User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 13

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 12 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 13 Archive 14
All talk threads for the fourth quarter of 2013

Subpages for Catullus[edit]

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

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

First attempt at a multi-page score[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

original [[1]]

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

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

Recommendations sought about a magazine of poetry[edit]

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

Dear expert[edit]

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


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

Need help on gadget at bn Wikisource[edit]

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

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

Thanks much[edit]

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

The Dioceses of England year display[edit]

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

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

Year func[edit]

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

The Header template is broken[edit]

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


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

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

Wikisource survey[edit]

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

Need assistance please[edit]


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


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

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

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

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


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

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

An Illustrated Library Within Themselves[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice request[edit]

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

Quote omitted for copyright reasons[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks much[edit]

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

Proposed style guide[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Move to translation template?[edit]

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

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

Musical Scores blog Revisions[edit]

Hello Adam,

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

Wikidata-related tool[edit]

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

New maintenance cat[edit]

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

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


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

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