User talk:AdamBMorgan

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Quarterly headings to facilitate manual archiving.


Q2 2013[edit]

Thanks very much[edit]

Thank you so much for your help at Issa, Cummings Ask for Briefing on Swartz Prosecution!!!

You really did a great job!

Much appreciated,

-- Cirt (talk) 20:24, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I was just reading it earlier and noticed there was something I could do. (Oddly, I got the orange message bar for this while adding the final bits to that work.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:50, 31 March 2013 (UTC)
Well, if you're interested, there's other documents on a related similar topic listed at Author:Aaron Hillel Swartz, that could do with some formatting to look better, as well. ;) Thanks again, -- Cirt (talk) 03:59, 1 April 2013 (UTC)


Adam, do you like the below version of the template? I feel the current version is quite old-fashioned.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:56, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

That looks good. All I did to the current {{news}} was update and tidy a few things, I don't think the format has changed since 2006. If you want to upgrade the template with this version, go ahead.
NB: I do think the template itself could be improved by transcluding a sub-template each month (like featured text) so that the next month's list can be prepared before the beginning of the month; but that doesn't affect your design. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

To note[edit]

w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-08/Wikizinebillinghurst sDrewth 12:53, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I will at least try to make some suggestions for Wikisource stuff. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Needed correction[edit]

Adam, would you please fix this as it should be? I am trying to link to a photo 9 years less that the publication date of this book. My attempted link is near the bottom of the page. —Maury (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done . External links only have one set of square brackets and no pipe. Then I edited again to use the {{plainlinks}} template anyway. I should note that, depending on what happens with the discussion about annotation, this kind of external link may be banned in the future (or will have to be treated differently). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:10, 11 April 2013 (UTC)

About two proposed policies of yours[edit]

Adam, I like WS:Red link except for the sentence "Other works that a[re] referenced within a work may be red links if that work does not exist on Wikisource." I think that the main namespace should not include such red links. May I take out that sentence? Besides, could you please expand WS:Extracts so I can propose for it to become policy?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:49, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I have boldly taken out the sentence.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:41, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
That's OK (and sorry for the delay, I thought I'd replied already). Personally, I frequently add red links to body text because the works will presumably exist someday and it is easier to create the links now than try to find everything later. That's a personal choice, however. I should say that there is a chance this policy will be affected by the new wikilinking policy that is expected to come out of the annotation debate. I've done some expansion on Extracts; there may be a bit more when I review it with new eyes later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:17, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
I've just proposed the policy/guideline status for it, too. I'm going to close the proposal at the beginning of May.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

index validated date[edit]

Adam, I think the idea of a Index validating date is a good idea. I know not why - but we are creatures always looking to dates and time. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:07, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks but it was really Jeepday's idea and only happened thanks to a list Mpaa generated. I just did the implementation. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:09, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Another milestone for possible mention in News[edit]

Hi, during the month (I think on 22nd) we also achieved 25% of mainspace pages with scan-backing. Don't know if this is worth mentioning or not. Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:20, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, I've added a story to the May issue about this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Tumblr suggestion[edit]


Why not post a side-by-side comparison [screen-shot] on what Wikisource editing actually looks like—a corrected text beside the image of a book page showing errors. Please take a look at this side-by-side comparison. It was done by Theornamentalist. It is simple and yet very pretty as well as small.


—Maury (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting a fourth parameter for portal[edit]

I have come across a few recent examples of where I have needed for portals to be listed, eg. tripartite treaties, so one per country, and one for treaties. Thoughts about adding a fourth? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:05, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

It uses #titleparts to parse the string, so the maximum is 25 portals (or 255 characters, whichever limit is hit first). Do you want it increased up to, say, 10 portals to cover possible future cases or just add one more? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:10, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Riders of the Purple Sage[edit]

This work is one I'd be willing to work on this summer (after the start of June). However, IA does not have a complete copy in good condition. What I have found there is

(a) a clean text copy of the first edition [1], but which lacks all the illustrations of that edition. Whoever scanned the book left the images out, with blank white pages in their place.
(b) a copy with good scans of the illustrations [2], but the text is badly marked up by some biblio-scribbler.

If you (or someone else) could create and upload a hybrid edition DjVu to Commons, including the text from one and the illustrations from the other, then I'd have something to work with. The good news is that there are only four illustrations, so it's not that intensive a task. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:10, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

From the information I have, the second link is the original (published by Harper and Brothers). The first link, without the illustrations, is published by Grosset and Dunlap "by arrangement with Harper & Brothers". Just looking at the text files attached to those pages, I can't see much difference in quality. The second scan should be no more problem that the first. (If you do want the first version, the illustrations should come from Hathi Trust, which is the same Grosset and Dunlap edition.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:59, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
You have more experience than I have with evaluating various editions. The second link does have consistent warping of the page at bottom right and bottom left corners in the last line, but I may have misremembered about the scribbling, confusing it with another edition I examined. However, the second link version does have problematic pages. See pages 65-67, where there seem to be large holes in the pages of the scanned book, damaging sections of the text there; this may be the problem that I was remembering. However, despite this issue, if you think the second (original edition) text looks good enough, then that's the one we should use. With regard to the image issue you mentioned, would we need then to do any editing of the DjVu, or would we simply upload the four images to Commons separately? --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

MotM plan[edit]

Adam, I've planned the MotM tasks for the next three months. The first one (June) is about the work index. There is some needing to revise it since it is actually an illustrated subject index today. My idea is to create an alphabetical listing of all works instead, just like WS:Authors. Is my plan fine to you?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:33, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the plan is fine with me. Also, sorry I haven't been more involved recently; I just haven't had much time in real life and other projects on Wikisource keep coming up. Wikisource:Works is left over from the pre-portal days without much editing, so re-purposing it makes sense. If you want more support, announcing it on Scriptorium would be a good idea. Presumably the lists used for categorisation (or new equivalents) would be a start in setting this up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:49, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
No excuse needed. I've also been editing just a little for the whole school year due to a lot of homework. I'd just like to write some stories for the new issue of our newsletter during the next days.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:49, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

June newsletter[edit]

Adam, you had put some headings on to the June issue of the newsletter, but you haven't actually written the stories yet. If you are not going to write them within few hours or days, please move them to next month's issue.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done In this case, my excuse for lack of activity is an insomnia/migraine combo this week. That's over now and News should be all complete; I've updated {{News}} too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)


Adam, ref: England a Destroyer of Nations. At what point do historical facts become "propaganda"? Please show some of this in the transcribed work and especially in the British Empire's involvement in slavery. —Maury (talk) 15:54, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

In this case, when historical facts are being used by a German during World War One to influence American opinion to stop them from joining the Britsh Empire & allies against Germany and the Central Powers. It is classed as propaganda by other institutions (and the Library of Congress lists it under World War One History rather than British History). My interest here is the WWI angle. I'm hoping to get things organised a little in the run up to the centenary. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:28, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Story about the Translation namespace[edit]

