Wikisource talk:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Archive/2010-12-31

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created on 31 December 2010, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.

Gutenberg etext 987[edit]

Project Gutenberg contains a piece by Author:Charles Babbage. Could you upload that djvu so we can do a copy and paste job of it? John Vandenberg (chat) 06:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC)

Proofing easy bits and getting the groundwork laid[edit]

I got {{TPSM}} added to the first article in each of the first twenty volumes as a start; could someone familiar with AWB quickly run through all volumes (approximately page 10 or 12 in each one) and replace all the "��MAY, 1879." with {{uc|May}}, 1872., for all dates like that? At least on the first twenty, again. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 20:37, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

Now the first thirty volumems should have titlepage and copyright page done. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Missing volumes?[edit]

For the volumes that are missing, can we put an approximate price on what we're willing to gather to pay for them if we find them for sale online? Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Carl Linnaeus. 18:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)


What's the issue with Volume 75? I see it right here. Hesperian 02:11, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, Google has the individaul issues that make up volume 75, but they are not available for download. :( --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Oh, I see. I'd never seen that before—where you can read it online but you can't download it. How odd. Hesperian 02:34, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
One way we can get the volume is by ordering it through Amazon.com. The item is currently not in stock. This service will auto buy the product if the price matches, the quality meets the minimal requirement, and the price and is right. I have also been looking on eBay without any luck. I asked on Internet Archive for this issue with no luck. Anyone have any ideas? What do you guys think of my ideas (in particular the Amazon one?) --Mattwj2002 (talk) 02:48, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
This looks like it under a misleading title. Though it only mentions one article, the description does say "half year of monthly magazine bound as one volume". Hesperian 03:35, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
"All books fully returnable, for any reason, within 10 days of receipt." How long will it take to scan it. :-D Hesperian 03:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
Good find Hesperian! Now we just have to figure out who is going to scan it, how we are going to scan it, how we are going to pay for it, and we can proceed from there. :) Great work. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 19:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)
I have tried sending a message using the online form without a reply, I tried calling the number and I got an answer machine, and now I am e-mailing the site directly. Hopefully, I'll find out more about this book shortly. I'll keep you guys posted. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 17:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Update on Popular Science Monthly Volume 75[edit]

Hey guys, I have an update on Volume 75. It turns out that Hesperian is our hero! :) He found the complete volume 75 of Popular Science Monthly. Here is a quote from the e-mail that I got from the seller of the volume "Mett, hi, It is the complete volume July through Dec 1909. The wrappers are not bound in, but outside of that it is complete. In very good condition, There is an old library bookplate on the front pastedown, stamped Discarded. Bound in dark red library buckram." From what I can tell the wrapper is just the book jacket cover. The next step will be to get it scanned. It sounds like either Sherurcij can get the Toronto Archive outlet to scan the volume or I can get the San Francisco Internet Archive to scan volume. Please let me know what you think or if you have any suggestions. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 05:05, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I just thought I would let everyone know that I ordered this Volume 75 and had it sent to my house. I'll have it shipped to where ever when necessary. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 23:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Popular Science Monthly Volume 93 Part 1 & 2, Volume 94 and Volume 95 found on Amazon found for $15 plus S/H[edit]

Hey guys, I just wanted to let you know that I found Popular Science Monthly Volume 93 Part 1 & 2, Volume 94 and Volume 95 found on Amazon found for $15 each plus shipping and handling. I am ready to order once I know where to send it to. I just thought you guys should know. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 06:49, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

I just ordered Popular Science Monthly Volume 93 Part 1 & 2, Volume 94 and Volume 95 off of Amazon.com. I had it sent to my house. It might take a while, but eventually one way or another I will have it scanned by Internet Archive and put up on the wiki. I just thought I would let everyone know. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 04:03, 19 October 2009 (UTC)
I received these volumes in the mail today. Now I am just waiting for how I am going to have these scanned. Still waiting on Volume 75. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 20:11, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

Notes is not going to work[edit]

I see that there is a work developed named Notes. I fear that this is not going to work, and I would suggest an early resolution of the matter. From a quick look, it seems that there is a Notes section in each issue, so would suggest that it the nomenclature may need to be closely aligned with that. I understand that it will make index pages hard to code, however, that will be a cross that you will have to bear. :-) billinghurst (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree; this really really should be at Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/Notes. Hesperian 23:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
I deleted the redirect. Cygnis insignis (talk) 04:30, 1 August 2010 (UTC)

Should we move the Popular Science structure to Popular Science Monthly?[edit]

Hi guys,

Should we move the Popular Science structure to Popular Science Monthly? This way the pages transcluded would have the same naming convention as the index pages. What do you guys think? Please let me know. Personally, I think we should move it even though it will be a pain. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Active projects[edit]

