be spelled out so we're all on the same page.

(Recent background...I mistakenly added Funding Free Knowledge the Wiki Way - Wikimedia Foundation Participatory Grantmaking long before it was ready, in a fit of enthusiasm... @Nonexyst: rightly reverted me. Just to be very clear, I do not think that such texts -- even at the state it's now in, with most pages OCR'd but not yet proofread -- should be added to the front page. That was just a moment of bad judgment on my part!) -Pete (talk) 21:03, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

It has not been a requirement for works to be validated to display on the main page via this template, maybe you are confusing this with our monthly highlighted works. IMNSHO it would be against our own interests to restrict to validated works as that would provide less incentive to do a new work and wait for someone else to come and valiate it, and by then they would hardly be 'new'. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Yeah, the point is for it to be "new" texts, and regularly changed through often, sort of to give our readers a feel for the site. -- Cirt (talk) 01:19, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm cool with that, though I'm not sure a proofread work is any more 'new' than a validated work. However, I would not that there is a bit of discussion above and elsewhere about churn and it appears that recently 1 or 2 times per day for new texts is about what we're running. There are only 7 items on the list and the bottom item was added only four days ago. I think we ought to consider that both when thinking about what qualifies and when thinking about the discussions about changing the length of the list.--Doug.(talk contribs) 04:45, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
I'd be totally fine with even doubling the size of the list to 14 total entries, if we could achieve balance by also increasing the left column of the Main Page with content somehow. -- Cirt (talk) 04:57, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
Sometimes it rotates slowly, sometimes quickly. If you think that there is the need for a change then WS:S is the place. It always is worth reviewing how we present out works.. To note that at the end of each month the works are added to a list of works for the year, and we could give that some better vision. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
For information: The alternative suggestion on Main Page/sandbox has 20 texts, split fiction & non-fiction. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:12, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

I have used this to display proofread only texts, but agree that it should contain properly validated works for the reasons outlined above—quality, it is for readers and so on—but would add that at least two contributors would think it is worth reading. On the other hand, the end user is unlikely to enter through the front door. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 15:55, 31 January 2016 (UTC)


Could Free as in Freedom 2.0 be added to the new text list? I wasn't able to easily find a human-readable copy online, so I rebuilt from TeX sources in the FSF repo and uploaded it to here. There are some links to a PDF on the FSF site but the links are broken (gone, moved, whatever). Thanks. 04:58, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm proofreading it; once I'm done I'll add it to the list. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:25, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Dot point 2: two texts by the same authorEdit

@EncycloPetey: Dot point 2 says ==> Try not to have two texts by the same author on this template at the same time, thanks.

So ... if you want to add a text by the same author, the tradition has been to remove the existing text from the list to the archive and replace it with the new text. As such when I trimmed, I rolled that one. They will all show latter. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

"Try"--it is not a mandatory rule. Sometimes bending the rules allows us to showcase things we do on Wikisource that otherwise would be invisible to outsiders. In this instance, the two plays had different translators and different formats (prose vs. poetry). They were displayed together to demonstrate that we do carry different editions / translations, which is a rarity for us to be able to highlight. Most of the time different editions / translations are not completed at the same time, and we have very few works that have such diversity anyway.
Your removal not only broke up the demonstration pair, but also reduced the overall number of items listed. You apparently did not notice that I had added the two plays together as if they were a single item, and expected them to come off together, thus keeping the number of other New Texts on display unaffected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
If you want to demonstrate something or deviate from the normal then there is value in using <!-- --> rather than making others guess — billinghurst sDrewth 10:59, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


I noticed that Atlantic Monthly articles have been taking up most of the "bandwidth" of New texts on the Main page recently (currently comprising every slot). May I suggest that if a contributor wishes to announce new (shorter, more frequently added) contributions in such a manner that they swap a prior contribution with a recent one and place the former in the older entries section of New texts? That way other User contributions will have a chance to be showcased as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:33, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

I agree.— Mpaa (talk) 18:51, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
I think one principle at work here is that we don't want too much of the same thing on the front page at the same time. For example, we discourage having two works by the same author listed at the same time. If the "New Texts" are all articles from Atlantic Monthly then we have too much of the same thing. I think we ought also to make it clear that, although it is nice to have a record of completed new works, not every new work has to be listed as a "New Text" on the Main Page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I agree. I've started posting things from here to the @wikisource_en Twitter account, but haven't wanted to do too many of @Jasonanaggie's works (not because they're bad!) because they're all sort of the same. I've also been working from this list of recently validated works, which could be of use in finding things to post here:

   category=Index Validated

Sam Wilson 22:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

The only reason I add the Atlantic pieces to the new texts list is that they seem to me to be a great grab bag of different interesting articles by very well known authors across the spectrum. Some of these dated pieces are just great; One that just popped out as remarkable was one on "Life Assurance" when Life Insurance was a novel financial product being sold in the United States. However, I will cease adding them if the community wants me to do so. -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 22:42, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
@Jasonanaggie: You need not cease adding the pieces; either be 'choosy' or swap them out as suggested above. I only took notice the 'run' of AM articles after noting your add of an Aldrich work to his author page. I liked the piece and was going to add it to New texts myself after I validated it... until I noticed it had already been added to the list previously. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:05, 28 August 2017 (UTC)
Another option is to simply delay posting some of them. I've sometimes completed a play and deliberately held back from listing it as "New" until the new text list stagnated. That way, the addition would help move the list along when it's slow instead of increasing an already rapid turnover. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Timing process for works to be inhaled into JSONEdit

