User talk:AdamBMorgan

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Quarterly headings to facilitate manual archiving.

Q4 2012

Our Sister Republic - Mexico

Adam, my friend in Mexico City and I have completed all of this book as far as I understand "completion" on WS. He mentioned to me that it needs to be transcluded. I barely understand what that is and the instructions I looked at are under construction. Would you please "transclude" this book while I finish up on a different work I had already started? The finished book I refer to is "Our Sister Republic - Mexico" and it has many illustrations. Godspeed, —William Maury Morris II^Talk 04:54, 3 October 2012 (UTC) http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Our_Sister_Republic_-_Mexico.djvu

Thanks a million Adam, we can take it from there. Just one question, on the sections you transcluded, you are using a short format I have not seen before, and on the first chapter, there is no link for previous chapter, yet it shows in the following chapters. Can I use the regular format for all? Muchas gracias...--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 14:41, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you can use the regular format for all the pages. I just used the short format because it is quicker whenever I don't need to control the header too much. (The short format takes its information from the Index page. As the table of contents on the index page does not have a chapter before Chapter 1, it did not detect that it should add a "previous" link.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:53, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Need a little help, when I used the regular format on Chapter I, Chapter II shows as non existent, do I need to add all chapters again. This is no problem I can do it, if need be. Thanks.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 15:21, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Beautiful, thanks again. I saw my error.--Raúl Gutiérrez (talk) 16:06, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Adam. You are the best administrator all around — for helping others as well as the many other things you do for wikisource and its people. You never even grump or complain and are always reliable when it comes to anything. You are a master in all that you do. You have just helped (again) two ole fellows, retired, one living in the USA and the other in Mexico City,(an Aztec & Spaniard descendant.) Respectfully, Maury (USA) ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 17:59, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

News

Hi Adam,

I've given four users (including you) an award for participation to September's MotM task. I've also posted a proposal to the Scriptorium for changing the {{Collaboration}} template. Please make the changes described here, too. Thanks for your kindness.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:51, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:26, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

I was feeling your absence :-) I have a draft for you to comment (this) and a question: Which maintenance activities should be included in the new community portal? For example, provide missing images, expand incomplete works, et cetera. Just another thing: In Template:CotW/base please remove the dots from the first line and the period from the second line, split the two lines into separate paragraphs, and change [[Wikisource:Community collaboration]] into [[Wikisource:Community collaboration|Community collaboration]]. I cannot because the page is protected. Again, thank you!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm still a little busy (and catching up with stuff) although it's tailing off now but I'm afraid my responses may still be a little delayed. In brief: I like your draft help contents page. The collapsed sections contain everything but keeps the page simple enough to not scare anyone (especially new users unfamiliar with Wikisource). I know the current Help:Contents page was only recently changed by User:Chris55, so you might want his input too (I believe he based his design on the French Wikisource version of the page and was thinking about including icons for each section). I am still thinking about the maintenance activities. So far, I think things listed on the community portal should not be too complicated but could still make use of a user's special skills. Adding images or tables, for example, should probably be included but incomplete texts might be confusing because it covers everything from unfinished proofreading to partial second-hand works with no source. On the other hand, validation would be a useful and straight-forward equivalent of incomplete texts. I have made two of the four changes to Template:CotW. The line break (instead of a separate paragraph) and final full stop are also used on Template:PotW and I think they should be consistent with each other. I'm open to discussion if you disagree on that but making too many changes to a high traffic template should probably include the opinions of more people. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:06, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

1. I have added some icons to the collapsed sections and I'm going to ask Chris his opinion.
2. I'm going to include proofreading, doing "match and split", splitting into different works, splitting into sections, moving sections to subpages, as well as adding images, adding tables, and validating.
3. You're right.

Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Tumblr

That is a great idea, and kudos for putting it into motion. We should definitely take advantage of all tools at our disposal.

As you noticed, I have been away. Real life & work have conspired to keep me quite busy in other ways, but I do plan on coming back. I am hoping things will quiet down over the next few weeks. Till then, --Eliyak T·C 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam, how is Wikisource on Tumblr doing -- can you in any way see any differences? Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II^Talk 19:38, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I still wonder about the above. —Maury (talk) 22:01, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure but I don't think it gets much attention right now. There aren't many posts yet and there isn't much to post about at the moment; I should probably branch out into other posts soon. The next PotM and Featured Text will be up soon but I'll possibly try something later in December. It might also take a little time to get going; it doesn't show up on Google yet. (Also, sorry, I missed the previous post somehow.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam, moments ago I posted on your Tumblr. Better get there quick to erase it. <smile> —Maury (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

On This Date in history

Adam, I was going to do it, but why don't you put your page on Wikipedia? That's where it belongs. After all, it should be on page 1 of Google!

Maybe they're not so used to transcluding whole pages. Chris55 (talk) 20:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Partly answered on Scriptorium. Wikipedia could do this for their own pages as well but that would be a Wikipedia page with Wikipedia links to other Wikipedia pages. It isn't my idea but I believe pointing people towards date-relevant texts is part of the intent. If you want to set up a Wikipedian equivalent, however, feel free to go ahead. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Changes to the {{collaboration}} template

Adam, since the thread about this is at the Scriptorium from October 3 and the only responses are positive, could you perform the changes, please? (For now, ignore the re-naming.) Some pages are protected so I can't edit. Note that "entries are not floated" means that tables are used.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:49, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sure, I'll start in a moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Done - AdamBMorgan (talk)

Infinite thanks.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 20:50, 22 October 2012 (UTC)

Done

https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Avon_Fantasy_Reader_10.djvu

—William Maury Morris II^Talk 10:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. (Sorry it took so long to respond but I haven't managed to be on Wikisource much this month; other stuff just keeps coming up at the moment.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:46, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Adam, that was interesting to read. Do you have more similar to that issue where I can read and validate? Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II^Talk 19:07, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Well, Avon Fantasy Reader mostly reprinted works from pulp magazines. So, Weird Tales and Amazing Stories should be similar. I do have more issues of AFR but I have not scanned them yet. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:47, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

bradle00bradrich

Adam, when you get a chance would you please set this book up for me to edit on Wikisource? It has wonderful illustrations within it and it is good reading. Too, this man is not on our list of authors. Kind regards, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 22:34, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/cartoonsbybradle00bradrich