At Template_talk:Welcome#Add a Project_Tab to the Template.3F.3F.3F we had a discussion about having a Wikiprojects tab and have implemented such where we point to active projects. My next idea is to have active projects rather than be a flat list, to have a different project appear weekly. Obviously EB1911 gets such a guernsey, and I would like your feedback on a beta product available for your review at Template:Active projects/var. Comments can be pasted to this page or to Template talk:Active projects/var. billinghurst (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Rolling headers and footers[edit]

What's the advantage of saving the header, using the rolling header template, and storing the fold number in the footer, when the results are not used on the assembled display page? — Ineuw (talk) 22:11, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Missing Volumes Scanning Update[edit]

Hey Everyone, I have great news! The Internet Archive has agreed to scan the missing volumes for free! (If I donate them.) This mean I won't get them back, but it also means no scanning fees! I am going to send it out tomorrow! This means we will be able to add Volume 75, Volume 93 Part 1, Volume 93 Part 2, Volume 94, and Volume 95 soon. I just thought you guys would be happy with the update. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

You rock Matt. Hesperian 00:21, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Back to the future (of the PSM project)[edit]

 For those who are interested in coordinating the proofreading of The Popular Science Monthly Project, I posted this document, detailing the strategy developed during work on Volume 1. I hope this helps. — Ineuw (talk) 17:29, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Moved transcluded volume 1 to be sub-directory of the Work[edit]

The first volume had been transcluded to a work at the primary level of the namespace. As other works in volumes are as sub-pages of the overarching work, I have moved Volume 1 to be a subpage of PSM. I have started tidying up, and others will need to check things too. billinghurst (talk) 05:33, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

{{PSM link}}[edit]

I have created {{PSM link}}. Primary use would be from author pages to articles. Could be used in Works or in Works about author. We can modify the text around it, and that is the benefit of having this as a template. billinghurst (talk) 01:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

PSM categories[edit]

In response to Hesperian's note on my talk page HERE, I decided to conduct all project related conversations on this talk page. Everyone's input is invaluable to the project and should be know to all interested parties, current and future.

At this point
  1. All categories are for general use, but I needed a link "on the fly". I will amend all categories accordingly where the template exists, but need to keep the PSM project tag until some form of category table for the project is implemented.
  2. There is no category index in PSM and their general index is atrocious, full of errors and omissions, in addition to poor quality of the original. I am guided by personal work experience, and academic guidance. The categories were assigned by reading the contents, and after reaching a general consensus (with myself), I referenced and followed Wikipedia's example as a general guide, (their organization doesn't exactly apply). At this stage of the process, I must assign categories quickly, with the intent of reorganizing them because many articles require numerous categories.
  3. Specifically, Plant biology should be a subcategory of Biology, and related to Botany. Entomology should be a subcategory of Insects. Physicist/Physicists, I must reassign. They are both wrong, as well as a number of others that I am aware of.— Ineuw (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
    Plant biology is botany. There is no difference between the two, and both categories should not exist. Entomology and insects are intimately related; I'm not sure which should be a subcategory of which. I can see nothing wrong with Category:Physicists, which is consistent with other category titles and has been around since 2006. Hesperian 04:12, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with everything you say with some refinements because of the context in which the articles are written. The efforts are initial and they are to quickly and generally identify the article topics, and they demand multiple categorizations. My efforts are regularly revisited, corrected, reorganized and expanded.

For the above mentioned categories:

  1. You are correct about Botany and Plant biology, and this presents a problem in the context of closely identifying numerous articles. Thus, I will make Plant biology as a subcategory to Botany (even if they mean the same), and Biology.
  2. Entomology is the proper category (and Wikipedia is incorrect) but, Insects is just a nicer way to put it. In fact, Entomology is a subcategory of Zoology. :-) I will figure out something acceptable to the majority.
  3. For my research, Physicists are a secondary interest at the moment, and I loath to create unused categories and leave a mess like the one in Wikipedia. — Ineuw (talk) 15:23, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
Your comment on point 1 makes no sense whatsoever to me. We don't need two categories for the same thing.
You seem to be treating categories like a tag cloud. They are not. They form a tree-like structure, and if you are going to categorise at all, you need to do so by using or extending the category structure that already exists. That means not creating orphan categories that are not themselves in a category. For example, if you have an article on ants and you want to categorise it, , you look at the structures we already have, and find the best category for it e.g. Category:Animals. Then you ask yourself whether that category is large enough to warrant splitting, and, if so, you create Category:Insects and categorise it into Category:Animals so that it becomes part of the category structure. Hesperian 00:04, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
On reflection, you are absolutely right about Entomology being a subcategory of Insects, not the other way around. This becomes obvious if you replace "Entomology" with "the scientific study of insects". Hesperian 05:42, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Dear Hesperian, please don't take things so seriously. I refuse to do so, because of the communal nature of the Wiki concept. Also, because after all the efforts at trying to achieve perfection, someone is sure to change it some time later. I am also a supporter of hierarchical structuring and I would remove Insects. The confusion began with Wikipedia, and I leave the matter at that. I also did some research and it turns out that Insects was a 19th century category name used to attract the public's interest and gain more support for education. The word 'Entomology' just didn't cut it with the majority of the reading public, and the subject was of importance at a time when most people lived off the land. - By the way, none of the farmers I spoke to, objected to dropping Insects in favour of. :-).— Ineuw (talk) 15:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
An important aftertought. I will have to add several subcategories (somewhere), using the word 'insects' in relation to their benefits or harm to agriculture. Your advise is appreciated. Should I only use their scientific names? — Ineuw (talk) 15:19, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
Put the articles in Category:Insects until that category is unworkably large; say, more than a hundred works. Only then, look at the works in it and decide upon the most effective way to split it. Hesperian 23:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

