Wikisource talk:Works

Periodicals
There seem to be quite a few Newspaper and Magazine articles but they are awkwardly organized. Some of them are listed under Miscellaneous. Things are very difficult to find. I created a page called New York Times, reuniting sources from the paper but I don't know where to put it. I'm adding a Periodicals Index page and will put it under "Other." Perhaps it merits its own works subheading but I don't believe its big enough yet. --Metal.lunchbox 00:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, Metal.lunchbox,


 * I agree, the naming for newspapers is fairly inconsistent, but that should be changed. The biggest reason they're poorly named is because we didn't have a whole lot of them and so they missed our eye when it came to renaming all the pages.


 * I suggest, in order to bring them into line with our style guide would be to adopt the following scheme:




 * For example,  for an article titled "Fire burns down house" that was published in The New York Times.  This scheme would appear to resolve any ambiguity and would mostly conform to the general idea for naming periodicals like National Geographic or Littell's Living Age.  And if newspaper articles have the same name, we can disambiguate according to author or date.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

That sounds pretty sensible. I ask because I'd like to add a few dozen articles for an audiobook project I'm doing with Librivox.org, and because the one that are already hear are very hard to find, esp because nothing is on front page. how does this look? --Metal.lunchbox 03:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Check my response to you on the Scriptorium. I've made some comments about the presentation, to help come up with a good solution for presenting the header on these pages.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Use of categories.
I would like to suggest that a specific category be created for every type of work which has its own index page. This would aid in compiling works of a specific type, since this is obviously the main purpose of catgories, as well as of index pages. Also, we should make each such index page itself part of the corresponding category.

This has already been done for some existing index pages, such as the modern fiction index page and the category Category: Modern Fiction. What I am suggesting is that we do so for all index pages. Hope that sounds useful as a suggestion. Thanks. --Sm8900 00:14, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Scientific works
Can someone please look at inserting a genre entry for scientific works. I've been contributing material from Flora Australiensis and A Specimen of the Botany of New Holland, and I know Fred.e has been contributing material from The Botanical Magazine. There doesn't seem to be any suitable genre for these sources. Hesperian 12:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the delay, Portal:Botany created. Please help add/improve to it. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Ivan Turgenev 06:51, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

animated pictures not welcome
IMO anyway. There's animated pics of a girl riding a horse, and some boxers. This is unnecessary and distracting. What do others think. 78.149.157.186 10:48, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree. Animated images are not particularly useful in this case. Feel free to replace them with a still image that is a reasonable alternative. John Vandenberg (chat) 12:03, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I included them as small "easter eggs", something that's been done rarely enough and yet still frequently enough, to make it a special little detail on WS, not dissimilar to WP's use of Image:Skinnydipping.GIF for the longest time as a "cute" little way of dealing with the issue of people who fought over nude photos. (Note that the image of the Nuremberg trials also uses a video capture of Goerring speaking) Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:John McCrae (1872-1918) 12:08, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I'd agree that we should avoid the use of animated moving images & replace them where we can. Personally I'm not keen on the use of images generally though thats a seperate issue. AllanHainey (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Work index revision
The work index is actually an illustrated subject index today. I propose to make it into an alphabetical list of all works instead, just like Authors. A bot could be used to create and update the list. Please comment below.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:17, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
 * If there is a bot eventually, it would be useful if it could add names to the author lists as well. Speaking of that list, what format do you think will work best here? The author list is not just alphabetised names (which you could get from the associated categories), they also have birth/death dates and some are bold if they are considered important.  For works, options include: the year, the author, the genre/type and the current proofreading status/test quality.  (The last two might be more complicated than users may like but I think we should at least list the date.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:41, 6 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The list could be formatted as a table like this.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:26, 6 June 2013 (UTC) I switched to the list format to make its achievement easier.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:01, 17 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The Garden of Years and Other Poems (1904 works, PD-old)
 * The Grandmother (1823 works, PD-old, Works originally in French)

Usability feedback from random person
When I tried to open two categories, I opened them in new tabs, then kept scrolling in this one. When I went to read the ones I'd opened, I discovered that I'd ended up at the file description pages for the icons used for the categories, rather than the categories themselves, making me have to figure out what categories those icons went with and scroll back to them on the index page. The icons should be links to the categories, not to the icon description pages. Goldenshimmer (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2019 (UTC)