Template talk:New texts/Archive 2

Keeping this fresh

Why don't we aim to add at least one, or even two, a day? It gives the main page a sense of constant freshness, and it represents a healthy display of our new content. I'd be happy to oversee this, but assistance would be appreciated, since I only edit five or six days in a week (usually). —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 12:24, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Do we have enough new material? I'd hate to see people focusing on short texts just to keep this updated. --Spangineer^wp (háblame) 14:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Surely at least two good short texts are created daily... I'll comb through NewPages and see approximately how many we might be able to use. —Anonymous Dissident^Talk 14:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Sounds like a great idea, except for the occasional theme. :) Cirt (talk) 18:02, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

I sometimes think we could skew our focus a little to new authors, so maybe we can include some of those pages too, or also occasionally we have a nice Wikisource: namespace created, so while works are reason for being, I think that we could expand a little where the quality exists. I am always happy to type up an obituary, or something topical if there is value in doing so. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:57, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

We could even do something along for Obits for "died one hundred years ago today", which picks up the notable at the time. billinghurst (talk)

These might be ideas for a different new subsection for the Main Page. Cirt (talk) 10:18, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Modification needed for script

Some of the snippets that I can add do not specifically have an author, so this would require the means to override the author field. Leaving it blank doesn't work. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:56, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

You can subst the template for an individual entry, and then make manual corrections for that entry. Cirt (talk) 17:07, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

<gasp> Bad Cirt, naught Cirt. But the instructions say no subst. ;-) billinghurst (talk) 11:05, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, no worries. Cirt (talk) 19:02, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Possible new text

If someone thinks they're worth it, we can add Letter to Apple July 31, 2009. It's one of a set of three, but there's no real way to put them all on there, unless you think we should merge all three letters to one page.--Prosfilaes (talk) 16:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Maintaining a better history of works added

I was thinking of a better means to keep track of all the lovely works that we have added in a month, rather than the moment in the spotlight that they currently get. My thoughts would be that we could look to just build the list as we proceed through the month, and while keeping to the list of 6 or 7, that rather than top and tail the list (ie. add one, and delete the bottom one, that we could look to continue the compilation, and we would just transclude the 6 or 7 that we want. It would add an element of complexity, though I think we can keep it reasonable, and not more complex that how we manage a page in the Page: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:24, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This is a good idea. It could be easily done, with some coding adjustments. -- Cirt (talk) 18:20, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In Recognition of Dr. James Meier of the San Mateo Medical Center

• In Recognition of Dr. James Meier of the San Mateo Medical Center
  • This work is not "trivial". That is the judgment of the individual user. It is a public domain work, from a federal employee of the U.S. government, from the Congressional Record.
  • I purposely wait to only have one such work from the Congressional Record on this template at any one time. It is a process of documenting works from members of the United States Congress.
  • I myself would never presume to remove someone else's new text from this template, as I think new additions to Wikisource that are public domain licensed have value on this project and can be highlighted.

Thank you for your time, -- Cirt (talk) 17:46, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit back to status quo. One regard to the consideration of whether a minority of work should be enough to have it on hold, rather than immediately reinserted especially when it is non-urgent issue and can be reinserted at a later time without issue. We work on a consensus, and if there isn't a consensus, then we hold. I am not at my most lucid to have the discussion at the moment. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:19, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I have not seen a rationale explanation for why this specific work should not be displayed. Particularly, as opposed to a document added by another contributor to this Wikisource project. Like I said, I do not recall myself removing a work from this template that another Wikisource contributor added, because I did not like it or felt it was "trivial". That would have been my personal opinion and a judgment call, and I think, not appropriate or conducive to fostering community collaboration and addition of new texts and documents to this project. All should be welcome. :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

There has been a steady stream of very short texts, of extremely limited interest, by one particular author - this isn't even a diverse selection from that publication. It is very clear that the person, as subject, is notable; it does not follow that routine pronouncements made in the course of duties are worthwhile. This has the appearance of bringing undue attention to a particular subject of especial interest to one user, whether that is the case or not, that is not a good thing for the site.

Secondly, and no disrespect is intended by any of this, I find it galling that issues like this are used as a basis for non-productive discussions and the time-sink of political posturing by those drawn to these discussions.