Hi Adam, I wrote a story about the new Translation namespace for the July newsletter. Do you like it?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:41, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Yes. I already read it and it seems to capture everything about the namespace. Maybe add that the namespace seems to be currently stalled on the technical issue of a namespace number. (I think so anyway becasue that's all the last few comments on bugzilla were about.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Q3 2013[edit]

Oral Literature[edit]

Hi AdamBMorgan, thanks for the message. I removed the tag and posted the link to the license (its in pag. 5/192, I don't find a better way to link it). Is it OK now? --Aubrey (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

On the licence template goes just above the categories in the mainspace (but only on the basepage, unless a subpage is different). I've added one; that's all OK now. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:59, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Thank you :-) --Aubrey (talk) 08:38, 11 July 2013 (UTC)

"original" parameter in {{translation header}}[edit]

Adam, you might want to remove the "original" parameter from {{translation header}}, so that the link is made in the standard way. In Translation:The Screaming a bot reinserted the standard link, and this could also create problems in the future if Wikidata is used.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:18, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

I saw the bot on my watchlist. However, this parameter is the only way to reliably track the presence (or lack thereof) of interwiki-originals across the translation namespace. An orignal version elsewhere on a Wikisource subdomain was a requirement brought up in the RfC that lead to the namespace. It doesn't seem to hurt to have two identical interwiki links on one page, so the header and a normal interwiki could work (although we could possibly document this a little more on the template page). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:28, 16 July 2013 (UTC)

Biographies of people who don't exist[edit]

Something like Category:Biographies of probably non-existent people would be handy, as far as I'm concerned. I keep on turning up DNB biographies where the modern edition suggests strongly that they are made up folk, or artefacts of interpretation of old manuscripts, etc. With a category they could be excluded from matching to WP, and treated on their own merits.

What do you think? Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 19 July 2013 (UTC)

I quite like the section title, Category:Biographies of people who don't exist, but "probably non-existent people" is more formal. Category:Apocryphal biographies could work too. The name aside, I see no major problems. I think there would need to be an intro on the category page itself to explain what the category is about (as it might confuse people) and where the information is from (to satisfy the general Neutral POV requirement). Otherwise, it makes sense to me. It is probably a very common occurrence in older biographies and seems a legitimate category of the biography field. (Sorry for not answering a little more quickly; my internet access kept dropping out on me over the last few days.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:41, 21 July 2013 (UTC)

Thanks - one went past this evening, so I created Category:Apocryphal biographies. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:17, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Ready to move?[edit]

Adam, is everything ready to move works to the translation namespace? If so, this could be the MotM task for August.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:11, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I was just thiking about asking other users that question. As far as I know, everything is OK. The only problem I know about is the Proofread Page backlinks (the Source tab at the top and page numbers along the side) not showing up. That shouldn't be a critical error, however. It doesn't seem to be a very difficult problem to overcome and it can be fixed after the move. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:14, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
See also the discussion at Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard#New Name Space. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:03, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Hi Adam, sorry if I'm bothering you again, but I noticed that the header preloading script gadget preloads the "year" and "language" parameters in subpages, too. Do you know whom I have to contact in order to get this fixed?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:08, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
It's no bother. The gadget code is at MediaWiki:Gadget-TemplatePreloader.js and any admin can edit it. I have only a basic understanding of javascript, however. Given time I can probably work out how to copy and adapt the isSubpage code from the header template section. A more proficient admin should be able to solve it a lot sooner. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:21, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

Redacting source files for CopyVio[edit]


I noticed your BOT request for Weird Tales vol. 42 in response to the copyright issues since discovered. Would you mind if I took a stab at creating a new .DjVu from the original IA hosted PDF but using Acrobat's built in redaction feature to literally keep the pages themselves to act as placeholders with the text "blacked-over" and the embedded text removed instead? I'd even "add-back" the pages for the other two stories already "removed" from the published page progression using this method of redaction if I only knew where to locate them.

If this is agreeable to you, would you please put a hold on the BOT request and give me a day or two to see if I can to get that redacting function in Acrobat Pro to handle this for us (the caveat being I've never tried to apply it to a PDF that is ultimately going to become a DjVu before). Thanks for any consideration of this in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Yes, sure. It sounds interesting. Do whatever you want. (NB: I have all the original page scans but they are individual JPEGs.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:51, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
I might have bit off more than I can chew - I didn't realize the source PDF's pages were so small in dimension (2in by 3in roughly). That, plus the fact certain words were oddly spelled on purpose, meant the traditional "black box" cloaking of individual words resulted in a really ugly looking redaction; one that almost made the entire page just one big black box.

The other method (see temp test file File:Bloch redacted.djvu basically this method brings the backgound color(s) up over the foreground text) seems like the way to go. What do you think? is that form of redaction an acceptable substitute for the existing Bloch story? -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:20, 26 July 2013 (UTC)

The text can't be read, so there is no copyright violation taking place. I'd say that works as redaction. Does DjVu support this too? If so, will you be adding that back into the main DjVu file? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:54, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I guess you did not notice - the linked temp file is already a DjVu made from a "redacted" PDF as explained above; so yes, I can substitute those pages for the CopyVio ones in the existing DjVu just fine (I just wanted to be sure doing so was OK'd by you first is all). I'll get around to it sometime today (I hope) and leave you a note here when its been replaced on Commons as well. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:00, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
Well, you cunningly concealed the file type by clearly putting it in the wikilink... Yes, sorry, I just had PDF on the brain and missed the obvious. Please feel free to update the file at your convenience. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
  • UPDATE: redacted pages swapped-in and new source file uploaded to Commons. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:52, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
    Thanks. I've marked those pages "without text" as they don't really need to be proofread. Do you think that's OK? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group[edit]

Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)


Adam, did you get my e-mail to you on volume 10 of the Southern Historical Society Papers? I stated that it is on Google and it has all Tables of Contents from volume 1-10 listed in one area towards the end of that volume. —Maury (talk) 18:48, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

I did. I tried accessing it but the work is "search only" for me so there is nothing to download. I will have to try with a proxy service of some kind, to hide my IP address, but I'm not sure if that will work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Let me see if I can download that volume (perhaps from IA). I will let you know in a few minutes. —Maury (talk) 19:35, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I had already downloaded SHSP volume 10. I wasn't sure if I had or not. The General Index for the First Ten Volumes starts on page 577. But the Index consists of 20 pages. Naturally it shows "Digitized by Google" but I know how to remove those if need be. What do you suggest? —Maury (talk) 19:52, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
If you can upload the whole thing to Commons we can proceed with it here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:37, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I believe I can. Will comply asap. —Maury (talk) 22:24, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done File:Southern Historical Society Papers 10.pdf —Maury (talk) 22:49, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Here is another with light yellow pages for easier proof-reading that I just now found on Internet Archives. This is the better of the two volumes. Colored pages are easier on eye and no google markings anywhere. —Maury (talk) 23:18, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Second version on IA is best[edit]