@Inductiveload: Are you manually running a script to inhale these into the JSON file? We seem to be behind the time in Wikisource:Works/2021 and I am unsure what to now do with those grouped in March on Template:New texts. If this is a script, is this something that we should be getting run on toolforge through User:Wikisource-bot? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: It's not a script, because there's a little variance in the ways people enter this in the template (e.g. if it inhaled the revision before this, a script would struggle).
The idea here was that the JSON would be a singular ground truth data for {{New texts}} as well as the archived pages and thereby negate any need for any archiving at all (except perhaps once a year, though even that can be obviated). But we do need everyone to be happy using the JSON as an input method. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:54, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Why not start with the archival bits (those below the line), and that allows us to tidy up the new additions to the form that is required for a script for when they pass to the archival process. Or even get a bot-script to inhale those below the line that are in the right format, and leave those that are not? I know that I occasionally invert things as it is easier to swap positional parameter numbers, and wouldn't even know if that is problematic for what you have configured. I would think that what we would want to do in the long term is to create a form for users to complete but the knowledge to do that is beyond me. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:11, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we even have the newbits as individual json components that can then be concatenated as required. There may be value in having these thousand little additions as that allows a different count, and potentially other manipulations. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:15, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Positional parameter order, etc. isn't an issue (mwparserfromhell can handle it). It's more things like non-standard uses of parameters like translator that cause logical problems rather than syntactical.
A form would be ideal.
Can we even have the newbits as individual json components not sure how you mean? I don't think that would work in the wikitext (and if it did, you'd still lose all the input validation that the JSON editor has, and things like missing quotes would break stuff). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 08:37, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

"completed" is unfinished...Edit

I note the previous questions above about the word "completed", as seen in at least these instances:

  • From header of Template talk:New texts :
"The template new texts is designed for contributors to announce their newly completed texts to the community."
  • From header when "Editing Template:New texts"
"This is for newly completed works."
"These works are from scanned texts and have been proofread at least once, if not fully validated."

So having seen nothing *definitive* explained above, nor explained elsewhere, I've just now entered Decision of the Central Committee of the Chinese Communist Party Concerning the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution, having seen that apparently being 'completely' proofread seems to be good enough for the 'complete' criterion.

Is the note at WS:Works/YYYY a true and definite description of 'complete'  ?

"... proofread at least once, if not fully validated."

For your bonus extra credit question, and to further delineate 'complete', how would this apply to the work Eminent Chinese of the Ch'ing Period ?

Almost all pages in the contributing volumes, Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 have been proofread, almost half validated, but a very few bibliographic pages, some indices and appendices are not proofread.

Must every bibliographic page transcluded by mainspace be proofread for the work to qualify as 'complete' ? I'd say yes.

Must every index and appendix referenced from mainspace be proofread for the work to qualify as 'complete' ? If so, Oy! That's a lotta pages to boost the work into being done complete! Shenme (talk) 06:06, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The current custom is that the work must have been fully proofread recently so that it could be listed in the section. However, I have seen also some exceptions, for example works which were fully proofread long time ago and did not appear in the section in that time, were listed there later after they were fully validated, which is an attitude I have nothing against. Additional criterion which is probably not written anywhere, is that the work should not be a subject of any doubts as for its right to be hosted in Wikisource, so there should not be any unclosed discussions about its copyright or if it is in our scope.
(I believe the last sentence above is in reference to copyright discussions where I unknowingly and quite unwillingly trespassed on copyright borders.) Shenme (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
Not only :-) Such things happen in the section from time to time, anybody can make a mistake. What is more, sometimes the copyright of a work is challenged unnecessarily and later the challenge is withdrawn, but even in such cases it is necessary to wait until the discussion is closed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:58, 7 September 2021 (UTC)
However, currently there is no unified attitude to what a "work" is and so what can come into the section separately or only as a part of a larger work is being decided by custom, not by written rules:
  • Works consisting of several more or less independent volumes: While some people list each volume separately after its completions, others insist that the work is complete only after all volumes are complete.
  • Periodicals: Here every single article is considered a separate work, so it is not considered necessary to complete the whole number or volume or whatever. However, only longer and more notable articles are usually considered worthy to be listed in the section.
  • Encyclopaedias: I do not remember any to appear in the section, so I have no clue what the practice is :-) I would understand a similar attitude as with periodicals, but only if really long and notable articles were being listed, otherwise the section could be easily flooded with such works. I would not consider it good if there were more than 1 encyclopaedia article in the list, but that is my opinion.
  • Collections of longer works (short stories, essays…) Both attitudes appear: listing each work independently or listing the whole collection after it is finished. The second attitude is usually preferred when the individual works of the collection are being proofread quickly one after another, not to flood the section.
  • Collections of shorter works (poems…): Only the whole collection is usually listed after it is completed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:47, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

  Comment It is not meant to be overly complex definition. We know what incomplete is, we know what not started is, NOT those. So when a work is complete, or where there are significant independent subparts. The purpose is to give works a shot at appearing on the front page when they are presentable and ready to show to the public. It is meant to be encouraging to our users to be able to show off their efforts rather than complete something in the background. We want to give that well-deserved pat on the back. As JK said when I see works that have been proofread, or even sometimes validated, that have not been transcluded, and I will get them ready and announced. We walk to show our efforts, and have a dynamic aspect to our front page.