User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 11

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 11 Archive 12
All talk threads for the second quarter of 2013


Thanks very much[edit]

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

You really did a great job!

Much appreciated,

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

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

Template:News[edit]

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

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

To note[edit]

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

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

Needed correction[edit]

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

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

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

About two proposed policies of yours[edit]

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

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

index validated date[edit]

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

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

Another milestone for possible mention in News[edit]

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

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

Tumblr suggestion[edit]

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[edit]

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

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

Riders of the Purple Sage[edit]

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

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

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

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

MotM plan[edit]

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

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

June newsletter[edit]

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

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

"propaganda"[edit]

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

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

Story about the Translation namespace[edit]

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

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