Thirdly, I find this really annoying, the users who focus on the primary task of the site, like, for example, devoting hours of their time to carefully transcribing a 350+ page document, place their text for a moment in the sun, a modicum of recognition for their sweating in silence, only to have it bounced out by a <1-minute copy paste job that has become what is admitted is a calculated and semi-automatic routine. Cygnis insignis (talk) 18:57, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and thank you for that rationale and well-thought out explanation. Would it be to your satisfaction to add other texts from the Congressional Record, from a different author, on a different subject, perhaps one you might view as more noteworthy? -- Cirt (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

No, of course it wouldn't, my opinion of noteworthy is worth no more than any other pseudonymous user. I am always attempting to focus on what is best for the site, that is the primary thrust of my position; if that can be assumed, no matter how stridently I may sometimes put my views, I think that my posts and actions can be better understood. I didn't know who the author was, you succeeded in making me aware of her notability (and, along the way, reminding of that horrible bit of history), not by the [trivial (extremely narrow potential interest)] content of her texts, but by virtue of the fact that the author's name kept appearing. Anyone who doesn't see an inherent problem with that circumstance needs to have a bit of a think what and why they are contributing, perhaps wikinews would be more appropriate for airing this stuf and reaching a target audience. As I have said before, a selection of short texts and new texts would greatly reduce the problems I have outlined, this would include the steady stream of poetry I put through there. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the response but sorry do not quite understand. Are you saying nothing from the source, Congressional Record, should go on the template? Or that it would be satisfactory to you to have something from that source, but from a different author? Or that poetry works are preferable? Sorry, just sorta confused, perhaps you could be more specific? -- Cirt (talk) 19:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The proposal if for a new and different template, also on the main page, but reserved for short texts of any type, poetical, political, scientific articles, anything short and potentially interesting - a selection with high rotation for those who pop by regularly for a short read. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, that is what this template should be used for. :) But if you feel that adding another template to the Main Page would not have the risk of becoming stale or decrease activity of contributions, we could most certainly discuss that. :) -- Cirt (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I think there much less risk of things getting stale, from the pov of improving our catalogue I reckon keeping larger texts around a bit longer might help to improve the number of FTCs. I also reckon that readers will either want a sample of our diverse catalogue or something more substantial. I personally like both, depending on my mood, but the larger works flash through the template as the obviously greater number of short pieces appear. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Not quite sure I follow. I think that it is beneficial to have both larger and shorter works in this template. Some readers might not like some, and other readers might appreciate others. -- Cirt (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

I like items from Congressional Record, but there is plenty of variety available in that source. We wouldn't list four poems from the same poet over a month, so it is reasonable to not list lots of speeches from Jackie Speier either. It looks like we have had a work by Jackie Speier on the front page for most of the last month. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:23, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Understood, and I'll try to vary it up in my postings from that source in the future. Perhaps not one by the same author, maybe every 3rd time, or something like that. -- Cirt (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Coding changes, history of works added

What this means is that new entries will now be added to a subpage off of this template, by year and month. These can then be indexed. No entry will ever be removed from the subpage-month-template, merely the "noinclude" coding will be moved up by one for each entry. In this manner, the month subpages will display all texts that were added in that month.

The first entry is, obviously, this current month:

• Template:New texts/2010/06

The main template, Template:New texts, will not need to be edited anymore in order to add new entries. Sub-pages-by-month will be listed per year on index pages, so for the current year 2010, they are at Template:New texts/2010.

Cheers, :) -- Cirt (talk) 18:09, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

The only problem I see is, clicking on "add" doesn't lead to any statements that {{new texts/item}} is used, as previously. —innotata 19:20, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Hrm, okay, thank you. -- Cirt (talk) 19:21, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Cannot say that I have looked at the guts of what Cirt has in place, though we could look to see whether some sort of preload functionality can be used (see what happens with {{documentation}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

What happens on July 1? It looks like {{New texts}} goes blank, or am I missing something? —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 01:11, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we would need to add new texts then. The prior month would exist as a historical archive. -- Cirt (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of having a blank template for the first few days of every month. I suppose copying items from June to July somewhat defeats the purpose of the historical archive. Would one potential solution be to add a few works to the following month's template in advance? But then whichever one is at the bottom of that list only appears on the main screen for a few hours...

