Wikibooks talk:Annotated texts

New discussion
Moved to s:Wikisource talk:Annotations.

Suggested Additions
I would like to see the text thats been removed from WB:WIW/Unstable added/incorporated to this policy. Which was:

Annotated texts are guides for helping readers study and understand published literature and other media that includes a copy of the original work within it. For example, Introduction to Shakespeare or Darwin's The Descent of Man. By developing these guides, we are trying to make it easier for students to study such material. Our sister project Wikisource, which collects public domain and freely licensed works that already exist, also allows annotated texts; it is a place of overlap between the two projects.

See Wikibooks:Annotated texts for our complete policy. Briefly there are two main limitations:


 * 1) Planned annotated texts with only slim prospects of ever actually becoming annotated may become candidates for deletion.
 * 2) Annotated editions of previously published works may only be written if use of the source text does not constitute a copyright infringement. Otherwise, these works are the property of someone else; we should respect their rights and avoid legal trouble. Copyright violations are suitable grounds for speedy deletion.

--dark lama  23:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Just to know more about it, who removed the text and did he or anyone provide any info on why the removal was performed ?
 * On point 1) I disagree, a bare book structures (or plan) is not a valid candidate for deletion, can you extend on that point ? --Panic 00:18, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Was it this [edit by Whiteknight]? (he gave the motives to the changes [here] and Annotated_texts cover more or less the subject. --Panic 00:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Clarification to text
On the main namespace version it says The source text has absolutely no annotations, or the annotation is so minimal that its erasure constitutes no loss of educational material. Can I suggest that this has an element of ambiguity, especially where the work itself may be inherently educational material. I presume that we are meaning the loss of (one of) additional/annotated/complementary educational material. Billinghurst (discuss • contribs) 14:32, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, this hasn't been really modified since 2007 and I may be one of the few watching it, but my interpretation is that if a book is just a source text or has worthless annotations that if removed would leave it just as a source text, then it should be moved to Wikisource. – Adrignola discuss 14:43, 18 June 2011 (UTC)
 * As I understand the text, the qualification being asked about is already there. The passage in question is the third of three criteria, all of which must hold at once for the text to be recommended for deletion.  (I've tried to clarify that in the text.)  The second criterion says that if the text is inherently educational, it should probably stay here, as sooner or later someone will want to write annotations.  --Pi zero (discuss • contribs) 23:59, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource
Wikisource is s:Wikisource:Requests for comment/Annotation policy discussing their annotation policies. I as a Wikisource admin would like to see that Wikibooks and Wikisource cover all the annotated texts that Wikimedia should cover, so I invite people interested in annotated texts to drop by.--Prosfilaes (discuss • contribs) 19:41, 18 July 2014 (UTC)