Done Index:Cartoons by Bradley.djvu. If you put the cartoons and other illustrations in the same category on Wikimedia Commons, it will help keep everything together (I made a typo when creating this category but it should be fixed soon). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, Adam. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 01:34, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I haven't looked for that category yet but am wondering what you named it? I guess it would be Cartoons by Bradley. I have been working on the text, Author, and just finished some images to upload. I will be uploading and inserting his photo in a few minutes after I get some tea. —William Maury Morris II^Talk 04:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

I just missed the plural the first time. It was "Cartoon by Bradley" instead of "Cartoons by Bradley". I think it's OK now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:32, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Whatever it was or is, I found it and have added images plus I have edited some of the pages. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 21:42, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Nota Bene: I created an Author page here on en.WS and you may want to look it over and create whichever License is needed for that page. There is a lot of material on and by this author. —William Maury Morris II^Talk 21:54, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

New main page

Adam, the discussion about this has ended. Again, could you perform the change, please? This is a detailed description of what needs to be done.

• Header: It may be copied into {{Main Page header}} and included from there.
• Featured text and Current collaborations: Included from {{Featured text}} and {{Collaboration}}; no changes. Optionally, {{Collaboration}} may be moved to {{Current collaborations}}.
• New texts: The code in Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Main page mockup/Validation may be copied into {{New texts}} and included from there. Consequently, the code in Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Main page mockup/New text needs to be copied into {{New texts/item}}.
• Highlights: {{Highlights}} needs to be created and protected; code in Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Main page mockup/Highlights.
• Explore Wikisource: The code in Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Main page mockup/Explore Wikisource may be copied into {{Main categories}} and included from there. Optionally, {{Main categories}} may be moved to {{Explore Wikisource}}.
• Wikimedia Foundation: It may be copied into {{Sisterprojects}} (don't copy the external div tag) and included form there. Optionally, {{Sisterprojects}} may be moved to {{Wikimedia Foundation}}.
• Interwikis: {{Interwiki Wikisource}} needs to include only the top 30 Wikisources listed here, either in that order or alphabetically (as it is convenient for you). In addition, the following code needs to be added to MediaWiki:Common.js (please check it if you can).

// "Complete list" link in the sidebar of the main page
 
if (wgPageName == 'Main_Page' || wgPageName == 'Talk:Main_Page') {
    $(function () {
        mw.util.addPortletLink('p-lang', '//wikisource.org/wiki/', 'Complete list');
    });
}

Only {{Wikisource languages}} will remain unused.

Thanks in advance for your help.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:30, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be done now. There were a few issues but I think they've been fixed. The image in the new text template (combined with my attempt to make it backwards-compatible) had to be fiddled with the most. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. The criteria for inclusion in the "New texts" section may remain as it is today. The image was just for adding some color, but a lot of images in our books are black and white...

The mobile version is also very good.

There are other two drafts to submit—one for Help:Contents, the other for the Community portal. I hope to have the necessary time next week.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Excellent Administrator Appreciation Award

Thank you. It's nice to be appreciated. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:50, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it really is nice to be appreciated as opposed to being taken for granted. You and others deserve and have earned appreciation.

Author:Flora Adams Darling

Adam, the first chance you get when you are not flooded with work here and elsewhere would you please place the following short page book on en.WS so that I can edit it? Please do not look for a white page version because this colored one is easy on my eyes. I have looked it over. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 05:02, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

• Memories of Virginia; a souvenir of founding days 1607-1907 (External scan) (1907)
  • Not to butt in, but I uploaded it here. - Theornamentalist (talk) 12:16, 3 November 2012 (UTC)

Communal TO DO, and one for admins

As part of the maintenance project, I am just wondering if we can consider a communal to do list. Even if we self-assign tasks, and then give a projected to do date, and an indication of whether people should be prodded. I keep losing track of some things, and maybe moving things more global would be more beneficial. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a good idea. There are some general things I keep meaning to do too; I expect others are the same.

Some practical page-creation questions: Do you envision them as subpages of WS:MOTM, or of /Suggestions, or standalone? Bullet points, a table or something else? (Or feel free to just start it yourself.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:33, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't know, and I have been so busy I haven't managed to get to look at maintenance tasks. I just keep losing my thought bubbles of TODO, or they roll up my talk page and get occasionally greeted with a "damn". :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 10:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Keep it simple. "WS:MOM" People will look even if they are not sure what it means and it is easy to remember. When I first saw that WS:MOTM you posted I thought it showed "MOTH". "BALLS" gets automatically added kind of like Silverfish and Bookworms. —William Maury Morris II^Talk 10:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

pages tag and header

Hi Adam. Something wrong in this and the other subpages on how header in pages tag handles plain sister links and categories. I am not familiar with <pages> tag, so I bring this your attention. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 23:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That should have fixed it. The commonscat parameter in the header template at MediaWiki:Proofreadpage header template was missing one pipe character. Please tell me if any other page is having the same, or similar, problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:21, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Cassells Illustrated History of London vol.I

Adam, would you please set this up for me to edit? HERE I do not wish to have you proofreading these pages. I am aware you are very busy which is your nature. Others are also very busy as it is their nature as well. Thus Wikisource continues to grow. I have hesitated in asking you about this volume due to the fact that you have helped me so much and that I am aware you have been doing a lot of work in many places on en.ws including the Main Page. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 04:26, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam, thank you so very much. The greatest thing anyone can do is to help others and you do that all of the time. Most respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II^Talk 22:37, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Khorassan

Thanks for the help!

I'd figured out how to create the index pages, but hadn't got around to working on the transclusion yet. Looks like a surprisingly smooth process - WS has got a lot easier to work with since I first tackled it back in ~2006.