Adam, I uploaded that file as suggested but later I found the best version on IA. Can the one already uploaded be deleted and then the one still on IA be uploaded? I have thought about this a lot when not asleep. My eyes cannot take a lot of white page editing which the already uploaded with "Digitized by Google" has stamped on every page. The 2nd version has no messy marking nor "digitized by google" on it. The pages on the 2nd version are a soft yellow and much easier to work with by my eyes. At age 66 I have computer white page sensitivity when working long periods of time and pain actually comes. Then I have to stay away from the computer for awhile. This has happened 6 times and I went to the doctor twice. My eyes are still 20-20 but they get eye-strain, like snow-blindness mountain climbers experience. —Maury (talk) 12:38, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Adam, silent one, Thank you for uploading the latest SHSP volumes. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 15:14, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

I was going to mention it; I just had something else come up before I was finished getting everything set up. I found a new batch on the Internet Archive, all uploaded by the Allen County Public Library, when I went to download volume ten. This fills out the gaps up to 1923. It might be harder getting the rest as the public domain status is more complicated to work out from 1923 onwards. Nevertheless, there's more than enough material available to proofread now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:03, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
I was watching the area anyhow, I don't know why I wrote that silly statement. I am amazed, pleased and very grateful that you found so many excellent volumes as well as got them on Wikisource so fast. I certainly am not concerned about not having all 52 volumes due to copyright. Someone in the far-away future can take care of those volumes. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:35, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

LOC listing is now validated[edit]

Hi, Just thought I'd let you know that Susan has completed the validation of Index:Library of Congress Classification Outline.djvu. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:33, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. I've been seeing all the validations on my watchlist over the lst few days. It's nice that it's finally done; I think I have some cleaning up of the transclusions to do now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)

Library of Congress Work[edit]

It was my pleasure -- and I figured that few people would be interested in validating list after list after list! Susan Susanarb (talk) 15:28, 12 August 2013 (UTC)


Adam, thank you so very much for working out that complicated mess on M F Maury. I had no idea what to do with it. It is perfect now. While your page states that you have "AS" I have not seen any of it. In people skills you are always helping others. Also, on your chart there on "problem solving" I think you should upgrade it at least another star (or two) with what I have seen you do over years. You underrate yourself there and have certainly improved greatly since you originally set it up. The works you just did are very, very important to me and I was helpless as what to do. Sadly, I just do not have your IQ. I thank you many times over. Seriously, you have made my life happier. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:30, 20 August 2013 (UTC)

Subpages for Catullus[edit]

Adam, would you use subpages for Catullus' poems in the Translation namespace?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:58, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

In this case, where the links are set up as if they were part of one volume: yes, I probably would. It is hard to tell with works that are not based on a pre-existing format. You should probably use your best judgement. At worst, it just means moving them again later; this is a wiki. If you do use subpages, however, it would probably be best eventually to create redirects for all of the titles anyway. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

First attempt at a multi-page score[edit]

Hi, have a look at Cox and Box (complete)/Overture. I've cheated by taking the score snippets from the proofread pages and joining them together off-line, then derived png files and uploaded them to Commons along with a vorbis file. I've gone the png route because of the large amounts of white space at the end of each of the proofread pages because the page dimensions of the original don't match either US-letter or A4. The result of this approach is that updating the score in the Page: namespace doesn't translate into a change in the mainspace pages without amending the off-line file and then re-uploading the png file. How much of a problem would you see that as? I'd appreciate any other thoughts you have too. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 10:12, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

That looks good (and everything works, too, which is not always the same thing).
I have not attempted a multi-page score yet and I was wondering how best to do it. PNGs and a vorbis file seem like a good way to solve the problem. I hadn't even considered whitespace as a potential issue. (I was going to transclude each page and add a complete vorbis file to the last section.)
The only problem I see is with future editors. We can add a section to Help:Sheet music but a reader landing on Cox and Box (complete)/Overture might not know (yet) to look there. Perhaps a small, discreet message template would help, or something on the talk page? I don't think uploading files will be difficult as they are automatically generated. It might help to have a standard place to keep the full version somewhere on Wikisource (made by copying and pasting the pages of score together, rather than transcluding them). Then a future editor just has to make the changes in two places (page namespace and the full version, wherever that is), download the files, and re-upload them again. That also leaves the current version available for yet another future editor, if that is ever necessary. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:33, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
I've worked out how to get rid of the whitespace and lilypond footer at the same time for seperate pages on raw scores. There needs to be a \header block before the \score block starts. So, I've now swapped back to transcluding the three pages of the overture. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:43, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
<score raw="1">
  \version "2.14.2"
  \header {
    tagline = ##f }
  \score { music-expression 
  \midi { }
  \layout { }

Southern Historical Society Papers - ambox|text= Proofreading Cheat[edit]

Adam, please fix whatever this is that you created. I have no idea as to what it is. —Maury (talk) 05:35, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm a little ill at the moment and not following. Which bit needs to be fixed? The page from which this comes has never been edited by me, but it does seem to be based on my other work. It's a duplicate of the approach I used on the pages related to Southern Historical Society Papers/Volume 01/June/Col. Chas. C. Jones' Confederate Roster. I couldn't think of any way to proofread a table spread over two pages with the normal proofreading system, so I copied everything from the right-hand page into the left-hand page. The message box is just a message box. It doesn't do anything. It was only intended to help any proofreader understand what I did, so if it's failed in that regard it can just be deleted. I was thinking about people looking at it in the future and wondering why the text clearly does not match the scan. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Adam, when you feel better please look over what has been done on several pages with "proofreading sheets" copied apparently from your work and apparently some of those full tables are now completed tables Hywel Dda. He apparently is excellent with those "proofread sheets" as well as the tables as far as my limited ability can understand.

original [[3]]

You know that I am no where as smart as you are (not many are!) with most anything here but especially tables. I see that we have a new editor on en.WS. Hywel Dda is a retired lawyer from Virginia, age 50+, and he is very good with tables. I do think he has copied your your work and has worked on completing tables. I myself never knew what your "proofreading sheet" was for - with me figuring it was something you were going to finish later. I think this was your original proofread cheat sheet that has now been completed. Hywel Dda has completing pages with tables using the proofread sheet. He does what appears to be excellent work. I was avoiding validating the work because I certainly didn't understand your "proofreading sheet".

