User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 2

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 1 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 2 Archive 3
All talk threads for the first quarter of 2011

When the brain gel has spareness[edit]

A while back I added the components See also: Special:PrefixIndex/{{PAGENAME}} and All pages with titles containing "{{PAGENAME}}" to {{disambiguation}}, (I stole from Commons). The issue is that it looks butt ugly as I have done it. Now we now inhale {{plain sister}} into {{header}} and that flows through to this header. I am wondering you can apply your more delicate formatting so we can have the extra links into the disambiguation template, though knowing that we have to code around any plain sister output. [I hope that make sense]. Thanks. PS. Not sure whether you have viewed Wikisource:Administrators more recently. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:11, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

I haven't had much time for much editing over Christmas so I hadn't checked Wikisource:Administrators before now. I have left a message about the disambiguation links on your talk page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:28, 2 January 2011 (UTC)
For whenever. Looking at Benedict Canfield, I am wondering whether the search field belongs in with the disambiguation text, before the line and the wikipedia belongs in the notes. Your thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 02:47, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
I've been thinking about it but I haven't come up with anything good yet. The best idea I have so far requires modifying the disambiguation template, the plain sister template and all of the various header templates (which will only swap the order of the boxes). I'll keep thinking about it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:00, 11 January 2011 (UTC)


(as a subsection to above) We have {{process subpage}}, {{subpage-header}}, {{author-subpage}}, and that probably says we should look at {{portal-subpage}} or a variation. I was going to just do it, then wondered whether you had any thoughts prior to ...? I need something for Portal:Investiture of the Gods/Chapter 1 and its friends. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay, I've been ill. I actually should have thought of this before now but missed it for some reason. Anyway, I'll put something together in a moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:25, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


You have new messages
Hello, AdamBMorgan. You have new messages at Template talk:Plain sister.
Message added 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

in case you have a busy watchlist — billinghurst sDrewth 10:54, 15 January 2011 (UTC)


Hey AdamBMorgan,

I somewhat recently began importing some film into Wikisource, and I began categorizing poorly, Billinghurst suggested I removed what I was doing, which I have, and have since been working on creating portals (Portal:Film). It's in the very early stages now, but I am currently working with the idea that films can be listed (in the most generic way) by year, language, type (as in animation, b&w) and genre. Questions of maintainability have been brought up by Billinghurst with good reason, but he asked me to notify you that I am working on building these portals. Any suggestions or ideas let me know, or go do them! I'll talk to you soon. - Theornamentalist (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, I will build a page for films under the LoC system; I am curious though, is that the only way Portal space is defined in Wikisource? It seems pretty good for traditional text, but given that videos have such a narrow place in a gigantic range; so would a Children's film also be classified with Children's text? Either way, gonna build a page under ZA to encompass all films, but I will probably still work on the portal (willing to move it to different namespace if desired) I have been working on. I don't know, I've always liked the dynamic and showcase-like qualities of the Wikipedia portals... maybe Portal: is not the right prefix for use for what I'm working on; maybe collection or something. - Theornamentalist (talk) 18:40, 1 February 2011 (UTC)
I added the LoC header, although I don't know if the subclass is linked right, can you check it? I'm going to continue building under the film navigation thing I had secretly... maybe one day when there's enough content I will bring it back out. - Theornamentalist (talk) 16:02, 2 February 2011 (UTC)
Magnus has done an update of his intersection tool for WS, with possibly a few more tweaks to come. This would allow for us to do filter year of work and by other category from within the Category:YYYY works. As I see it we could apply a component to filter years of work by alternate media/genre, and we could think of other means to filter within categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
To note that WMF has given us mw:Extension:DynamicPageList (Wikimedia) which should allow us to some better and localised data gathering. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:00, 15 February 2011 (UTC)
Thanks, I look at them both when I get my computer up and running properly again. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:27, 17 February 2011 (UTC)
Welcome back. Didn't know that cyborgs had parts shops.winkbillinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

The Gateless Gate[edit]

Thanks for helping to make this happen…have been responding to questions on wp side. Was going to ask for a review by more experienced editors. I’ll stop by and provide links so you can observe the process. Thanks again…JamAKiska (talk) 22:58, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Posted request for copyright review for The Gateless gate and also on the formating side with The Gateless Gate. It would appear that a great number of folks have been helping to move this along…thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 13:55, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Index:Avon Fantasy Reader 10.djvu - TOC in wrong order[edit]

DYK that the TOC of the above is in the wrong order? Could you please correct it as soon as possible. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 08:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