In general, is it recommended to upload original PDFs as well as DjVus? I've got the masters to hand as PDFs and have been creating surrogates locally to upload, but if it's worth putting both up I'll make a practice of it. Andrew Gray (talk) 14:45, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

No, in general people just upload the DjVus. PDFs are just better for image quality, so that's what I used to acquire the images. With Internet Archive scans, for instance, I try to use the original Jpeg page scans whenever possible as they are the best quality available in those cases.

NB: For transclusion, you can simplify it a little more by auto-generating the headers. To do that, add the header=1 parameter to the <pages> tag. I just find manual headers easier to work with. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:42, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Ponder about a new template

Hi, this is just a ponder and floating an idea. Is it a good idea to create a talk-page template to indicate the availability of scans on IA for mainspace works that are currently naked? Or does this info belong in the notes field of the header? Or ... Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:19, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the idea but I'm not sure which approach is best. Talk page templates tend to have more information about the text, which seems appropriate. Mainspace templates are usually simple warnings or markers for work that needs to be done, the latter of which is also appropriate. The mainspace template would get more attention but it would also distract or intrude on more people. If it helps, The closest existing similar template is probably {{migrate to djvu}}, a mainspace template requesting match and split. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm not keen on using {{migrate to djvu}} as that implies that the scans are already uploaded and for many of our texts the edition info is not good enough to use match and split. I guess that using the notes field of {{textinfo}} might be the best way to go. It's just that so many don't have that either and once a text is scan-backed I don't see the point of using {{textinfo}}. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think something like this would be more noticeable than textinfo for someone browsing the talk space:

Possibly adding a tracking category along the lines of Category:Works with external scans available. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Links to the book on IA in the mainspace for non-transcluded works would make me forget about WS altogether - I'd just go read the book at IA - so I don't think that would be useful in the end. The {{Edition}} button pointing to {{textinfo}} (Notes section) is always the way I thought stuff like this was suppose to be "presented". If anything, a type of 'Migrate to Wikisource' template/parameter might be more appropriate for use in the textinfo template might serve us better here (the above example is perefect though I'd rather see it within/under TextInfo personally). -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:48, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've sort of tried the suggested "template" on Talk:The Grammar of English Grammars within the notes field of textinfo. The green of textinfo seems to override things, so that it gets a bit lost, but I think it works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

offline text editing ?

Adam, can a person work on text off-line and then copy/paste that text into the appropriate areas beside the Index images? Would there be a problem with anything? I ask because I know of a person (not me) who works that way (I think with MS-Word) and I just *wonder* if that will cause any kind of problem--perhaps with transclusion? —Maury (talk) 22:10, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it shouldn't cause a problem. The text in the Page namespace is just normal text as far as I'm aware. As long as it matches the text on the scanned page, it doesn't matter what you did with it. I've sometimes used spreadsheets to put tables together, copied them into notepad to make sure it works as plain text and then copied it to Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. —Maury (talk) 22:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Adam, the illustrated book, Vanity Fair, is on-line here at en.WS and I have added some the text. My question is, do you think that when the pulling in of text layers will overwrite the text I have entered? If so, I have another experiment to try there but I have always, and still, value your opinions and knowledge on everything here on en.WS to a great extent. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 19:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

No, it should be fine (as far as I know anyway). The Page: namespace page and the DjVu file text layers are different things. A user would have to delete the pages you have created, or edit them to copy in the DjVu text layer, in order to overwrite the text you entered. Strictly there are two stages between the DjVu and the main namespace. Stage 1: When you create a page in the Page: namespace, the software reads the text layer from the DjVu (or PDF) and pre-loads that into the text field on the left. Stage 2: When a work is transcluded to the main namespace, the software reads the text held in the Page: namespace. It does not re-read the text layer of the DjVu file. The Page: namespace page is really just a normal wiki page; it just looks and acts different because the software is affecting it. (If you temporarily disable javascript in your browser and attempt to edit one of the Page: namespace pages, it will look just like the main namespace.) Otherwise the proofreading we do would be ignored in favour of the unmodified OCR text held in the DjVu file. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:55, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

December featured text

Shouldn't that read 135th anniversary? ResScholar (talk) 06:52, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, corrected now. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:08, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Featured texts, can we ...

On the front page where we have the featured texts, I am wondering whether we can see if we can provide easy means to quick generate or links to pre-generated choices of EPUB/PDFs for those who may wish to take the files and run. At the moment, we basically present people with a choice to sit and read online, not giving them a choice to download and go. For these works, it would be great to have epub and pdf icons, and to do that for each FT going forward. Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

PDF raises some issues. Linking to the book tool might be more involved that anyone just using the main page would want (if they knew how to use it, they could easily create their own). For a main page link, as a user, I would usually be expecting a direct one-click-to-file action. I don't think we have any one-click PDF function. Unless I've missed something, we would have to pre-generate the PDF and probably upload it here rather than Commons. That isn't hard, we just need to work out which way we want to do it. ePub, via TPT's tool, does work on a one-click basis, so that should not be a problem. OpenDocument Text is another option currently offered by TPT's tool; do we include this?

Commons has two ePub icons, by the way. Which do you prefer: or ? Neither appears to be official. The first was created by User:Inductiveload and is used on French Wikisource. The second actually says "ePUB" but might be hard to read at this scale.

I think a small template should work. If it floats at the top right it should avoid conflicting with the image or any of the text. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:35, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Too late for lucid thought, let alone answers. They were thought bubbles only, unrefined about a concept, describing a need especially around our left toolbar being so so discreet. I am comfortable with experimentation, both, whatever. Of course, how do we know if it is being used. Might see if phe or Tpt are around to answer. Oh, I preer the green E, it stands out. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

I preferred the green e-"karate fist" over the blue cell phone icon until I viewed them both enlarged. Now I prefer the blue cell phone which is really an open book with E on one page and pub on the other page while the green e (fist) remains the same large or small. The letters themselves on the two pages of the blue cell phone e-pub should be colored black, or darkened in some way from the blue background. —Maury (talk) 17:07, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Grab a download !