I do hope you feel better soon regardless of any book work here. As always, respectfully, —Maury (talk) 20:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)

Recommendations sought about a magazine of poetry[edit]

Hi, Adam. Some questions I thought you (or anyone) might be able to address here: Index talk:The Pathfinder, Swiggett, June 1911.djvu Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

Dear expert[edit]

Dig Me No Grave by Howard. Are you able to enlighten me whether it should be kept and tidied or deleted? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 10 September 2013 (UTC)


We need to do similar for The Flower-Women. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:52, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
They both actually appear to be public domain. I've tidied them up a bit and tried to integrate them. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:58, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Need help on gadget at bn Wikisource[edit]

Hi, I am a sysop of bn Wikisource. Recently we import MediaWiki:Gadget-TemplatePreloader.js from en to bn Wikisource. But it does not working as expected. It's not showing right template in some namespace. Could you please help us to fix it. Or you can guide me to someone who can help us.--Bellayet (talk) 12:42, 15 September 2013 (UTC)

Have you adapted the namespace numbers (see end of the file) for your local wiki bnWS namespacesbillinghurst sDrewth 12:48, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Now its working after changing the namespace number.--Bellayet (talk) 12:30, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you for your formatting help with Putting a Stop to Modern-Day Slavery, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 01:33, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

The Dioceses of England year display[edit]

When doing year = c/1892 meant to display that way in the header? Rather than a standard form of c. 1892billinghurst sDrewth 04:25, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I think I've got it now. It was just categorising but now it controls the way it is printed too. I was working on an updated version but I need to learn more about Lua to get it to work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:28, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

Year func[edit]

This edit screwed something up. Please verify the code or revert. Thanks. feydey (talk) 18:16, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The Header template is broken[edit]

Whatever you did to the Header template has fucked it up. It is causing headers throughout the project to appear in a broken form. You need to fix it. O'Dea (talk) 18:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


I think I've fixed it, by removing all spaces from the code in the header template around the year-function. That shouldn't have been a problem but there we go. The pages with errors don't appear to have a pattern that I've seen; so I can't check every instance. Those I checked on the initial edit did not show any problems. I've hit random work a few times now and everything I've seen has no error. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

I cannot see any errors, so seems resolved to me. Thanks for the code update. Appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:24, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
You seem to have resolved it. Thanks. O'Dea (talk) 20:04, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource survey[edit]

Hi AdamBMorgan, I replied to you here: --Aubrey (talk) 08:23, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Need assistance please[edit]


Maury, I've finished that portion of the regimental list in Vol. 2, and know there are more Virginia units. Vol. 3's TOC mentions a continuation. Where is it? I'd like to finish this up while I'm in 'the zone'——Hywel Dda (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
I do not know. User: AdamBMorgan set those up. —Maury (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)


—Maury (talk) 05:22, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

It might have been cut off from that scan; I'll have to check. A quick look at shows that [4] and [5] have it. I'll try to solve this soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 07:51, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
OK, new DjVu uploaded. I'm notifying both of you on your own talk pages too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:07, 4 October 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, ABM! I've gone through these additions, and ascertained the missing pages are accounted for now...
03/315 01/475 1 FORMAT: vv/ppp, where...
03/316 01/476 2    ...vv = volume #, and...
... ... ...    ...ppp = page #
03/347 01/509 31
03/348 01/509 -
03/349 01/509 - Vol. 1 portion ends.
03/350 02/352 32 Vol. 2 portion begins.
... ... ...
03/427 02/409 101
03/428 02/410 -
03/429 02/411 - Vol. 2 portion ends.
03/430 new 102 Vol. 3 portion begins.
... new ...
03/465 new 135 Vol. 3 portion ends.
03/466 new - [blank pages hereafter]

I've created pages for the missing entries. Now, how do we get the dupes removed? I.e., pp.1-101 already exist. Hywel Dda (talk) 15:26, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi, sorry for the delay in responding; I've been elsewhere. The duplicates in volume 3 should really be completed as well. They were apparently published in the original volume 3 in 1877, as well as in volumes 1 and 2 in 1876. It just counts as as different version of the same work. The page text can probably just be copied and pasted across, however (eg. copy Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 01.djvu/486 to Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 03.djvu/326. Don't worry about doing that if it sounds dull; I'll add it to my list of things to do when I have time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:50, 7 October 2013 (UTC)


I think your recent edits to the year parameter in Template:Header broke something; take a look at how it's displaying, as at Pensées, where it looks like there are extra line breaks. Cheers, Postdlf (talk) 16:20, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

Already brought up and fixed a few threads higher up in this talk page. Pensées just needed purging. At a guess, I'd say someone read that page in the window between the error and the fix, leaving the broken page in the cache. When you viewed it, you saw the pre-generated cached page, with broken header, rather than the current version of the page. A purge forced the server to re-generate the page, without the broken header. I'm not sure if there is any way to discover all the pages still in the condition but hopefully they are few in number. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:55, 7 October 2013 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Postdlf (talk) 15:33, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

An Illustrated Library Within Themselves[edit]

Adam, how do you feel about taking on a large project for There are many highly illustrated volumes. They are on Internet Archives and are called (partly) Young People's History of Rome, Greece, Mexico, Germany and more. Too, there are volumes that have a lot of well-illustrated varied works within themselves at I think these would really add to the quality and quantity of a Wikisource digital library and archives. They could be set up in the manner of the SHSP volumes and perhaps have their own Portal. —Maury (talk) 15:48, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm happy to help but I'm already falling behind on all the projects to which I'm already committed. I don't think I can add any more to the list at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:09, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Okay, I fully understand. I thank you for the consideration and reply. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large - vol 2.djvu/565[edit]

I've validated this.. - Using {{cl-act-paragraph}} and {{cl-act-title}} with appropriate values made the formatting better. Any chance you could use them elsewhere? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:35, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks and probably. From the documentation, it isn't clear how this handles the side notes flicking from side to side (the outer page edge in a book but it should be a consistent side on Wikisource). The layout parameter has four option (left, right, lrpage & rlpage) but the last two aren't explained. I'm sure this seemed obvious when you made the template but I'm not sure how it works, and I don't have the time to dissect all the code at the moment. Can you explain/document it a little further?
The layout param used by all the templates should be specified as right to place them on the right-hand side (which seems to be the convention on UK legislation). Where it should be left in the page version but on the right on transclusion,

use lrpage. Somewhere I also made a template for the chapter headings..

While we talking about this, I suspect I'm going to hit a problem soon. I'm still working on proofreading the entire first year of Elizabeth I's reign. I transcluded the first act as The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)/Volume 2/Act of Supremacy 1558. However, a few Acts down the line I'm going to hit the Leather Act 1558, which is actually two different Acts, c. 8. and c. 9. Based on this, I think the page structure for Ruffhead in general, and the Act of Supremacy 1558 in particular, should actually be The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)/Volume 2/Elizabeth/Year 1/Chapter 1 or similar (to which Act of Supremacy 1558 would remain a redirect). An additional advantage of this is that linking between acts (where the abbreviation may be, for example, 35. H. 8. c. 4.) will be much easier and could be made into a template. What do you think? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Do what you think best, but {{short-title}} would need the redirect. Note in some cases the chapter numbering in Ruffhead is not the same as that used in other works(such as Statutes of The Realm). Somewhere else on Wikisource is a list of differences in numbering ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

Advice request[edit]

Hi, Susan has just asked me a question at User talk:Beeswaxcandle#Translations and I must admit that I'm out of my depth here. Do you have any thoughts that could help? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Quote omitted for copyright reasons[edit]

That's what I thought as well, but I'd marked it as such because I couldn't be sure, hence the indication of a Problematic status, rather than a proof-read one.

The other two quotes affected are the Barrie one ( Perptual UK Copyright) although the quote here is less than 2 lines, and the Letts poem ( which would still be in UK copyright because of it's author's date of death.)