PSM categories revised[edit]

This is the current PSM categories list, revised and updated. — Ineuw (talk) 19:45, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Proposals[edit]

. . . for PSM Categories management[edit]

Based on articles to the end of volume 9, the diversity of categories for PSM are close to all that's needed to be assigned because of the repetitive nature of the article topics, which are broad, but there are boundaries.

  1. I keep assigning categories, but NOT create them. THIS CENTRAL LIST is updated concurrently with the imported headers and will wait for validation or rejection. An unnecessary category shows up immediately when the list is perused, being aware that the assignment must be revisited and improved. — Ineuw (talk) 15:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Initial estimates of the PSM project[edit]

 For those who are interested, here is some initial and very conservatively estimated stats on the PSM project, based on the first 8 volumes.

  1. 92 volumes x 600 pages per volume = 55,200 pages.
  2. 92 x 15 images per volume = 1,380 images.
  3. 92 x 55 articles per volume = 5060 articles to be categorized.
  4. 2,000 articles with recognizable contributors.

— Ineuw (talk) 16:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Quick note[edit]

Just a quick note that the side indexes on the DJVUs are really helpful in motivating me to proofread pages, I recently found Suicide in Large Cities listed for example and proofread the whole article. Currently it's only done for 8 of the first 10 volumes...can we get the last two updated as well? I've got my eye on a few more articles to proofread from volumes 2-8. Sherurcij Collaboration of the Week: Author:Thomas Carlyle. 18:07, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi. Just read your note. The TOCs, headers, & indexes for Volumes 9 & 10 are ready, and will install them progressively during the next day or two. I was spending time on missed articles in vol 5. and creating PSM specific templates. — Ineuw (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

deletion and problematic pages[edit]

I just deleted the mainspace page Popular Science Monthly/Volume 7/Index, the Page transclusion is user created material. I'm moving that to Wikisource:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/temp, and creating a new index. 17:11, 28 February 2010 (UTC) [[[User:Cygnis insignis|Cygnis insignis]] (talk)] 20:49, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Please don't bother to move them. Just delete them and restore the original. All Indexes, between Volumes 1 and 10 were edited and regenerated by an identical method. I have copies and there is still a lot of editing to be done, in addition to my ignorance about the specifics of the problem. Also, the original indexes, which were the basis for my work, are riddled with errors and omissions. I also fail to understand, why are you afraid to sign your posts? — Ineuw (talk) 19:01, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I made this page for discussion. There are no links to Page:namespace. The content is what was on the page. The layout is simpler, perhaps it could be improved. The links I added are either titles or pages in the miscellany or notes, and they are linked that way; it doesn't look as neat as just linking the page, but may provide a navigational aid to the user. Just linking the title doesn't get the reader as close as linking the page, adding # to the link doesn't require anchors.

Unfortunately nearly all that content is unproofread, and barely useful, I had been reading the scans instead. It is worth noting that is the first project to display uncorrected text in mainspace, when and where was that decided? Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:46, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

Hi Cygnis, and again genuine thanks for taking the time to explain. Now, I understand what is wrong. I should never have marked them as proofread. I used the proofread yellow colour to indicate to myself that I've reached 'link and sort' accuracy with the index entries, and forgot about the rest of the world.
The embarrassing part of the episode is that I didn't realize that the change was made by an administrator. It was the end of the day, and seeing so many pages changed without an explanation, and to the brutal much feared purple, which not only connoted that my work is problematic, but also the colour implied a regal imperative. My focus is on Table of content accuracy, image processing before tackling actual proofreading.
By now, I have a fairly clear idea of how I can contribute. Allow me some time to clarify what I intend to do, and find out if it's acceptable. This way, there will be no misunderstandings and unpleasant surprises. Take care.— Ineuw (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Update of PSM image status here and on the Commons[edit]

The PSM Wikimedia Commons Popular Science Monthly illustrations category had to be subdivided to 93 sub categories corresponding to the volumes.