Why not make this simpler—add texts to {{New texts}} as before, but include this new concept of "current" texts and "old" (not displayed) texts. At the end of the month, someone copies all the items in the "old" section into a page identified by month (like the ones you created). Or have a bot do it. In terms of complexity it'd be much easier than what we were doing for featured texts. Anyway, doing it that way keeps the record but we don't have to diverge from our standard practice of add one text, remove one text. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 03:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I think the easiest thing to do, would be to start with a few texts from the prior month. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Or, even easier and simpler, just start the new month with one text, and add up to six to start. :) -- Cirt (talk) 03:39, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Easy perhaps, but the first suggestion in my mind is not compatible with the original purpose, because some works will appear in two months in the archives, and the second suggestion leaves the main page with a big hole for a day or two every month. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 20:40, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it would be pretty easy to just add a few new texts right into the template, on the first day of the month. :) -- Cirt (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

"the template" = {{New texts}}? Or one of its subpages? —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 21:13, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

The new subpage for the new month. -- Cirt (talk) 22:33, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay, thanks; I wasn't sure. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 22:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• As with much to do with the front page, one needs to make of study of a mind-boggling array of interacting templates. I'm afraid I must be critical of the approach that produces such Heath-Robinsonian complexity, especially when it doesn't work. Sure, I could spend time trying to fathom all this, but the next time I look it will have been changed again. Do I need to make a request to the creators of these to do the simplest thing? I don't see why it should have changed, but it no longer works as simply click "add text", one is sent spiralling into a sub-page. Stuff like this alienates users, creating an elite who are au fait with this unnecessary palaver.

This ought to be pretty simple, modify the one at the bottom, move it to the top, done! The earlier texts appeared in the page history, if anyone is especially concerned about this; for example, I couldn't remember whether I had added Photography in public libraries and thought this would be neat to add, interesting and prophetic. Now I'm here complaining instead, again, I found the page from my contribs.

• One page, one history, transcluded to the main page. If someone wants a page of everything that appeared, then make an archive. Please change it back! Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:46, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

• I oppose the new solution. A record of monthly history is not worth the clunkiness being introduced. While I agree that archives would be nice, we must need a solution that neither requires time-sensitive editing on the first day of every month nor compromises our FIFO system of rotation. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 22:52, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Would you mind restoring the status quo, if you know how. Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:00, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

I could probably figure it out... but at this point I'd prefer that Cirt do it. I've added the work you mentioned to the template so that it now appears on the main page. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 23:16, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for adding it. 00:22, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment: Let us please discuss, move forward, and work towards improving the new version, and not revert back to an old version of the page with poorer structure for historical recording. This was initially an attempt by me to respond to a suggestion by Billinghurst. It is really quite simple. Instead of adding one/remove one, from the main template, it is now just - add one to top, move the "noinclude", at the monthly subpage. Quoting from above: This ought to be pretty simple, modify the one at the bottom, move it to the top, done! - it really is as simple as that. Just process shifted to a subpage, by month. -- Cirt (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Like so! :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:42, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

This fragments the history of the new texts. This requires a new months page to be watched, somthing you feel is critical enough to advise every of on their talk page, making a demand that the changes are available to those on IRC when the information is provided in the same way on EVERY page on on wikimedia. This requires the regular creation of new pages. It is arcane. It is a solution to a an imaginary problem, it is included in a page that belongs to us all. I can go on ... It is not polite to suggest that others are causing the problem, billinghurst making a suggestion is not a basis for 'fixing' something that wasn't broken. It has been opposed, it wasted my time, there needs to be a consensus that what is implemented is an improvement, please restore and then discuss. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:57, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Actually, it is still only needed to watch one page, the subpage for the current month. Let us discuss suggestions for ways to improve it further, instead of going backward. -- Cirt (talk) 01:00, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

There is no chance you had time to read and consider what was said. We would need to watch every new page, times that by the number of users and you have a lot of downtime. I reverted the change. The primary purpose of this site is not discussion of what one user fancies changing, on the MAIN PAGE, that is an unacceptable approach. Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:08, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I am not quite understanding you, we only need to watch one subpage by month at one time, the template new texts could actually be full-protected and never edited again. -- Cirt (talk) 01:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Cirt, the burden of this change should lie on those of us who want to see archives. Right now, it lies on all users. They have to watch more pages (and must be continually updating their watchlists), and they have to pay attention at the strike of midnight to prevent a hole from appearing on the main page every month. It is simple to shift the burden off regular users and onto archivers by keeping the "current" and "old" idea and allowing the archiver, at his leisure, to copy the previous month's entries to that subpage. Please at least consider this idea, and if necessary explain why it's a bad one.