My first attempt at this is {{featured download}}. The Black Beauty version is floating to the right of this comment. The PDF is currently just an upload of the file generated by the book tool. I think converting the ODT file might produce better results (correcting the licence at the end, removing the article page name headers, losing the mainspace-only contributors, etc). The aesthetics can be modified later. I chose the green icon because (a) it looks better at this scale and (b) the only ODT icon I found was blue, so this keeps the colours unique. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:41, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What is an ODT file and what program is used to read an ODT file? Out of curiosity, I clocked on the three images above and ePub worked as well as the .PDF but not the ODT, whatever it is. The three colors look good as is. I tend to prefer .PDF files and partially because they are cross-platform files and all printers can print them. Too, business' uses Adobe Acrobat portable download files aka <filename>.PDF because they are cross-platform files. Cross-platform is why .PDF files were first created. —Maury (talk) 19:58, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

ODT is an open source equivalent of a Microsoft Word document (.doc); it stands for Open Document Text. I think it is mostly used by Open Office and Libre Office, but other programs can read them, including recent versions of Microsoft Word. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the information on the ODT format. I was not familiar with it but sought it out on Internet and found a freeware .ODT Viewer here: http://www.odtviewer.com/ but while does show text it does not show the images although there is an rectangular outline of where an image is supposed to be. I am more familiar with OTD (officer of the day) —Maury (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Adam. Thanks for all that work. Now that I am on rational thought, rather than abstract thought (and amazing how the former deteriorates without sleep, but the second doesn't).

• IMNSHO the PDF version is probably not worth that amount of effort, we maybe consider to get it through Special:Book and produce something at Wikisource:Books, though I am wondering whether we or the audienced really utilise it enough, or even if it is truly our target audience. Here are some stats that are indicative and tend to say to me "why bother!"
  • Special:Book Oct 2012
  • Wikisource:Books Oct 2012
• The template really looks nicely transportable, and maybe it is something that could be more widely utilised, though I like it. I have dreams that we stick it up on high like we do we do with the featured article star for works at the root level, and look to reserve it for works that are proofread/validated
• the spiral E looks to be 'da official' if I look at http://idpf.org/, though it is probably trademarked, so we may need to
• some of our templates DO NOT BEHAVE in epub, and worse in ODT

More annoying thought bubbles later. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

If the rest of us count for anything in any of this I much prefer the .PDF format. Billinghurst's, statement of "why bother!", reminds me of President John F Kennedy's statement where he speaks of going to the moon, and said, "Why go to the moon?......." —Maury (talk) 05:48, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

The moon? That is so yesterday, they are currently going to interesting places. How many of these works have you downloaded as PDF? Then how many more have you moved to a mobile device? Evidence says that nobody else has either, which is why I arrive at 'why bother' with an icon. For mobile devices, no one is yelling GIVE US PDF, the industry isn't going there. To add it as a quick icon is next to pointless, keep icons to the quick delivery, and leave the existing sidebar links as the the path to the pdf long process. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

(conflict when posted) Is that you Billinghurst? I cannot tell when you use a cloaking device. The speech about the moon was more than "so yesterday", it was decades ago, back in September 12, 1962. But "why bother!" is much the same in that speech of "why bother" that is "so yesterday." -- "We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too." and yes, I know some are planning to colonize Mars at this point. You ask, how many of these works have I downloaded as a .PDF and the answer is, well, I was going to say "none" but actually, I have downloaded some including two about 3 hours ago, one being "Alice In Wonderland." but those were just out of curiosity to see how the system works just as I also tried Adam's three formats on "Black Beauty". However, I often download many .PDF files from Internet Archives (Archives.Org) Many are also placed here on Wikisource to be edited. .PDF is a cross-platform format that will print with any printer without losing formatting. In regard to your statements about mobile devices, I have no idea who bothers to read anything here, in any format, other than us who work here. Perhaps nobody reads anything here. Perhaps they are just a few passing by, pause, look, and leave. I think most use iPad versions with the latest being iPad3 or Kindle fire from Amazon.com or perhaps even Google's new book Reader. I also do not think you know either and what I have stated in reply is not "so yesterday". I personally work with text to speech technology and am learning 3-D technology from my son that uses that technology such as the films produced by Pixar company. How do ye fair with those? Are those "so yesterday" to you? I don't forget the past and I keep up with the present and I am well aware of things of the future. Because of the economy here in these United States today, I am not traveling by plane nor ship as they are too expensive. You state, "Then how many more have you moved to a mobile device? Evidence says that nobody else has either" which is a fair question and my personal reply is that I do not know who asks for what on Wikisource. I have no immediate use for any mobile device and if I did I would not be asking because it would be advertised like Google and Amazon advertise. One would not need to ask questions such as you pose. The advertising would tell everyone whatever they wanted to know, what they can download, what devices (e-Book Readers) are available and in which formats. Is that a bit updated for you as answers to your questions? Tell me, where are you trying to take Wikisource? As long as it is always "forward", then I am in agreement. —Maury (talk) 08:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not that I'm disagreeing with you in general but on the point about nobody on a "mobile" device yelling _________ here, you maybe convoluting 2 or 3 distinct approaches here. For folks with a "smart" [cellular] phone/palm/tablet, most would land here using the URL "en.m.wikisource.org" prefix by default and NEVER see any of this Dynamic Layout, Book Saving, Side-by-Side ProofReading nonsense like the rest of us do when logged in from plain-old laptops and desktops like I assume most of the regulars are.

The other possible group using iPads Kindles or some other bigger-than-a-phone but smaller-than-a-laptop "mobile" device use watered-down operating systems and thus less than full-featured browsers, so they also might not "see" everything we are seeing in spite of landing here using the standard "en.wikisource.org" domain name/URL. These are the folks that are probably downloading Books in whatever format their device lets them get away with.

Either way - it seems like nobody is "yelling" only because nobody [mobile] can "see" everything here on en.WS & some fraction of that can barely "see" something here on en.WS at all. By the time I stop worrying about my battery life during the day or the time that I got home in front about of my real desktop at night, I would have forgotten all about coming back here and complaining/questioning things too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:56, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I can't see a way out of the use-it/don't-use-it trap so I have been bold and cut this Gordian knot. The template in its current form is now live on the main page. It can be removed if there are problems or objections. It can be altered later too.

