Wikisource talk:Community collaboration/2017

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion.
See also the Archive Index.

Henry David Thoreau

I propose that we replace NARA with a collaboration collecting and proofing Thoreau's works in preparation for his 200th anniversary of birth. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:37, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support. I don't know much about Thoreau but it's about time for a new collab and a 200th anniversary is a great choice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:48, 20 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Done . Perhaps a bit hasty, but considering the discussions here and at the Scriptorium I feel that w:WP:SNOWBALL is a reasonable approach here. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:02, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Perhaps I am premature, but I don't yet see the change reflected on the Main Page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:07, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yep, was updating that also. I didn't realize that {{CotW}} and {{Collaboration}} were two unrelated templates. Both are updated now. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 15:10, 31 January 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Featured content on the main page

Maybe a stupid question here, I don't know, but is there maybe, if the community collaboration is changed regularly, a way to alter the main page in some way to feature more of the content, if any of it rises to that level? If nothing else, we might be able to get in many of the cases a biography of the subject (maybe in this case from Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography) and a specific work by the subject. Potentially, I guess, in many cases, we might be able to get up to at least three such sections - a biography, a regular "nonfiction" work, and maybe either a fiction work or a work of "literature" (like an essay or poem maybe). Alternately, I suppose, maybe there might be some utility to a "Focus on..." or similar section to the main page which might function like the DYK section of the wikipedia:Main page and have short entries relating to multiple works. The latter might be easiest to keep up, as it might allow for easy inclusion of multiple shorter works like encyclopedia biographies, or shorter poems, or short stories, which might look kind of odd as a full "featured text." Anyway, just an idea. John Carter (talk) 13:58, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

First: I hope you don't mind that I split this discussion from #Henry David Thoreau above, since it seems to me to be an unrelated question.
Second: let me see if I understand your question correctly. You are suggesting having multiple simultaneous community collaborations at once, and tying them thematically into the featured text for that month? It sounds plausible, though it would be a massive undertaking. Not only because the community collaboration and the featured text are usually unrelated processes, but because of the difficulty in getting consensus on three related Index files to proofread at once within the monthly theme, and also because of the logistics involved in queuing the texts for proofreading--what if two of them are completed and the third still has a way left to go? Do we change out the two with other, thematically related ones? Remember that we do frequently get multiple collaborations per month, but having them follow sequentially is a pretty simple and effective solution for this, and their thematic relationship is quite broad and not specific to a given subject.
If I understood this correctly, then my thoughts are as follows:
  • I would support a motion to have more than one simultaneous community collaboration, and I hope you are willing to put in the extra work should this happen.
  • I would oppose a requirement to make them based on a specific common subject, rather than the broad themes currently used or similar.
  • I would also oppose a suggestion to use portions of an Index file as a community collaboration, such as a selection of pages comprising a single article from Index:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 4).djvu.
Beleg Tâl (talk)
More using the topic of a community collaboration, which might generate several potential pieces of featured content, as the basis for inclusion of multiple qualified works in perhaps separate sections of the main page at the same time, or maybe in a single unified section of the main page which might include links to multiple works. Granted, however, the first would require the possibility of multiple simultaneous main page sections, and the second would require an at least occasional use of an additional main page section. John Carter (talk) 17:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Community Collaboration

Poll with 2 questions:

(1) Is it time to switch to a new Community collaboration? We've had Thoreau since January, and have made great progress. Only two items are still missing: The Maine Woods, which will be PotM in July, and his Journal, which has not been attracting much attention from editors.
(2) What about Edward VII (of the UK) as our next collaboration? Edward VII (d. 1910) is the most recent monarch of the UK likely to have much material in public domain. George V, his successor, died in 1936. There are already offsite links to several books listed on his Author page, but we have almost nothing here on Wikisource. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  •   Support yes; yes --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • I support Ed7 as next collaboration. I thought we were going to keep Thoreau till the end of the year though, though maybe I misunderstood somewhere. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 21:58, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    There is no set date for changeover on these. Sometimes they flip after a few weeks, sometimes they linger for months. I had thought initially, we'd keep Thoreau until July, but (as I noted above) most of the work likely to be done for Thoreau has now been accomplished or is scheduled, so we might as well rotate to a new collaboration. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    Yeah, I think we can move on since we've got most of the important stuff already taken care of. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:41, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  • Happy for a change, though I would like to see us look to have us consider something like the Famous Women Series (see partial list). Women writing about women. Some of these I had been thinking that we could do as PotM, though think that the community collaboration would be a better means. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
    I'd like to see future collaborations concerning minority groups, women, or non-English-speakers. The Famous Women Series would fit nicely, and I know I've raised the issue before of 19th-century African-American biographies, which I also think would make a good choice. I've also jotted down in my own notes the names of several women for whom we have shockingly little coverage and who deserve better. Once we get started on whatever we choose next, I hope to resurrect the nominations page for the community collab, which has lain dormant for a very long time. We didn't get any new nominations during our work on Thoreau, so part of the reason for suggesting Ed VII is that there are already external links to books, and there aren't likely to be too many more. I expect it will go quickly because of that. It's also very different from anything we've done recently, so I hope it will draw in new editors with different interests. If you can start a list for the Famous Women Series with external links to scans in the nominations page, I think it would make a very strong nom. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:28, 16 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Done Based on support for the change and marginal favor of Edward VII, I've switched the Comm. Collab. over for June. We'll run this for a while and see what happens. In the meantime, I'll archive and clean up the Collaboration Proposals page, and then advertize its existence so that we can establish a set of proposals from which to draw. I see that billinghurst has already initiated his proposal, so we'll have at least one new option ready. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:43, 1 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Next collaboration

