Wikipedia talk:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources

Distinction between short and lengthy

I suggest that there must be numeral limit to say that this quotation is too lengthy. Please discuss. Otherwise some editors say some quotation as long and some of same length as short. Smatrah (talk) 16:17, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay.. um...

"Do not include copies of primary sources (specifically: text, maps, artworks and other useful images) in Wikipedia. If it is a large source, consider placing it in Wikisource. Wikibooks Annotated works and Project Gutenberg are other alternatives for pursuing primary source documentation."

Is this seriously saying that, say, an article on Beer Street should not include the artwork being discussed? I'm going to substantially rewrite this to try and get rid of the obvious stupidity =) Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 02:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Rework done. Nothing controversial, I trust. Anyway, one last thing left to do: a quick move to a more accurate title:

Move requested

{{editprotected}} Actually, I'd like a move - the title seems inappropriate: We can and do quote from primary sources, and very short primary sources, e.g. Jack Sprat can reasonably be quoted in full. It's also misleading, because, with thumbnail software, we can easily include primary source images, and I don't think anyone would want to argue we shouldn't. A better name would be Wikipedia:Do not include the full text of lengthy primary sources —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shoemaker's Holiday (talk • contribs) 02:31, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Page is not fully protected. Please note that {{editprotected}} is for making a request to EDIT a fully protected page. Requested page moves should be requested at Wikipedia:Requested moves. --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 03:36, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

proposal: exception for law articles?

there are thousands of supreme court cases, and almost every one of them is going to have an article which is going to cite the body textr somewhere off-site, even if that means to Wikisource. However, Wikisource will be inferior to a source like Altlaw, which contains its own version of wikilinks. What I'd really like is for every article on a law case to have an accompanying article containing the opinion text (e.g. at Roe v. Wade/opinion), with the body text full of automatically-generated wikilinks to the cases cited therein. That way, if I'm in the article on "Roe v. Wade", I can 1) transclude individual paragraphs of text (to avoid people from making changes when I want an excerpt in the article) and 2) see "what links here" in the form of other cases. Agradman ^{appreciates civility}/_{makes occasional mistakes} 22:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 20:51, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

National anthems

I disagree with the part about the national anthems. I believe that the only parts of a national anthem that should be displayed on Wikipedia without question are the ones still commonly recited at public events; i.e., the first verse of the Star Spangled Banner, the standard version of God Save the Queen. Other verses should only be included when the context makes it such that the value of inclusion is greater than the risk of breaking the flow of the article; i.e., in God Save the Queen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), we quote the standard version off to the side, quote the infamous "rebellious Scots to crush" verse in the article, and the official peace version, and possibly Hickson's version linked to with {{Wikisource}}. Sceptre ^(talk) 19:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph: Examples of combining Wikipedia and Wikisource

The following examples of specific repositories have been deleted so presumably the section of the paragraph should be deleted too? Are there any "specific repositories" left in Wikisource? Hugo999 (talk) 11:10, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource has specific repositories for certain types of primary source texts, such as, for example, constitutions (Wikisource:Wikisource:Constitutional documents) and national anthems (Wikisource:Wikisource:National anthems), which can contain translations of the source text into multiple languages (including translations of the source text from its original language into English).

Question

Is there a corresponding guideline that suggests not copying material from other Wikipedia articles? We have a bunch of election articles for 50 states that copy material from the parent article into the state article, much of which is not necessarily germane for that state. It seems to me that the parent article for the nation should suffice; that the additional comments to actual voting in the state article should confine itself to events actually occurring in that state. e.g. visit from a candidate; fundraising by a candidate; commercials focused on a special interest group in that state (farmers? Union workers?). Anyway, not a mere repeat of the national article. Student7 (talk) 16:28, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

Related conversation

There is a conversation at Village Pump (policy) about this policy, Sadads (talk) 12:57, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Should this be a guideline?

This page seems like more of an explanatory supplement to Wikipedia:Summary style than a guideline in its own right. Should we change its designation? {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 22:08, 12 September 2020 (UTC)