Wikibooks talk:Annotated texts/Archive1

Annotated sources v. Wikisource (first discussion moved from Staff Lounge)
All the contents for Shakespeare's plays and the Sherlock Holmes stories have been copied to Wikisource, which is the place for such things. These could now be deleted from this project, perhaps leaving a temporary link to Wikisource on the Main Page. Eclecticology 18:04, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)


 * We plan to annotate those texts, so no thanks. When MediaWiki gets the ability to export Wikisource content to other projects, then we will delete our local copies. --mav 19:09, 3 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Another annotation question:

Is the following the case: (1) Wikibooks is planning to have annotated texts, but (2) none of the texts at Annotated works is actually annotated yet. (Or, wait. The constitution seems to be annotated, but in a really crappy way.)(3) There is not now but at some point in the future will be a tag for annotations?

If so, is it reccomended that people put the texts in place but do not annotate them until more infrastructure is in place, that they wait to put the texts in until the infrastructure is in place, or that they use some intermediate annotation scheme until the infrastructure is in place?

(Sorry if these questions are addressed elsewhere, and I didn't see.) ??????????? 03:52, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Depends on the work, really. If it's like source text, put the text at Wikisource, and then when you want to annotate it, copy the text from Wikisource over... Dysprosia 04:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Hmm. But if, say, I've started wikifying it, even though I can't annotate yet...(see User:Kukkurovaca)???????????
 * It wouldn't be so hard to strip the wikiformatting and the line numbers, if that's what you want? Dysprosia 06:02, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * No, I'm suggesting I'm impatient. (smile)???????????


 * If you want to upload, that should be fine. There's not many strict guidelines here, so if you go ahead, you won't be shot down, drawn and quartered ;) Dysprosia 06:35, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * BTW if you do want to strip the Wikitext, put the text in an editor like vi and do :%s/^# //g, :%s/\[\[.*|\(.*\)\]\]/\1/g Dysprosia 06:48, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
 * Good to know. Do you know if/when a note tag or other such provision will be in place????????????
 * No idea :/ Dysprosia 08:04, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"Annotated works" and "Study guide bookshelf" (second discussion moved from Staff Lounge)
As some users have previously noted on the relevant talk pages, we have a confusing situation where there is one page for Annotated works, a different page one somewhat duplicating it called "Study guide bookshelf" plus a template appearing on the Wikibooks main page that combines the two of them in its title, called Study guide bookshelf (the title appearing on the Main Page is: "Annotated Texts and Study Guides").

I strongly propose doing one of two things:
 * Combining the two groups on the very same page and finding a single title that adequately describes what found in both of them.
 * Dividing them into two clear groups, with two different templates as well.

Personally, I favor the second option. I think much of the confusion has resulted because, on the one hand, there are classic works of literature with planned annotation, while on the other hand, there are test preparation guides in this category (like the SAT study guide).

My suggestion: One page+category with template entitled: "Annotated Texts" and a second page+category with template entitled "Test study guides."

What do people think? Dovi 12:54, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree, it is one of the next points for cleaning up. Did you notice that most of the so-called "Annotated Texts" are actually not annotated at all? As such, they should move to Wikisource, and there are not many books left there. I'd suggest the following: Combine the two bookshelves (since each of them is comparatively small), getting rid of "Annotated texts" (for now move the books to Study guides, subsection Annotated texts, but it seems most of them are there already anyway). Annotated texts is a nice idea, but it does not require a bookshelf by its own, unless it grows bigger.
 * B.t.w. I would suggest to put all Study guides of classical work into the (new) study guide namespace "Studyguide:Romeo and Juliet", etc. to clean things up, but that is a follow-up project. For now, I support the idea of getting rid of "Annotated texts" and having only one bookshelf. --Andreas 13:18, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Suggestion for cleaning up sounds good to me. As for "Studyguide" namespace, please explain how it is meant to be used. Would it have to be used for every page of a study guide? (That would seem cumbersome.)Dovi 21:03, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * There should be a clever standard behind this: Some people feel like it would be wise to put the words "Study guide" somehow into the title. People are just not sure about how to do this:

Study Guide:Shakespeare A Tale of Two Cities/Study guide/Characters Study Guide for CFA Exam Level 1
 * So things could be unified by a namespace that covers all these books, either "Study Guide:", "Study guide:" or "Studyguide:" or the like (it should be just consistent). Of course, if we decide on using a namespace, then all pages and all subpages have to use it.
 * If you feel your book Mishnah does not require the words "Study guide" in the title (because it is not meant as a study guide to Mishnah but the purpose is the text itself), then you don't have to use this namespace. For other books, a unique namespace would make sense. --Andreas 10:24, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hmmmm, interesting. Could you refer me to whatever discussion already exists on the namespace and its use, so that I can better understand it? (Offhand, it would seem to me that categories would do the job less intrusively. That plus tight interconnection between the various parts of the text.)

As far as Mishnah goes - it really is meant to be an "Annotated text" - i.e. the actual text in a useful form plus the creation of new study aids (introductions, notes, summaries...) to assist the reader.Dovi 13:02, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately I don't know of any discussion on the use of namespaces (other than the one we two are having right here.) You see, I would not call a book "A tale of two cities" if it is meant to be a study guide, because that is a book written by Charles Dickens. The book should be rather called "Study guide to 'A tale of two cities'" or shorter "Study guide:A tale of two cities". That Study guide appears in this case in the title has nothing to do with in what category I will put the book later.
 * It will probably be a broader discussion, since the cleanest way would be to put original work to Wikisource, and a book about the book (with links to the relevant passages) on Wikibooks.(This would be also the cleanest for the reader, since he knows immediately which parts are original and which are added by other contributors). But people are not so clean in this distinction (see The Golden Bough or Gardening for original work that made it into Wikibooks, meant to be edited later by someone else - but noone dared to do so yet). --Andreas 10:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Hi, sorry I've been away for a while! I think your distinction, while a good "clean" one, does not address all of the possibilities. Specifically, it leaves no place for Charles Dickens with introductions, commentary, and notes. What you mean by "study guides" to texts are meant to stand on their own, as companion volumes (i.e. the Wikibooks study guide to Charles Dickens as a companion to the Wikisource original text). However, there is yet another genre, one that includes the object of study (the original text), within the study guide. That is better called an "annotated text." I think this is what the person working on "Golden Bough" wants to do eventually, and it is what I've also tried to do with initial samples of Mishnah. This kind of project can legitimately (and usefully) be called by the actual title of the book.
 * I don't think there's any real problem, by the way, if Charles Dickens or Shakespeare sit here for a long time until someone decides they want to annotate them. That's the nature of wiki: people do it when they want to!
 * One last point: When we talk about the "original text" of Charles Dickens (to be kept on Wikisource), everyone knows pretty much exactly what is meant by that. However, when dealing with pre-modern texts it is much less clear. Any edition of a text from ancient or classical times involves a huge number of editorial decisions regarding textual criticism, formatting, puctuation, and numerous other details, often subjective decisions which can turn even the "original text" into a somewhat new creation. Here is where the border between Wikibooks and Wikisource becomes blurred. (I would suggest that an exact representation of a previously published edition of a classical text be held on Wikisource, while a digital version meant to incorporate new editing features be held here.) Dovi 07:33, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)