The toc is that way in the scan, it is correct. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:41, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
I can make a special TOC for the index if it's necessary but, as Cygnis insignis says, the current one just transcludes the TOC page from the magazine itself. As I'm not sure which is the best solution at the moment, I am going to take no action on this for the time being. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:07, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

While your PC was sick …[edit]

… we have made some more incremental changes to point to headers [1]billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

don't sweat it, when we are finished, we will just bot what is remaining. — billinghurst sDrewth
Well, I'll at least try to fix those I edited in the last few days. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:02, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


When you moved Wikisource:Legislative documents/England to Portal:Acts of the Parliament of England you only moved 4 of the sub/pages leaving another 4 (which were lower down the page) behind. I checked by temporarily copying back an old copy of the page to Wikisource:Legislative documents/England and comparing the sub/pages to those available under the portal.

I only found out about the move because I was following a link from Wikipedia to Act declaring England to be a Commonwealth and there was no section in Portal:Acts of the Parliament of England and I was sure I had created one, because this legislation reminded me that I had. It is most unlikely that anyone else would have known that the sub/pages existed.

Perhaps you need to do some checks to see if there are any sub pages missing in the ports that you have ported. As an aid to porting like this in the future it might be a good idea to tell the original authors and/or the major contributor to a sub/page that you are making the move and ask them to check that the move goes according to plan.

BTW the reason I think sub/pages for that list of legislation is desirable and by regime is because the page on Wikipedia List of Ordinances and Acts of the Parliament of England, 1642–1660 is over 100k and it is not in a table (which would increase the size). -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:16, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry about that, I honestly thought I'd caught them all. I do scan through the Wikisource namespace to check for more indexes and miscellaneous bits and pieces, which should show up subpages too. Fortunately not that many pages use subpages so I don't think this problem was repeated elsewhere. Telling authors might have been difficult as I have moved about 600 pages now (not including the subpages); and it was mentioned in Scriptorium. Anyway, I think I've moved everything now, apart from a few remaining law lists which are going to be complicated, so it should not come up again. Speaking of which, I have no problem with the subpages or formatting and even stole the layout for Portal:Acts of the Parliament of the United Kingdom (which I believe was a case of a subpage, Anne, without a main page). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:14, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Roman Catholicism/Bishops[edit]

Wasn't sure of the best way to handle the start of what could be an elongated list, so I have added Bishops as a subpage, added {{portal header}} wrapped in <noinclude> then transcluded it to the lead page. Feel free to do whatever you feel more/most appropriate. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

I've changed the header to portal subpage for the moment; when it's grown up it can make its own way in the world as a standalone portal. In the mean time, I'll add bishops and any relevant material as I find it. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:01, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Sweet. Didn't even think to look for a subpage template. D'oh! — billinghurst sDrewth 03:54, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

PDFs question[edit]


I'm curious - in spite of it being replaced, how exactly did you manage to take all those PDFs (with their hidden text layers) and combine them into 1 PDF that also allowed for conversion with an OCR text layer being produced in the end to take place? I know there must be a way to combine PDFs into one, but never saw one retain all that hidden text flawlessly before. I might be facing the same deal in the coming weeks if I can't find suitable scans for certain years for the EO project is the reason I ask. — George Orwell III (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

I used Adobe Acrobat Professional (the Document>Insert Pages menu option) on my office computer. If necessary, I should be able to do the same again and combine files for you (if you can point me in the right direction). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:07, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. I appreciate the offer but I don't have the details sorted out quite just yet so I couldn't point to anything specific right now. I'm going to exhaust the available online archives first to see if I can't find & add them that way before I start making my own from individual PDFs. I'll come back to you if that option doesn't pan out (if that's OK with you that is). — George Orwell III (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
ps - best Author: entry ever


Don't know about you, but I'm thinking we might want a subpage for textbooks, thoughts? StateOfAvon (talk) 03:31, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Possibly, yes. Alternatively, there's also the option of creating Portal:Textbooks. I have to log off now anyway so I will at least stop making the situation worse (and I don't know if lots of red links is good or bad in this case). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:37, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
That's probably a better idea, you're right. (And I would say lots of redlinks is useful, especially when they have links) StateOfAvon (talk) 03:59, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

LOC classification[edit]