I've not found any other strong claims in this work. Nearly all of the quotes being of pre 20th century authorship (which given the date of the book is not suprising)

Can I ask if you will continue validating this, and form up he chapters? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

I'll continue (at least, I will later, when I have time). Barrie's copyright is interesting because I'm not sure how or if it affects Wikisource due to its special terms. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:25, 23 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks much[edit]

Thank you for your formatting help at Blumenauer: Expressing Sense of the House That Symbols and Traditions of Christmas Should be Protected, much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Proposed style guide[edit]

The DNB project has just posted the final article, and it's time to take stock. One thing I now want to do is go through all the related author pages and impose a uniform format.

I was thinking that a type of "style guide" for all texts coming as separate articles would be helpful. It's not that simple a matter, and someone not closely involved in one of the projects would be in a better position to think about it. Aspects that come up for the DNB:

  • A given author can have written from 1 to over 1000 articles.
  • The suffixes should be masked by templates.
  • Preferably {{DNB link}} is used for a singleton article, no heading required, and {{DNB lkpl}} for multiple articles, with a heading.
  • I think it is probably better for the reader if the two supplements DNB01 and DNB12 are alphabetised in with DNB00, rather than appended. Some small amount of piped disambiguation might then be required.
  • Templates in the {{DNB contributor}} family should be rationalised. While the work was in progress it was helpful to have more complicated messages in them, but I'd say only one is now needed, not referring to initials or volumes (which is a long story in fact).

So that is a sketch of what we might do: keeping things minimal, really. Other related projects such as EB1911 don't use the same range of templates, and are ongoing, but I think it could still be handy to have an idea of the intended "final state" for author pages. The works divided into articles are some of the most useful for this site as a reference site, but our current lack of a style manual applying to such works makes things look a bit scrappy at times. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Do you have an example author page in the style you intend? As a very simple thing, I've amended the section header and added a blurb for Frank Herbert Brown (this edit). The blurb is intended to explain the list of links below, which is possibly almost meaningless to a casual reader; it could be expanded. I agree with the alphabetised list and single contributor template. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:49, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
I've mocked up something now on Author:Frank Herbert Brown, assuming two works divided into articles treated in the same way with a blurb, no links in the actual headings, and inventing a similar template for the 1922 EB so the format is uniform. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:24, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that looks good. It makes sense to me and looks like it would make sense to a reader who had just come here from a Google search. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:19, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, that's very helpful feedback. Charles Matthews (talk) 05:33, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Move to translation template?[edit]

How are we marking works to be translated to Translation: ns? Aurora de Chile for instance — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Not yet, but give me a moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:50, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
{{Move to translation}} should do the job. I intended to have everything migrated a while ago but keep getting sidetracked. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Musical Scores blog Revisions[edit]

Hello Adam,

We've revised the musical scores blog, I believe it reads a lot better now. Please take a look, and provide any feedback you may have. Feel free to make any changes. Thanks a lot, and hopefully we can get it posted soon! CMonterrey (WMF) (talk) 19:02, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Wikidata-related tool[edit]

This is new, as of a few days ago: I suppose the idea has been waiting to happen; not quite sure of the consequences yet. Traditionally something like the DNB has a "wikipedia=" field, and so where possible we match to an English Wikipedia article. Now we can have matching to a Wikidata item, from which the English Wikipedia article is a link away, if it exists. There is obviously some scope for consolidating texts from different reference works (e.g. on a dab page) once the matching is carried out. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:32, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

New maintenance cat[edit]

I have just created Category:Needs transcluding as a place to dump works found in wandering that are significantly proofread and need someone to give them a transclusion treatment. Would you be so kind to add this into the Wikisource: ns maintenance space. I would think that this category is one that should be checked on the minimum of a monthly basis, and possibly worth a count for pages in category. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:38, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

I've added this to Wikisource:Maintenance/Tasks/Structure. I put it in the "Missing" subpage at first but then decided "Structure" was the most appropriate of the current set of pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:37, 8 January 2014 (UTC)


Regarding this proposal that you made, can't you just copy-paste the JS code from MediaWiki:Gadget-PurgeTab.js to MediaWiki:Common.js, which applies to all users? Your only real decision then would be whether to place the code at the beginning or end of the common.js page. TeleComNasSprVen (talk) 07:22, 21 December 2013 (UTC)

The current approach is really just the usual incremental way of doing things here: start with an optional gadget --> make it default --> possibly think about making it mandatory later. The purge tab can be turned off, if desired, at the moment. I'm not sure why anyone would want to but the option is still there. I can't see why it isn't part of the MediaWiki software to be honest but that's out of my hands. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Q1 2014[edit]

Archives of WS:FTC[edit]

Hi, Adam. Could you please update the main archive page of FTC? Currently, the 2013 archive has been completely archived (all featured texts were passed -- a first!), but this is not reflected on the main archive page, which only shows texts up to Amazing Stories right now. It would also be nice if you could unprotect that page (at least so that autoconfirmed users can edit it), but if you can’t, no problem. Thanks! :) Regards,—Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 14:21, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Thank you! —Clockery Fairfeld (talk) 15:38, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
No problem. I would have done it sooner but I had no internet access over Christmas and I am still catching up with everything (not just Wikisource). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:55, 8 January 2014 (UTC)

Charles C. Jones ( Middle name, birth and death dates )[edit]

Subject: "Jones, Charles Colcock, 1831-1893.",%20Charles%20Colcock,%201831-1893.%22&type=author&inst=

His wife died 1861 so that explains to me perhaps why he was such a prolific author. —Maury (talk) 23:15, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll probably have the rest of A Roster of General Officers transferred over the next few days. I actually had this ready to go last month but I ran out of time, so a few more days shouldn't make much more difference. I think I've got the DjVu set up correctly but there is a chance I've made a mistake somewhere; this is the first time I've tried rebuilding one like this. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)


Hi, isn't it an error to allow to override DISAMBIG with [6] ? For example A Gentleman Friend was counted as a disamb pages with the old method but is no longer. — Phe 15:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Same trouble with the contents of Category:Case disambiguation pages, they are no longer counted as disamb pages. — Phe 18:15, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I don't remember making that edit but, on investigation, I imagine I was copying this edit to {{disambiguation}}. Your point makes sense, so I've edited both (and {{translations}}). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:28, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

SHSP-v.01 & Hesperian[edit]

Adam, first, Tannertsf has returned. I know you missed him because when I wrote when he left about missing him you stated something to that same effect. Second, whatever you are doing with SHSP-v.01, Hesperian today marked 4 pages as being with "no text". Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:35, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Authority control redux[edit]

Hi.. hope this finds you & yours well,

With the latest Wikidata craze, I noticed a few passer-bys making edits to what I had thought to be rather stable Authority Control template information in preparation for Wikidata "refinements". Turns out some of our parameters for the German Library have been deprecated and, after a series of one-thing-leading-to-another in hopes of bringing us up to date and making Wikidata conncections optimal, I managed to get in over my head in the end. I wound up importing the current WP incarnation - Lua based of course - to our {{Authority control}}'s sandbox and managed to get it to work after dropping a section that seems to interact directly with - guess what? - Wikidata.