We've got Edward VII up in the interim. Not sure whether he'll attract new editors, but it is something very different from what we've done before, and he's desperately short of coverage here. Even the featured article on Wikipedia doesn't mention any contemporary sources in the bibliography, so this will be content added.

We've got a single nomination on the page for now (the "Eminent Women" series), and it looks like a good choice for a CC. My only doubt is that the series could take a long time, and we have the 200th birthday of Frederick Douglass coming in February, 2018. Since 200th anniversaries are rare, I'd want to give this a chance, but I'm also unsure whether Douglass is a viable CC per se. I'll be posting a proposal below shortly to explain. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Time to switch?

Interest in Edward VII seems to have stalled. Should we wait for a bit longer, or do we think it's time to move forward and start the "Eminent Women" series? --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I'm not really invested in it either way, so I'll stay neutral. I see a lot of incomplete transcription projects on his author page though; should we try to get more completion on those before moving on? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 14:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Eminent/Famous Women series

W. H. Allen (UK) /Roberts Brothers (US) published a series of women biographies written by women (bar one) from 1880-90s, edited by John Henry Ingram. It would be neat to get that series of works together. I haven't found an authoritative and complete list, so this is what I have deduced so far, and I need to add links to scans.

  1. George Eliot by Mathilde Blind (external scan)
  2. Emily Brontë by A. Mary F. Robinson 2nd ed.:(external scan)
  3. George Sand by Bertha Thomas New ed.: (external scan)
  4. Mary Lamb by Anne Gilchrist (external scan)
  5. Maria Edgeworth by Helen Zimmern
  6. Margaret Fuller by Julia Ward Howe
  7. Elizabeth Fry by Emma Raymond Pitman
  8. Countess of Albany by Vernon Lee
  9. Harriett Martineau by Florence Fenwick Miller
  10. Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin by Elizabeth Robins Pennell (transcription project)
  11. Rachel by Nina H. Kennard
  12. Madame Roland by Mathilde Blind
  13. Susanna Wesley by Eliza Clarke (transcription project)
  14. Elizabeth Barrett Browning by John Henry Ingram, 5th ed   Done
  15. Margaret of Angoulême, Queen of Navarre by Mary Robinson
  16. Madame de Staël by Bella Duffy
  17. Mrs. Siddons by Nina Kennard
  18. Hannah More by Charlotte Mary Yonge
  19. Mary Shelley by Lucy Madox Brown Rossetti (transcription project)
  20. Life of Her Majesty Queen Victoria by Millicent Garrett Fawcett
  21. Jane Austen by Mrs. Charles Malden
  22. Saint Theresa of Avila by Mrs. Bradley Gilman
  23. The Life of Dr. Anandabai Joshee by Caroline Healy Dall
  24. Adelaide Ristori by Adelaide Ristori

billinghurst sDrewth 02:24, 17 May 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]

  Support I've added external scan links to the first four. Would this series be better served by having a Category or a Portal? --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely a portal, or perhaps a section within the WH Allen / Roberts brothers portal —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:25, 2 June 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A list and portal are now set up (W. H. Allen had no portal!) at Portal:W. H. Allen & Co.#Eminent Women Series. I'm setting the series in place at the Comm Collab now. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:14, 2 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
  Support and   Comment I noted a later version of Mary Wollstonecraft by Pennell in the series that has an updated title (Mary Wollstonecraft Godwin) &c. from the original "Famous Women" series. It may be worth looking into whether the original or later "Eminent" version is added to WS. Whichever is decided, I can proofread that work. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:29, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The "Eminent" series is the original UK title for the series. The "Famous" title came later, and was used in the US editions, mostly out of Boston. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:58, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah. Which is to be used? Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:05, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've posted the "Eminent" series for now. The link from the main page goes to Portal:W. H. Allen & Co., which was the UK publisher, and so only "Eminent" title should be posted there. At some future date, we'll cycle through other topics, and then can return to do some of the "Famous" titles. Why? I've been searching through IA and found that some titles have only the UK edition scanned, while others have only the US edition scanned. So we can tackle UK titles for now. Doing a split like this would also allow the community to cycle through a greater variety of topics, and to revisit this one to catch US titles; the importance of the series merits "double dipping" I think.
Of course, if the Community takes enthusiastically to this series, and begins transcribing US titles as well, there's no reason to dissuade that. The whole point is to add value to Wikisource, and encourage community effort. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:11, 14 October 2017 (UTC)Reply[reply]