User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 14

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 13 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 14 Archive 15
All talk threads for the entire of 2014. Long fafiation in the latter half of the year; not much activity means not much talking.

Archives of WS:FTC[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi, isn't it an error to allow to override DISAMBIG with [1] ? For example A Gentleman Friend was counted as a disamb pages with the old method but is no longer. — Phe 15:33, 11 January 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

SHSP-v.01 & Hesperian[edit]

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

Authority control redux[edit]

Hi.. hope this finds you & yours well,

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

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



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

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

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

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

SHSP today[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Featured text for February[edit]

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

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

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

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

Featured text for March[edit]

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

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

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

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

Wikimania panel submission[edit]

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

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

Fun with authorities[edit]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Congratulations to you both.

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

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

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

New message[edit]

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

Tito Dutta (Talk) 00:35, 5 April 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Completing a text[edit]

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

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

Wikisource meetup at Wikimania 2014[edit]

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

New MotM?[edit]

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

Done--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 18:17, 30 May 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

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

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

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

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

Something for our Maintenance pages[edit]

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

Automated import of openly licensed scholarly articles[edit]

Hello AdamBMorgan,

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

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

Maximilianklein (talk) 18:17, 20 June 2014 (UTC)Reply[reply]

PSM main namespace author line in template.[edit]

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


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


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