Long story short, I figured I better check with you to see if its even worth tweaking/substituting/refining/modifying what I have now. Both examples that follow use Abraham Lincoln's data



I'm not too thrilled about the infobox-like layout, the order the items are presented as well as the separator used between items - but that is due to the Lua-tization of just about everything on WP and is being created as part of the Authority control module rather the typical call to NavBar or whatever. I'm sure those nuances can be rectified though I'm not the one who can do it.

Comments? Thoughts? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

The current authority control template is partly based on Wikipedia's old version (along with Commons' version) so it shouldn't be a big problem. In porting authority control template to Wikipedia, I've noticed we seem to support more parameters than they do, but that can probably be easily fixed. Our authority control was also meant to work in all namespaces even though we only really use it for authors at the moment. That might be solved just as easily. We won't be able to get information back out of Wikidata until Phase 2 happens, which hasn't been scheduled yet but shouldn't be too far away (assuming Phase 1 works), so that will work eventually but not yet. Before I can really comment on this or any other module, I really need to work on understanding Lua. I thought I had a better grasp of it but things I thought should work didn't. I can mostly follow the code but there are bits that baffle me right now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:26, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Ahhhh now the script error I was getting makes sense - we're not at the same stage as WP and that's why it couldn't link up with the WD site. I cut that part out in case it matters @ some point in the future (like I know anymore than you do - its all copy somebody else's work and then trial & error going on here btw).

Adding additional sources should not be a problem - there are plenty of examples to go by already. Either way, the old template will have to go or need a major overhaul at some point - everything @ WD works off a 'property table' of 'labels' and 'ids' running well into the hundreds & our current template has nothing like that associated within it (its only one- way; useful only to WS if at all). -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

SHSP today[edit]

Good Heavens, son! You have wiped out the entire Confederacy! {joking) —Maury (talk) 01:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm going to put it back again! :) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

ABM, what's the story on this? I'm intrigued by your "coupling" of rector & verso on Jones' Roster, but I'm still not satisfied that retaining the original columnar structure well-serves the modern reader: it's just plain too wide! My solution, you may recall, was to spread the "Remarks" column across most of the table's width, to accommodate the text in readable format somewhere near the NAME of the officer in question. What are your thoughts? Do you have violent objection to this approach? I know we should reproduce the original format as closely as possible, but surely not at the expense of practical usefulness — Hywel Dda (talk) 23:23, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

@Hywel Dda: Sorry for the delay; I've been away. I have no strong objection. The main problem at the moment is the number of templates in use. I needed a program, AutoWikiBrowser, to fix that easily but it needed to be upgraded before it would work, then other things got in my way. The format really needs to be the same or similar for the program to make the necessary changes correctly but, once that's done, it can be amended. I will try to get AutoWikiBrowser up and running again, and get the roster functional, soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:16, 19 May 2014 (UTC)

OK, LMK when yer ready—Hywel Dda (talk) 02:55, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Featured text for February[edit]

Adam, are we going to feature The Clipper Ship Era in February?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:53, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. I'm going to set that up later tonight. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

File:Twelve Years a Slave (1853).djvu[edit]

Hello Adam. Are you OK if I made a start on this? I was about to upload it only to discover you’d already done so. If you’d prefer to park it for whatever reason, that’s fine - I can find something else to go on with. Note that there is a first edition copy at but which hasn’t OCR’d quite as well. Its identical otherwise and so could be uploaded as a new version at Commons after proofing. Perhaps this is a POTM candidate. Moondyne (talk) 14:45, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Go ahead. I planned to do it but I can't seem to get together enough free time to do everything else I need/want to do, so I had to drop this before I even started. Likewise, I have no objection to uploading a different copy over the top of this one; I picked the one I thought was the best and earliest copy but I may have made a mistake there. It's a decent choice for POTM, although the category pattern will have to change to fit it in before October. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:51, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks.Moondyne (talk) 04:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Featured text for March[edit]

Adam, I think the only suitable featured text candidate for March is Association Football and How to Play It. Am I right? – I'm sorry I haven't been very active this month :-( Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:10, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Everyone knows how to play football of one kind or another. I played football in high school. —Maury (talk) 21:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
It does look like the only viable candidate at the moment, so I've selected it. It should have some popular appeal (it's the world's most popular sport, after all), which is a bonus. (I wouldn't worry about activity; I don't think I've managed to be very active since November, things just keep getting in the way.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:40, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
That old game of "football" aka Soccer is the world's most popular sport? Perhaps because it goes back to the Aztec? I prefer American football over soccer although Soccer is more "football", hand, and head ball, but don't-catch-the-ball. —Maury (talk) 22:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

By the way, have you understood how to detect if a page is linked to Wikidata or not? I haven't. Since those who want to use the data are required to know Lua, in addition to wikicode, their project's rules, and Wikidata rules, it is likely that only 0.5% of language subdomains will use it, at least in the short term...--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 07:15, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Maybe. At least, I've found bits that might work. I think I'm going to have to spend some time on it over the weekend. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:06, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I discovered that {{#invoke:Wikibase|id}} returns the ID. If the page is not connected to Wikidata, it returns (no item connected). Maybe you already knew. If you edit the {{author}} template to group unconnected pages in a category, be sure to explicitly exclude subpages.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Wikimania panel submission[edit]

Thanks for signing up: looks like it may fly. I'd appreciate some help in expanding the abstract (say, on the Wikidata and EPUB fronts), since I'm rather pushed for time between now and the deadline with my WMUK work. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:53, 26 March 2014 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: I can try but I'm not necessarily good at this. Also, I'm not sure exactly what you are going for and don't want to misrepresent anything in the abstract. Therefore, some questions: Who is actually on the panel? What format is the panel going to take in this context? What sort of audience is it intended for? (Presumbly Wikimedians, but is the expectation completely-non-Wikisourcers, Wikimedians with at least a passing familiarity with Wikisource, or other Wikisourcers? How many?) I have little experience with panel discussions but the ones I have seen are usually a host and 4-5 panelists, with the host either fielding questions from the audience or reading pre-submitted questions, and one or more panelists responding. Is that what this is? If so, the abstract will just be suggested topics that could be brought up. The topics also depend on the audience and what knowledge they are assumed to have already. Fielding questions may depend on the number of people present. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Oooh, many questions. I took part in a panel discussion at Wikimania in 2008, and there were four of us. It was free-form, knockabout, and certainly didn't have an agenda set months in advance. In fact I think I was tapped on the shoulder earlier that day. A panel would be, e.g., you, me, Billinghurst, and Magnus Manske to represent an outside voice; or perhaps you could find a substitute from another Wikisource.
So I think this text is just to set the context, and try to get a decent audience. These things go best if there is plenty of audience participation, some moderation, and the panel members argue with each other. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:27, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
@Charles Matthews: I've added a bit more but this really isn't my thing. I've been working on it off line for a few days and this is apparently the best I can do. Hopefully it helps. If nothing else, it is now over the 300-word bar that Wikimania have set for their abstracts. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks, that was actually very helpful, since I was mostly offline Friday to Sunday, and had another and bigger deadline on Monday. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:55, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Fun with authorities[edit]


I've been toying with the idea of adding us to the list of authorities "recognized" by our {{authority control}} template using the internal 'wgArticleID' number (magic word   {{PAGEID}}   or using the Page module   {{#invoke:Page|id|}} ). Since every page (or Article, or Title, or however one would call it) on wikisource has one of these unique numerical designations, I was hoping to have the AC template automatically pull & display it along with the others regardless of a manual input or not. Even better - have the parameter with its numerical value somehow subst: in by default upon save.