RE: PDFs, one practical problem we have is that the PDFs generated by the book tool just aren't that good. They do the job but the tool was designed for Wikipedia and does not work well with Wikisource (even with the back matter: both the contributors and the licence are wrong because it assumes a project that works like Wikipedia). We would actually be better off linking directly to the Internet Archive's PDF, if any. A future tool might solve this problem and the template can be changed at that time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:13, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

mainspace

Adam, would you please move this into a mainspace, or whatever that is called where one can see many pages at once? What is that called, is it "mainspace"? Whatever it is called this work isn't very long. It is an area where many pages can be seen at once and on the far left page numbers are shown where on can click and go to the side by side comparison of image and edited text. Darien Exploring Expedition (1854) Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 03:35, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure what you are asking me to do. Darien Exploring Expedition (1854) is already in the main namespace ("mainspace"). The index namespace page is Index:Darien Exploring Expedition.pdf. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:57, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I apologize, Adam. I've seen that in the past and forgot it was there. Well, at least I re-learned what main namespace (mainspace) is. I hate getting old! I am forgetting too many things in real life. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 12:59, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Help:Redirects — what is the value of these templates?

Hi ABM. I don't recall the discussion that took place around these templates. Personally, I don't see the value of them beyond making more work. What are we achieving with them? Wikipedia had them at one point of time, but pulled away from them as they were too much work, regularly not used, and an additional level of complexity. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Tracking things that are not otherwise tracked, mostly. When I started sorting redirects, I was trying to fix something involving them (I can't remember what it was now) and having access to sorted categories would have helped. Special:ListRedirects can't list them all. A lot of the templates were already here and I've created a few more since (based on the existing templates and the Wikipedia equivalents). It gives us data on what redirects exist (and, occasionally, why a specific redirect exists). It's also an area that may require maintenance at some point. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

I still don't get the why, for what demonstrated outcome? I don't see a benefit. You state that there are over 5000 redirects, and would think probably over 10k, and we have a couple of hundred (?) with the templates attached. It would seem to be your practice, and no one else's so I don't see where it will go, and just be something that is unfulfilled. If you want a list of what redirects exist, get over to m:Tech and ask someone to run a toolserver query, or series of requests against some criteria. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

I didn't create the practice, I just picked it up at some point. I'm not dedicated to sorting redirects, it just seemed like a good idea and didn't take too much time. Some of the reasons I can see are:

• Page categorisation. Just adding a category would work as well but the templates were the pre-existing method. It helps to find pages.
• Grouping related redirects. A list won't show the type of redirect, the reason it was created nor the function it performs.
• Identifying the reason for a redirect. As an example, I add pseudonyms to the notes section but this might not always be clear. Also identifying that the redirect was intentional and not the unnecessary left-over of a page move.
• Documenting practices. The categories show how redirects are used on Wikisource (without much documentation now but potentially in support of documentation in the future). I've had to work this out by observation and I'm still finding new variations (surname redirects was a recent one).
• Ease of batch editing/deletion. In case practices change or get rejected, it can be useful to have everything of one type in one place. There are things I've done that would be easier to undo if there were objections (for example, I just made up a practice of categorising redirects instead of subpages). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:08, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Finally come back!

Adam, I've finally solved the problems with my laptop and I can restart working here! I saw that the MotM task has been updated. You can read what I posted here.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 16:12, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

Change to iw list for mainpage

Hi, please see conversation about mkWS on Talk:Main Page. I don't know exactly what Erasmo based the cut-down list on. Also, I don't know how to change the list. Could you please slip mk in and blip one of the little ones? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:33, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I've added Macedonian and updated the documentation of {{Interwiki Wikisource}} while I was there. It should cover the new practice now, which is essentially based on this toolserver tool. As it happens, we only had 28 interwikis because the tool includes English and Oldwikisource in its thirty. (NB: I'm not sure what the plans are for this tool when the toolserver is wound down over the next year or two but we can deal with that when it occurs.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:42, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the iw. Best--MacedonianBoy (talk) 13:38, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

3 books on England

Adam, please look at this page

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:John_Cassell%27s_History_of_England_series

One is the book I requested and am working on. Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol. 1.

Next is shown a "revised" edition set up that is almost identical--images are the same. Who is to do this volume? It was set up by you.

Then there is a 3rd partially done by someone else. —Maury (talk) 18:42, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

I created the revised folder for the DjVu scans. I planned to put all of them in there but the uploader wasn't working well at the time. The various collections of images seem to have been collected over time. Probably people saw them around and decided to upload them or they wanted a specific image for something on Wikipedia (or another sister project). There seems to be only one DjVu book scan even though things are a bit scattered at the moment; everything else looks like extracted illustrations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:41, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Category:Cassell's Illustrated History of England vol 1 I have placed all scans I have worked on thus far in this category as I was told. There are 9 volumes totaled.

I do not remember how many "revised" volumes there are but they do exist so are we to do those too? What are we to do with those "revised" volumes? I think the images remained the same in the revised volumes except one or two at the beginning. The author, John Cassell did these 9 volumes and a lot more on other subjects such as India. There is also a book (biography) about this author. Wikipedia has a fair coverage on this author but certainly does not list all of his = works =. —Maury (talk) 21:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding; I was sick for a few days. I think there are nine revised volumes. I'll place them all in the category eventually so they can be proofread here. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That's okay about the delay. I do hope you feel well now. Eat properly, dress properly, wherever you are, get sleep and drink orange juice. I rarely ever get sick because of this. I am age 65 now and the last time I felt sick was from a cold about 9 1/2 years ago when I lived in the state of Washington where there are deep snows and constant fog. The volume I am working on is dated 1865 and there are 9 volumes totaled. The "revised" volumes circa 1902-1909 unlike what I am working on now have color illustrations! which I wish I were doing now because "it's a color world" as my son always says. Should we, can we, switch to the latest "revised" volumes with color illustrations? Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:17, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/cassellshistoryo01londuoft

Adam, please cancel the above request. The revised volumes don't have enough color illustrations to warrant a change in volumes. I don't know how much difference the text makes between the original 1865 and the "revised" version. I hope the history is correct in both versions. Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 00:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Better quality image needed - Page:Base Facilities Report.djvu/38

A better quality image is needed for the above page, then the whole index can be validated. As you are a user at Commons I thought you might know where to get one. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 23:22, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

As above, sorry for the delay in responding; I was sick for a few days. I've only searched briefly (and I'll try again later in more depth) but I have not found any other version of this file so far. The original copy appears to be in the State Library of Western Australia and I think User:Samwilson made the scans himself (using a Panasonic DMC-FT1 digital camera, if File:Base Facilities Report, page 43.jpg is correct for all pages). The single page image is a little better but some of the words are still obscured. I don't know if there are any other copies elsewhere. I will keep looking around. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Main page - discussing downloading?