I like Wikisource's leniency when it comes to making big changes, but when you make a big change without prior discussion, and as a result get negative feedback from multiple users, the appropriate thing to do is to revert back to the status quo while discussion continues. It's not appropriate, IMO, to reverse a revert to status quo, and not address the points of contention. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 01:26, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

I understand. I am sorry. It is a shame you do not like the changes, and I feel bad about that. Perhaps I have not adequately explained it. You keep saying there would be multiple pages to watch, but there would still only be one page to watch at one time. -- Cirt (talk) 01:27, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

At a time. Every month every user who cares about {{New texts}} must edit his watchlist to add the next month's page to it. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 01:30, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah yes. That link was bolded and italicized. You are saying it is too much to ask, to make one click, once per month? -- Cirt (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes. One click (after finding the correct subpage) times 10 or 20 users, who may or may not care about archiving, and who will be aggravated to find out that what was once automatic now requires that they learn a new system, find a page that they didn't know existed, and remember to click a link every month. This combined with the hole we will see on the main page every month is a much bigger negative than the effort required for one person—someone who actually cares about archiving—to copy all the month's text to an archive file at the end of every month. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 01:45, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Okay. Understood. Thank you for explaining that so well and so politely to me. Once again, I am sorry. -- Cirt (talk) 01:46, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

Update: I did some minor formatting, to make it a bit easier for users to see where to add new texts. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Comment

I can recognize that there are two users that oppose the changes that I have made recently to this template, in attempts to respond to a helpful suggestion from User:Billinghurst. I will, of course, not go against that further. :)

However, it does need to be stressed that this would be a very easy and simple process - the main template, {{New texts}}, could be fully-protected, and never needs to be edited again. The monthly templates would then be edited instead, and there would only be one month-subpage at-a-time that would need to be watched, whether via watchlists or IRC. I will defer to User:Billinghurst who had originally suggested this, and to consensus on this talk page, if anyone wishes to pursue it further. :) Cheers, -- Cirt (talk) 01:17, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Other idea implemented

I have implemented the solution I mentioned previously, which requires that users move the oldest entry to a different part of the page rather than delete it. If a user deletes the oldest entry in spite of the new instructions, someone who cares about archiving can restore the deleted text to the "old" section. Such errors can be identified on watchlists by noting the amount of text added to the template—if little (<100 bytes), the entry was probably deleted and not moved. At the end of the month, someone who wishes to archive can copy the entire list of "old" entries to the archive subpage, leaving the texts in the "current" section for the following month's archive. It seems to me that this compromise makes archiving easier while not adding much complexity to the system and creating other issues. But feel free to disagree and revert if need be. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 02:10, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good! :) -- Cirt (talk) 02:14, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

holidays

There is always a holiday somewhere in the world, and the practice doesn't seem to have been implemented, so I removed the instruction to keep it clear " For holidays, let's leave the week prior to the Holiday specific to those texts (if we have them), and then quickly move to replace them afterward." Cygnis insignis (talk) 07:29, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of that instruction. And if we want to do a theme, we should put it up for a few days and then revert back to version of the template that existed prior to the theme. —Spangineer^wp (háblame) 19:52, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

No objections. :) If/when there is another theme, some instructions/notifications could be placed. Until then, no worries! :) -- Cirt (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

tagging/categorisation of new texts

It would be useful if there was a category added to the new texts, so we could generate an RSS feed using this tool. e.g. [1]

We could add a 'standardised' parameter to the {{new text}} template; when 'standardised=yes', it adds it to the category and displays a shiny 'new' icon (like {{featured}}), otherwise it displays {{standardise}}. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 23:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Propose move subsidiary archived [new texts]

We have the new texts archived in sub-hierarchy template files, basically hidden away. I propose that we move the archives to Wikisource: ns where they can be perused, then update the template accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 23 April 2011 (UTC)

.007

We cannot have a work named .007 and not add it to the front page as a cute "haha, tricked you, you thought it was James Bond" move :) I just added it. Please add. —unsigned comment by RudyardKiplingsLeftPinkyFinger (talk) .

Would you please add source and year data as per Talk:.007. Once that is done, we can add the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I thought it was a joke at first...apparently not! Turns out WS already hosts the text which contains the story, so I did some tweaking about to set things up... Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

It says "part of a collection of short stories first published in 1898. " right on the work. RudyardKiplingsLeftPinkyFinger (talk) 19:37, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

I've added a source djvu. It's the 1899 edition but appears to be the same otherwise. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)