Long story short & after modifying Module:Authority control/sandbox along with Template:Authority control/sandbox - I can't get it work as hoped for unless the User: inputs the 'wgArticleID' manually (see example @ Author:Alice Bolingbroke Woodward)

Do you (or maybe AuFCL?) know of a way to incorporate both the automated "pulling" of the wgArticleID number AND have that induce the automated linked display of Wikisource in the {{Authority control}} template; preferably killing the ability for users to input the wrong # altogether? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:32, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Flattered to have been mentioned in such esteemed company; but I should warn you I am struggling to get up to speed with the expectations of this particular issue at this stage so am not sure I can contribute much. Happy to help in any way I can, and I rather like the idea of enWikiSource research actually being appropriately attributed as I rather fear—with the very best of intentions—Wikidata is going to become an indistinguishable mire of good, bad and appalling references (in fact, a bit like VIAF itself with regards this particular topic? Too harsh?) AuFCL (talk) 02:04, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
I think it was EncycloPetey(?) that warned us that Wikidata incorporation was going to be "rough" on us & I'm not happy with what I've seen to date either re: Wikisource -- but I wouldn't give up just yet.

Anyway, back to the matter at hand - maybe poking @Mpaa: on this can shed some light on how to resolve this <crossing fingers> -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:29, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Back to your main query, two incomplete thoughts here:
  • Would REVISIONID (wgCurRevisionId/access via &oldid=) be a better choice for the authority ID as the content cannot change without a new value being allocated?
That would be getting ahead of ourselves. The point here is to first tie an author name (subject to moves & similar tweaking) to a permanent ID# and build possibilites from that. You can expand a current Author: page using initials to the proper full name/middlename/married name for example and no matter how many times one moves that article (leaving newly created redirects in it's wake), the ID# ('wgArticleID') never changes. Once that string (wgTitle or the author name's in our case) is locked to a unique string of digits (ID#), we can then "rank" stuff under that number (bday, dday, spouse etc.) that are unlikely to change [once established] against the stuff contributors are more likely to change like listing works, linking scans, project progress and other "low" ranking stuff. That way, only the changes that matter in validating a claim as an authority can be detected rather than what we have now (the slightest edit sets of a stream of handshakes letting anyone poking us know to poke us again... & again and...... again - for no good reason). Once that is all worked out - we can address revisionIDs and how they might play a role in all this. For now - I'd be happy to with just being able to pull the permanent ID. What others may or not gain from that is open for debate. We are better positioned for "ranking" than even wikipedia the way I see it.
  • Whether PAGEID or REVISIONID are chosen, I think the basic problem is they are allocated after the page save is committed, which is too late for any kind of dynamic update on the page itself to be previewed/substed etc.
magic word PAGEID (same as wgArticleID) is created upon the creation of any thing in any namespace. It never changes [see page information in the sidebar). So even if we can get it to render while being just being viewed (or robot crawlled to be more exact)), given the time, "physically" adding the param & id will eventually take place if not done by bot ourselves.

follow? -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Ignore these if they are just increasing the confusion. AuFCL (talk) 11:40, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
Never !!!! -- George Orwell III (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2014 (UTC)
A totally different approach: why not turn the apparent limitation of not knowing PAGEID until after the page is created into a (procedural) virtue by requiring two separate user-ids to create/review a record before it is considered "authoritative"?

(I am thinking of something like the current {{portal header}}/{{portal review}} handling so there is a minor precedent.) The originating editor could create the page and {{authority control}} without any wikisource authority claim as current, and the reviewer may add (or use a simple gadget perhaps?) the approval stamp as a subsequent edit (by which point PAGEID is valid and known.) AuFCL (talk) 13:57, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

@George Orwell III, AuFCL: I think I've come up with something after a bit of experimentation. I copied the WorldCat code rather than the other authority controls, and I figured out how to pass values ("named arguments") from the template after a lot of Googling. At the moment, the template sandbox is simply passing the PAGEID to the module sandbox, which then uses it as if it were entered as a parameter in the template. Try it at Author:Margaret Wolfe Hungerford or Author:Alice Bolingbroke Woodward. Any good? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:45, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Excellent!!! That serves me right; focusing on stupid modules instead of the template. Thank YOU - this seemed so straight forward at first & it still drove me nuts. I reverted everything back to their normal state & made both sandboxes regular primary code. No hiccups after spot checking 2 dozen+ author pages.

I made a slight change just to make us more uniform with what is out there already (WKP = wikipedia so it made sense to make us WKS in theory as well). FYI, all params or args that you made wsid are now wksid as a result. I also safe subst the PAGEID magic-word in the template more out of habit than anything else.

Now the question becomes if something like our gadget can be made to detect and report it without there actually being a physical |WKS= in the AC template. I'll have to think about that a bit. Anyway Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:30, 29 March 2014 (UTC)

Congratulations to you both.

This may be jumping the gun (again) and I really cannot pretend to know the inner workings of the various robots, but this approach so far only works for screen-scrapers or perhaps anything with privileged access to render cache data. I would expect any WD robots to be checking modification times and examining the wikicode and finding… no changes at all?

How is some dumb robot going to realise the new significance of ws-article-id within the ws-data div? I guess this boils down to a quality ranking issue in WD all over, with normal===junk for now? AuFCL (talk) 03:20, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

No doubt by now you'll have seen Mpaa's list of questions here, which I consider—if satisfactorily answered—more than adequately covers any of my concerns (besides which I like the wording there rather better than my own clumsy efforts) expressed here. AuFCL (talk) 23:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

New message[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, AdamBMorgan. You have new messages at Wikisource:Scriptorium#AutoWikiBrowser_permission.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Tito Dutta (Talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Completing a text[edit]

Hi Adam, I'm wondering (because of our discussion about meta:EDP) how you might imagine a text like this one should be completed: Index:Open Education Resources (OER) for assessment and credit for students project.pdf Suggestions? -Pete (talk) 01:06, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