ABM. For the main page, I reckon that we should be looking to state (advertise?) that every work at enWS can be downloaded as an ebook. Jeepday has started working on Wikisource:EBook to support this information, and to me it seems that we need to be more thinking about expressing ourselves in terms of features and benefits, alongside the content.

To note that I have changed Print/export sidebar tag to now be Download/print to change the emphasis, and hopefully the relevance. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

As above, sorry for the delay in responding; I was sick for a few days. I like the idea but I'm not sure how best to do it. Adding something in the header seems the best place, although I'm not sure what. My first thought, a link to WS:EBook, wouldn't be enough on it's own. I'll have to think about it a little more. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Meh! Nothing is urgent, sometimes it is about how we open up some of those "What do you reckon about ...?" All thought bubbles, just appreciate added views. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:48, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Clear thought required

My brain isn't functioning on words this late ... at Wikisource:Works, I was trying to (and failing) to think of how to express the following pages and to add links to the pages Wikisource:Works/2011 and Wikisource:Works/2012 without making it seem unimportant, but to also not have someone say "is that all they have done in two years". If you can think of a happy median that would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:15, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps "highlights" and/or add a note in the header to explain these were the works listed under "New Texts" on the main page in those months. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Current and next

Adam, I was going to create Wikisource:News/Issues/January 2013, but I noticed that the Featured text and the Proofread of the Month for January are still unassigned.

I'd choose sister-project link standardization as the MotM task for January. Is the page I wrote clear?--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 12:00, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't around much in December. I planned to do a lot more for the News project (and in general). I see the issue is done now. For future reference, however, near future POTMs are listed on Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month and featured texts on Wikisource:Featured Text Candidates. A list of common sources might be useful for the newsletter, as a subpage or something related to it like a wikiproject. The MOTM subpage is quite clear. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Just noticed

Good Call [1]. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 16:22, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource Scriptorium " 5.55 promotion of en.wikiSource via youtube.com "

Adam, please look at and give your opinions on Scriptorium re: 5.55 promotion of en.wikiSource via youtube.com Respectfully, —Maury (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

---

Q1 2013

Weird tales, Amazing stories etc.

Hi Adam, there have been a few stories added in the last few hours, but the names don't seem to be right. I'm not sure where to move them to before I add the missing headers. Could you please have a look at Special:Contributions/85.238.110.36, Special:Contributions/130.0.50.226 & Special:Contributions/130.0.41.29? (I've assumed for the time being that there are no copyright issues for these particular stories.) Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. Most of the material I've seen is mostly OK so far. It might take a little longer than normal for me to check everything (my latest problem is with my ISP; so I'm only able to log on from work, at lunch etc) but I'll get through everything soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:08, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Further contributions from Special:Contributions/79.140.1.108, Special:Contributions/130.0.48.32, Special:Contributions/130.0.53.149, Special:Contributions/130.0.53.35, & Special:Contributions/85.238.126.227. I copied your message over from the previous 85.238 to this one as most likely the same person. I'll find some time to add headers and if I pick up any copyvio I'll tag them. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Header template and years

I just noticed that we didn't get to having the year = &c. variations documented at {{header}}. Would you be able to do it? Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Done I vaguely recall some discussion about whether it should be documented or not but I can't find anything about that now. I might be confusing it with something else. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:59, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks. It was pumpkin hour and I was growling as I couldn't remember how, pulling open other templates … so it needs to be documented. We may wish to deemphasise it, so we could put it inside a collapsed box OR we could look to getting some basic instructions, and some hifalutin instructions. I made some comment within the week in the Help:Style guide about the author page style in conjunction with the template, and maybe we should be looking to do the same for main ns. Sort of "plain vanilla" vs. "choc chip, dutch, sprinkles, in a waffle cone". — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 19 January 2013 (UTC)

Do you mean within the template documentation or on a separate page (such as a help page or a process page in the Wikisource namespace)? The laziest quickest way to deemphasise them would be the separate the parameters into "Basic parameters" and then "Advanced parameters". The basic parameters could be limited to just those that appear in the pre-loaded vesion of the header. If you think a separate page would be best, a help or process page covering the use of either headers or dates (in both the main and author spaces with the latter) might work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:53, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

RE: February news

Good to me. I made some little changes, but the overall story is more than OK. I'm also going to write about another new site, the Assamese (ISO code: as) Wikisource.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 22:21, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Use of "width" parameter in {{overfloat image}}

Hello.

I have been collaborating with Londonjackbooks on a use of the above template (discussion―long!―User_talk:MODCHK#Overfloat_image_help_request if you want the gory details), and have come to the conclusion her case may justify adding a few more optional control parameters for the item_x blocks in such fashion as not to impact current usage. This part at least I am pretty confident I have already worked out; however in looking closely at the existing template I noticed this construct which has remained pretty much unchanged since you created the original template, apart from being (essentially) duplicated a few more times than then:

{{#if:{{{vpos|}}}
 |{{#switch:{{lc:{{{vpos|}}}}}
   |t
   |top
   |#default=top
   |b
   |bottom=bottom
  }}
 |{{#switch:{{lc:{{{vpos1|}}}}}
   |t
   |top
   |#default=top
   |b
   |bottom=bottom
  }}
}}:{{{y1|{{{width|{{{y|0}}}}}}}}}px;

Please pardon my adding line-breaks for (I hope) clarity of the logic. My concern is the use of "width" on that final line. I simply cannot see the logic of "width" ever substituting a default value if "y1" is omitted; and worse, if "width" were indeed specified, it would hide "y" at least for item1. The semantics don't even work as why should a horizontal concept like "width" ever be controlling a vertical "y" offset?