All images through volumes 1 to 10 and missing from the commons are tagged using {{tl|PSMImage}}, resulting in having to seriously re-asses current image categorization.

  1. There are also two PSM related categories exist on the Commons.
    1. The first is Popular Science Monthly, started by Mattwj2002 which stored the front covers of all existing 91 volumes, as well as some of my first uploads.
    2. The second is Popular Science Monthly illustrations, started by Wikipedia users for a few images from Volume 93, (July 1918-December 1918 which we don't yet have). These images came from Google books. When I discovered this category, I began to use it as well not, realizing that images were in two separate categories and I had no clue about the actual number of images.
  2. The initial 10 Volumes yielded nearly 1,000 images. Managing them in one category is not possible, so all existing images were moved into their respective volume categories. This included Matt's cover scans from the first category, and a Volume 93 category for the Wikipedia users' images.(Volume 75 is still missing).
  3. Currently, there are 600 images on the Commons and another 400 in various stages of processing. Daily upload varies from 0 to 90.
  4. Starting with Volume 11, a separate temporary image template is planned for each volume as {{PSM11}} ... etc., leaving the current {{{Image}} template for volumes 1 to 10, until all images were processed, as there may be a few missed illustrations.
  5. Changing illustration background to clear is another challenge being explored. So far, the resulting transparency of grayscale affects the image quality.— Ineuw (talk) 20:01, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Update 2 of PSM image status here and on the Commons[edit]

The above para number order is used below to indicate changes since the last post.

  1. No change.
  2. There are THREE PSM related categories found on the Commons.
    1. No change.
    2. No change.
    3. This category is called Popular science and it has a few images used on Wikipedia, from volumes past the last date range of volume 92. They were linked to volumes 93 ... etc., but this may be incorrect.
  3. The initial 10 Volumes yielded about 1,100 images.
  4. Currently, there are over 800 images on the Commons and another 300 in various stages of processing. Daily upload varies from 0 to 90.
  5. No change.
  6. No change.

— Ineuw (talk) 13:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Update 3 of PSM image status here and on the Commons[edit]

The paragraphs of the first post are used below to indicate changes since the last post.

  1. No change.
  2. No change.
    1. No change.
    2. No change.
    3. No change.
  3. The initial 10 volumes yielded 1,067 images.
  4. Only completed volumes are included in the count.
  5. No change.
  6. No change.

— Ineuw (talk) 19:36, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

File names and file descriptions on Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Hello,

I am commons:user:Teofilo from Commons. I am reviewing polar bear pictures and I discovered File:TPSMV6P305_Fig_9.jpg which in my view has two problems :

  • It has a non-descriptive file name, which sort of violates the guidelines at Commons:Help:Upload#4._Set an appropriate file name (Don't use a non-descriptive name like "DSC123456.jpg" from a digital camera. Cryptic names for images make them a lot harder to find and use etc...)

So, I have tagged it with {{rename|File:TPSMV6P305 Fig 9 Polar, or Arctic Bear.jpg}}.

  • The bracket "(Ursus maritimus)" is an important information. I think it should be mentioned in the description field of the information template on the file page on Commons.

As this is a general problem, I think all similar pictures should be reviewed and the file names and descriptions improved as I suggest.

  • The file name of File:TPSMV6P140 Smith.jpg is a little better, but aren't there a lot of people called "Smith" ? Wouldn't it be better to include first name and middle name too ?

I suppose it is possible to make a bot request on Commons to make the changes.

I leave a message at Commons:COM:VP#Wikisource WikiProject Popular Science Monthly to ask for further advice and opinions.

Teofilo (talk) 09:27, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Issues Still Not Uploaded on Internet Archive[edit]

Hi guys, I just thought I would mention that Popular Science Monthly volumes that I purchased are still not on the Internet Archive. It has been how many months. I even wrote them an e-mail and no response. :( If we were to find different copies of these books I would say we should try scanning them ourselves. Anything thoughts or ideas on that? --Mattwj2002 (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Good News About PSM Vol 75 and 93 Part 1[edit]

Hi guys, I just wanted to let you know that I found Popular Science Monthly Volumes 75 and 93 Part 1 on Google. Right now I am converting it and I will upload it as soon as it is done. I am not big on Google copies but at least we'll have these volumes! :) --Mattwj2002 (talk) 00:27, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

helping out?[edit]

Hi. I was wondering what mostly needs work on for this project, or where I should start at. Could someone help me with that? - Tannertsf (talk) 21:09, 3 November 2010 (UTC)