In general: I still think that the copyright issue exists at the creator's level when they apply a licence. We, a step down at re-user level, should be able to recreate the whole document (possibly only as long as it is the whole document, although that could lead to another problem regarding derivatives). This and the other document were apparently licensed as CC-BY-SA by their creators. If we take that in good faith, we should be able to copy and redistribute the whole thing. If we take that in bad (or mistaken) faith, we should delete the whole document, both here and at Commons, due to its faulty licence (which currently allows anyone to extract any part and do whatever they want with it). If we start doubting a publisher, without evidence of their incompetance, ignorance and/or criminality, then how can we be sure of any of our post-1922 texts?
Specific case: extract the image of the footer on the cover, save it here if you think it won't be acceptable on Commons (use the same licence as the document), add it to the page in pagespace where it can be transcluded to the mainspace.
NB: Asking at WS:PCV might help, the people reading that page are more likely to actually know what they're talking about. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:47, 28 April 2014 (UTC)
Adam: it might be the case on occasion that a work that is freely licensed in general, but includes copyrighted images, has gone to the trouble to persuade those other copyright holders to freely license their images. But it is not something we can or should assume to be the case. Wikipedia offers a pretty good example of how fair use images may be included in a CC licensed work: almost any Wikipedia article about a novel or a musical recording (en:Mickey Mouse is one example, and en:Thriller is another -- which is a featured article.) Unlike many other publications, Wikipedia is careful to document the reasoning behind its non-free content use. I think we agree that in an ideal world, reliance on fair use, de minimis, or specific licensing arrangements would be clearly documented by the publisher. But if it hasn't been clearly documented, I disagree that that necessarily means the overall license is faulty, or that it reflects incompetence, ignorance, or criminality.
Thank you for your suggestion with the specific case. I will do some local uploads as you suggest, and continue to use these examples to try to draw in other Wikisource users -- it would be nice to establish a consensus view after some broader discussion. -Pete (talk) 20:03, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

OER for assessment and credit for students project logos.png

Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2014[edit]

Wikimania 2014 will be held in London this August and it will be a great opportunity to discuss how to use the recently created Wikisource Community User Group to coordinate and to better promote Wikisource. We would like to invite the participants of each Wikisource language community to showcase the projects has been working in the past year and, of course, learn from each other experiences. See you there? Sign up in the meeting page.
The preceding MassMessage was sent by Micru to the members of the Wikisource Community User Group according to this delivery list (sorry the duplication if you already received the message through the ws mailing list).--MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:55, 13 May 2014 (UTC)

New MotM?[edit]

Adam, would you mind if I changed the MotM task to Proposed policies and guidelines?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:03, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done --Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Category:Pages with authority control by quantity why?[edit]

What is the purpose of the category? What is it achieving? What maintenance function is it fulfilling? While it is automatic, it just seems pretty pointless to me when it is just replicating data that is currently at WD. Just trying to understand. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:51, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I made the edits here but the concept isn't mine; I was just to try to keep the various Authority Control modules from drifting too far apart. Wikipedia doesn't have the group category but it has equivalents of the member categories, e.g. Category:AC with 14 elements here compared to Category:AC with 14 elements on Wikipedia. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Template:Translation redirect[edit]

Hi Adam. I noticed you created this new template about a year ago based the dated soft redirect template. Was the plan for these soft redirects to eventually be deleted like the dated ones? Or were you thinking these should be permanent redirects? The dated template is set-up to categorize by month so it easy to know which are beyond two months old and ripe for deletion. So I wasn't sure if the absence of dated categories meant these were to be permanent or what. I don't see the need to keep these redirects around, but I wanted to check with you to be sure about the actual intent for these.BirgitteSB 11:38, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever really agreed and this template was the compromise. I actually preferred hard redirects so people coming in from external links would get to the pages they want, which are now in the Translation: namespace. However, it isn't normal practice to have cross-namespace redirects, so others wanted soft redirects or nothing at all. I think deleting the pages entirely would have no benefit and would give a bad impression; many readers following now-broken links from elsewhere will think the works have just been deleted rather than moved. Translation:Catullus 16, for example, is a consistently popular work which I think is mostly due to other websites (and maybe books) directing traffic here. (I've only just noticed that the redirect for that page was deleted in February, which means the 1,591 pageviews in March all went nowhere; the Translation page got 435 pageviews in the same month). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:13, 6 June 2014 (UTC)
I am slightly remembering this now. But what was the issue with cross-namspace redirects was still escapes me. I dislike permanent soft redirects. Frankly pages like Catullus 16 should end up as disambiguation pages given enough time and I have no issue with them remaining a redirect (prefer a native one but soft is OK) until then. But I do not see any reason that pages like Mishnah/Seder Kodashim/Tractate Keritot/Chapter 6/9 should not eventually be deleted (with Mishnah being a redirect until it becomes a disambiguation page).BirgitteSB 04:59, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Something for our Maintenance pages[edit]

I have added some text to Special:UnconnectedPages (which is for unattached WD) that points to some of starting points to namespaces. I would think having these could produce some neat tidy up. We probably want to have a look at what we have linked through the plain sister WP link and see what needs sensible attachment. Though I would still feel that subpages should not be linked normally. (Enjoy your wikibreak, this is not urgent) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

Hello AdamBMorgan,

We are putting together a proposal about the automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles, and since you are an active Wikisourceror, we'd appreciate yourcomments on the Scriptorium. For convenience, I'm copying our proposal here:

The idea of systematically importing openly licensed scholarly articles into Wikisource has popped up from time to time. For instance, it formed the core of WikiProject Academic Papers and is mentioned in the Wikisource vision. However, the Wikiproject relied on human power, never reached its full potential, and eventually became inactive. The vision has yet to materialise.
We plan to bridge the gap through automation. We are a subset of WikiProject Open Access (user:Daniel Mietchen, user:Maximilanklein, user:MattSenate), and we have funding from the Open Society Foundations via Wikimedia Deutschland to demo suitable workflows at Wikimania (see project page).
Specifically, we plan to import Open Access journal articles into Wikisource when they are cited on Wikipedia. The import would be performed by a group of bots intended to make reference handling more interoperable across Wikimedia sites. Their main tasks are:
  • (on Wikipedia) signalling which references are openly licensed, and link them to the full text on Wikisource, the media on Commons and the metadata on Wikidata;
  • (on Commons) importing images and other media associated with the source article;
  • (on Wikisource) importing the full text of the source article and embedding the media in there;
  • (on Wikidata) handling the metadata associated with the source article, and signalling that the full text is on Wikisource and the media on Commons.
These Open Access imports on Wikisource will be linked to and from other Wikimedia sister sites. Our first priority though will be linking from English Wikipedia, focusing on the most cited Open Access papers, and the top-100 medical articles.
In order to move forward with this, we need
  • General community approval
  • Community feedback on workflows and scrutiny on our test imports in specific.
  • Bot permission. For more technical information read our bot spec on Github.

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

PSM main namespace author line in template.[edit]

There are approximately 7,942 PSM articles using a uniform header template layout, and unless you are willing to change all of them, please don't alter the layout of PSM articles for the sake of consistency.— Ineuw talk 06:04, 11 July 2014 (UTC)


I've sent you an email through Wikisource's Special:Emailuser function. Ed [talk] [en] 21:46, 4 August 2014 (UTC)


FAFIA was new to me. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:06, 2 September 2014 (UTC)