In short can you see any real harm if I remove this reference to parameter "width" for each of the five "item" blocks, and simply leave it controlling only the <div style="position:relative;> directive wrapping the entire template code?

I hope I have expressed this sufficiently clearly.

Regards, MODCHK (talk) 09:12, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

I honestly can't remember why I did that and it looks like I did not document the template with comments at the time. I should note that I copied the code from something User:T. Mazzei did while proofreading Amazing Stories/Volume 01/Number 01/The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar and tried to adapt it to a template so I could reuse it. I may have made some mistakes while attempting that adaptation. Now that I look again, I can't see why I did that.

Feel free to remove the width parameter from the item blocks and see what happens. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback. I had already check the proto-code in Page:Amazing Stories Volume 01 Number 01.djvu/94, and so far as I can see there was no precedent set there (i.e. no code which could be considered an origin for this.) Thus my query to you, as I assumed the logic may have been drawn in for other considerations.

I have already removed the logic from a copy of the template, and both of "samples" contained within the documentation appear to work identically. MODCHK (talk) 23:44, 21 January 2013 (UTC)

Hello again. Just letting you know I pushed out some changes to {{overfloat image}} a few hours ago that I have had simmering for some time, including removing the "width" default discussed above. I also took the opportunity to more closely match the documentation to how the template behaves now, as opposed to several changes ago. Please improve if you think appropriate (I fear I have perhaps gone into too much detail?) Cheers, MODCHK (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Thailand

Hi, this is a mainspace article masquerading as a dab category. My initial instincts are to push the contents across into Portal:Thailand, but is that the best thing to do? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 19:35, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, the portals are meant to provide collect works by subject area, not re-purposed disambiguation pages. I've added everything from the linked categories to Portal:Thailand and soft-redirected the former disambiguation page. I've also done the same to Brunei, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Laos, Malaysia, Myanmar, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Periodic regular maintenance

In the MotM, do we have a space that talks about categories that could do with regular browsing maintenance?

My thinking is that there are certain categories that we wish to have done regularly, that are not particularly difficult, just need to be perused and done (here I am not thinking requiring admin assistance). The sorts of things are

• Category:Articles with missing files
• Category:Pages with missing files

(build a list) We can probably even group these categories (as we find them) into their own supergroup so people can readily access them. We can add particular information to each category to assist those who peruse to ensure that there is not a complete hash made of it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:55, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

I've been thinking about a complimetary page (perhaps just Wikisource:Maintenance) to list regular maintenance, which might cover part of this. I might also move the To Do list subpages across so all of the "stuff that needs doing" is in one place, leaving MotM as "stuff that we are concentrating on at the moment" (with prominent links between the two). I just need to think about how best to implement this idea. At the moment, I'm considering splitting it into sections based on either difficulty, time and/or type; filling each with links to each category, a description or instructions and perhaps a dynamic page list to link to a few of the pages in each category. Adding guidance to category pages sounds like a good idea too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2013 (UTC)

We have some of the special pages that fit into that category. To me some of the regular tasks are basic wiki, eg. double redirects, those above, that need periodic attention, and possibly we can identify by count of numbers to whether people pop in. There are also those that need some more local knowledge of process. So, yes I can see that working on such a page. You may want to build a skeleton somewhere else, at which we can poke at it. To me the most important for such a page is simplicity to identify a task, or to undertake the task easily with instruction. Something to complement MotM seems worthwhile, it sets the standard and the tasks, but is probably light on discussion. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

To note that for the sake of shoving it somewhere, I did Wikisource:Maintenance of the Month/Regular tasks though it may belong somewhere else for maintenance tasks. To the link on that page, I have added specific instruction to the Category about how to fix, and a link to where to ask questions. It probably could be refined, but I can see value in such an approach for all our maintenance tasks, and probably templated to make it easy to add. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:04, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Weird tales

Re: Wikisource:Possible_copyright_violations#Weird_Tales_stories is closed, option to move is provided. Jeepday (talk) 11:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

Portal classification

Adam, couldn't Portal:New Orleans be classified at Class E: States of the United States with Portal:Louisiana as its parent portal? Please also have a look to this proposal I had prepared for the Scriptorium.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Class I: Texts by Country has got six subclasses, but the only widely used one is Subclass IN: Nations and Portal:Nations is a redirect to Portal:Texts by Country. This is a proposal to remove subclasses from class I. The classification of a national portal would be simply:

 | class     = I

while Portal:Cornwall (and similar ones) would be classified:

 | class     = I
 | parent    = England

If the proposal is accepted, I will:

• reclassify the portals, using the {{national}} template,
• update Portal:Index and the {{Library of Congress Classification}} template,

but I will need an administrator to delete Portal:Counties, Portal:States, Portal:Towns and Cities and the {{LCC Class I}} template.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 10:05, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I can't remember, at the moment, why I created those subclasses. It might have been because of the USA/Rest of World split between classes. I will look into it and get back to you. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:46, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I didn't take any notes at the time. All I wrote was "to add flexibility to the classification". I think it will be useful in the long run to have nations, cities etc in separate classes, but I'm not set on the idea and child portals of the nations could work too. Class I is one of the few not set by the LCCS itself, so we have some flexibility. You can try it on Scriptorium. If that is successful, I can delete the redundant portals. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Comparisons

Hello AdamBMorgan, please feel free to remove the example I have added on the Comparisons page if you think it is inappropriate to mix OCR quality and texts qualities  :) It may be seen as a different topic. --Zyephyrus (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

It's fine with me for now. It might come down to what the community decides along with annotations and translations. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:28, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks so much for all your hard work!

Thanks so much for all your hard work on Wikisource:WikiProject Gerald R. Ford Presidential Library! I really appreciate it! Michael Barera (talk) 20:27, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Year logic templated and ...