I'd like to start categorizing individual texts using LOC classification, but I don't know how best to do so--or if the WS community would even think it necessary... e.g., the works of Florence Earle Coates (poet) have LC Call Nos. of PS3505. Will/can categories be created here at WS such as: Category:Library of Congress Classification/Class P/Subclass PS/American literature/Individual authors/1900-1960? Or even as "simple" as Category:Library of Congress Classification/Class P/Subclass PS? I noticed the building up of Portals, but wasn't sure how they could/would ever be applied to categorize individual texts here... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:51, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I believe the WS community has been against creating parallel category trees in the past, so this might not get approval. However, there has been discussion about keeping metadata on record, which should include the LOC classification. I don't think the method of recording this metadata has been decided — it might use a new namespace or a template; it might even make use of tracking categories. I think building a template might work as a temporary measure to hold the metadata. The template could be added to either the mainspace page or the talk page. Once a decision has been made, the template could be amended to automatically categorise (or whatever) the text instead of a user changing each text individually (or the data could be extracted by a bot into a new namespace). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:24, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. It would be great to be able to have a catalogue (via LOC classification) of completed texts here--much better than the current manual method, in my opinion... Since WS has the Portals set up, what better use of the classification system than to link together the hundreds of thousands of texts/articles to them!? Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:58, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Ahh--just came across your LCC Proposal page. Will read. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:56, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
HVB--Criminology (for starters). Signing off, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Either HVB (as law enforcement) or JK (as an executive agency). I went with the latter as there is an existing red link at Portal:Federal Government of the United States/Executive branch (which also keeps the departments and agencies in one place). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I should point out that I may be wrong in this. The same applies to Portal:United States Army and Portal:United States Marine Corps but I put those (and others) in classes U and V, rather than JK. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As an aside, glancing at your Marine Corps portal...the Marines' Hymn, I believe, is in the public domain. This site (among others--to include Wikipedia) declares the same ("Copyright ownership of the Marines' Hymn was vested in the United States Marine Corps per certificate of registration dated August 19, 1991 but is now in the public domain."), but I can't confirm it... With regard to the concern on this page, is the copyright status of the arrangement in question? Or the words? Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:25, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Judging from the scan and the other link, the 1919 copyright is probably intended to cover just the words, as the arrangement has a 1868 copyright instead. However, both copyrights should have expired under United States law (pre-1923). I'm not sure why it was tagged for copyright problems; I don't know of any reason why it would be still under copyright. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:51, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Made an oops edit...Don't know how you want to deal with it? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:35, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Sorry for making you run all over the place... I transcribed the text in the Hymnal version to match the text in the image (there has been a change/changes made to the Hymn over the years), then came to find that I would need to undo your subsequent changes to the other WS instance of the Hymn... I'll check that one for current text accuracy later, but I have to make dinner now! Sorry for the confusion, if any! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:59, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
I believe our messages have "crossed in the post," I've just a left a comment on your talk page about this. Quick version - they keep changing verses. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:03, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
Thanks! Or, should I say, Semper Fidelis!? I guess it works for transcription too--What's Latin for "Faithful transcription"?! Should be the motto for Wikisource ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:48, 27 March 2011 (UTC)
As the French say, "Translations, like women, are faithful or beautiful, but rarely both". ;) StateOfAvon (talk) 19:12, 31 March 2011 (UTC)
You're likely right... JK as an executive agency... But some works published by/about could fall under other categories individually. I like to use this site to classify individual works. Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:58, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Incidental checkuser hit[edit]

To let you know while running a checkuser for an IP data range supplied for a vandal at enWP, your edits came up on that range. I have wiped my mind of the specific information, but just wanted to let you know that I will be feeding back general information about an active administrator at enWS in the reported range. Billinghurst (talk) 12:49, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice. I was blocked from Wikipedia for a short time based on an IP vandal, which is probably the same one. I'd forgotten about it to be honest; I got an exemption almost as soon as I found out. Hopefully this isn't going to be a problem. (Although I might have to change my home ISP at some point anyway.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:39, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Dated soft redirect[edit]

Just wondering whether you have seen the task that TalBot (talkcontribs) does to tidy up soft redirects. Wondering whether deleting the redirects now or we convert then using {{dated soft redirect}} and let the bot tidy up in three months where it follows backlinks, etc. Not that I particularly mind either way. Billinghurst (talk) 10:47, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've seen it in action a few times but didn't make the connection with the stuff I'm doing now. I think I'll carry on as I am for the smaller redirects (that is, only a few works link through it) and especially those no longer used at all; it won't be much more work in these cases to do things manually, maybe less. For the bigger, more thoroughly used redirects, though, soft redirects and Talbot would be ideal. Thanks, AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)