Gday. Was thinking about the year display and categorisation logic. As the display logic is now quite significant within {{header}}, I am wondering whether it is time to pull it into its own (sub-)template; probably the logic alone, and not the placement. What prompted my thoughts is that I think that the UN General Assembly Resolutions portal subpages could do with the year parameter, so it was either just categorise and add the note somewhere or apply the code we utilise in header. etc. etc. ad I ended up here with my thought bubble. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:22, 17 February 2013 (UTC)

This might be a job for Lua (when I get time to figure out how it works). Both {{header}} and {{author}} now have similar, but not quite the same, versions of the sub-template. Using one template for both, and any other pages like the UN portal subpages, would be nice but I think it might need more flexible code to work properly. I recall that making the template also used some rather inelegant brute-force techniques to capture as many permutations as possible. Lua might help clean that up a bit. Maybe. I need to test it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Edith J. R. Isaacs

Thank you for filling out my stub on Edith Isaacs. My latest puzzle is Helen Ingersoll who did some of the botanical articles for The Encyclopedia Americana (1920). I think her middle initial may be M. and that she was a librarian for the Torrey Botanical Club and perhaps is the daughter of naturalist Ernest Ingersoll who had a daughter named Helen. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:30, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

I haven't found that much, I'm afraid. There are two VIAF records for "Ingersoll, Helen" (26985507 and 18986369) but neither appears to be a good match.

If Helen M. Ingersoll is the same person who corresponded with Elizabeth Britton, also of the Torrey Botanical Club, then the M. stands for Marcy.[2] That didn't lead me very far, however.

Working on the Ernest/Helen link: The 1896 Naturalists' Universal Directory lists a Helen Ingersoll living at 788 Broadway, New York. Further googling shows an Ernest at the same address, such the members list of this 1902 Manual of the Author's Club (his own entry in Americana says he was the secretary of this club). The 1905 Naturalists' Directory lists both an Ernest and a Helen Ingersoll living at 50 Morningside Ave., New York. Slightly more interesingly, the 1902 Botaniker-Addressbuch (PDF, Austrian) lists "Ingersoll, Helen M." at the Broadway address and the 1909 edition lists the same at the Morningside address.

It's a little weak but I think links Ernest, Helen M. and the Torrey Botanical Club. It doesn't prove that she wrote for Americana, however. Sorry I haven't found anything definite. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Thank you. This puts me further ahead. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:13, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Please move the new community portal

Adam, could you please

• edit Ws:Community portal into a temporary redirect to Ws:Maintenance of the Month/Community portal and
• move Ws:Maintenance of the Month/Community portal (along with its subpages) to Ws:Community portal?

Some edits will be needed after the moving in order for content to display correctly. Many thanks.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 21:37, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Done - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

IEG

Hi Adam! I just discovered your blog and I was surprised of not seeing any mention to this Grant Proposal. I hope you didn't miss the site notification with all the noise!--Micru (talk) 03:53, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

I've only recently really started to get going with blogging. I actually have a long list of barely-formed ideas but still have problems. I have read the IEG and thought about writing something but I have little to add (I've also considered something about the roadmap with the same result so far). In the mean time, I have already written a paragraph and a bit on Wikisource:News/2013-03#Strategic vision grant request, which will go live tomorrow. I think this highlights my "little to add" problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the post! Initially we had a more ambitious plan (involve the WMF), but since their focus is narrowed and they don't want any external interference, we'll have to manage the best we can with current resources (at international level, trying to leverage different participation programs), and plan ahead for when Wikisource can be on the main development agenda again.--Micru (talk) 22:22, 1 March 2013 (UTC)

I hope I got it right. Looking at the discussion page, I think different people interpreted the proposal in different ways. I have now written a blog post too (also covering the other Wikisource proposal—which I did almost miss because it wasn't advertised here and I don't often browse meta). Hopefully I got that right as well. I'm still not sure that I really added anything but blogs don't have to be meaningful. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:26, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

West Virginia Constitution

Hello- I have the most recent copy of the West Virginia Constitution as provided by the WV Legislature via PDF from their web site. I notdd that what we have here is incomplete and does not have the preamble. How may I start adding this?? ThanksCoal town guy (talk) 00:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi, welcome to Wikisource. It looks like you are doing fine on your own. Good luck with your work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:10, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Weird tales

Did you get a chance to finish moving these? Jeepday (talk) 00:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

You might want to stop at this one also. Jeepday (talk) 00:22, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

The first set: yes, I have moved and/or deleted everything. The second set: I have not done anything yet, I was waiting to see if any other opinions were raised, but I can move them later today. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, all done :) JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:44, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

US Legislative Data Workshop

hi, i noticed your work at Portal:Acts of the United States Congresses. would you be interested in teaming with the Cato institute started at w:Wikipedia:Meetup/DC/Legislative Data Workshop and their open government xml data going forward? Slowking4 (talk) 17:54, 15 March 2013 (UTC)

Artistic / illustrative

Adam, I have known you to be, or have been, interested in artistic (illustrated) pages that often get marked as Advertisements. Please see if you would like to do these two

• [3]
• [4]

pages so that they will not simply be marked away as useless. As always, kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 08:47, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Sure, no problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:19, 30 March 2013 (UTC)

Thanks very much

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)

Template:News

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)

Wikisource News

---

April 2013

• Sue Gardner to step down
• Featured text for April 2013
• Collaborations for April 2013
• First Lua-based template
• Raw images
• Annotation and derivative works debate
• Individual Engagement Grant results
• Administrator confirmations
• Milestones
• Technology notes
• Sister project notes

ARCHIVES • DISCUSSION • PROJECT

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

w:Wikipedia:Wikipedia_Signpost/2013-04-08/Wikizine — billinghurst 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

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)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Six_Months_In_Mexico.pdf/88

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

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

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

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

Adam,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:The_fall_of_Ulysses.djvu/29

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.

Respectfully,

—Maury (talk) 05:59, 4 May 2013 (UTC)

Getting a fourth parameter for portal

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

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 [5], 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 [6], 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)