User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 4

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 3 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 4 Archive 5
All talk threads for the third quarter of 2011

Downsides to Template:Autolink[edit]

For many of these major works we already have specific templates that are set up to link the works, eg. {{DNB lkpl}} and may similar from Category:Internal link templates. There you may also notice a couple of backbone type templates that allow the building of reference specific templates. The advantage of work specific templates is that we can track links specifically. So I can see some use for Autolink, I wouldn't want it to be at the expense of the very specific templates that exist. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I can re-work it to call other templates instead, with the general function reserved for everything else. I have been finding lists of, for example, PSM links both difficult to read properly while editing and involving unnecessary duplication. The template (either form) will also allow for the formating of all links to be tweaked centrally without having to change all instances manually. The general form, with the ability to pull parameters directly from the page name, is a little more simple and elegant. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:29, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

Picturesque Nepal upload conflict[edit]

If you want to do some uploads, I have stopped for the moment and won't start again before 0900 (GMT+1) Monday. File:Picturesque Nepal pg 065.jpg is the next to be done.--Laverock ( Talk ) 18:08, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

Portal:Provincial Medical and Surgical Association and Portal:British Medical Journal[edit]

I just created the second, and the first pre-exists. I have just found out that the second is the successor to the first, and now need a fresh brain to help me work which way to go. Can we have sequential portals? Is that even a good idea? To note that I have created British Medical Journal and it is not my intent to populate that unless we get a scanned volume, instead I was looking for the portals for compiling the ad hoc articles that we accumulate. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:25, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with sequential portals, although the "previous" slot was repurposed for the parent portal(s). It has not come up before, althought it might apply with a few of the country portals. I'm not sure which is the best way to link between them; just adding a wikilink in the notes is the easiest but isn't standardised in the way a parameter would be (if we need standardisation). Alternatively, a fuller explanation and a link could be added somewhere in the body, which could provide more information to the reader. If a standard method is needed, the portal header may need to be re-written. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:51, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks ...[edit]

... for cleaning up so quickly after me. --Mietchen (talk) 18:35, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Treasury of War Poetry edition moves/merges[edit]

Thanks for taking this up... There are quite a few more pages that will eventually need to be dealt with that I have laid out on my user page. I would appreciate any recommendations on how I could be dealing with these better—or if I should keep on as I am (i.e., requesting deletes after I have replaced the 1919 version with the 1917)...? Sorry to make a potential mess for you! Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

You can carry on with the way you're doing it if you like. Merge & delete isn't that hard and it isn't time critical (the speedy delete templates can happily sit there until dealt with by me or another admin); besides there aren't that many poems left in A Treasury of War Poetry (2nd Series). Technically, you could do the move part yourself. E.g. from A Treasury of War Poetry (2nd Series)/whatever to Page:A treasury of war poetry, British and American poems of the world war, 1914-1919.djvu/XX (assuming that page hasn't been created yet). That would keep the history but it would mess up the page status. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:56, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Completely disregard that. I've got a better idea. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:57, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Okay... But please be sure to note how the new "titles" are in actuality links to anchors in a Page (e.g., the section "England" has its own page with multiple poems housed therein), and titles such as Expeditional are redirects to anchors on that page... That is, single poems do not have their own Mainspace page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
I see what you're doing! Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:19, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
(e/c) Please check Italy and America. The page histories are preserved in the mainspace, the pages are ready for you to proofread the DjVu, I haven't touched the titles at all, and this should avoid the need to speedy delete anything. Is the format correct (I copied it from Ireland)? Does this cause any problems? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Not that I can think of right now! I think once the pages have been proofread/transcluded, it should all fall into place! Thanks for doing all this... Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:46, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
It's no problem. All the poems on your list (except those marked "hold") should be done now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:36, 9 August 2011 (UTC)
Good to go... and thank you for the "pointer" on the 1919 edition page as well! We don't need another "me" coming along and re-adopting the old work again! ;) Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Any opinions on what to do with/how to present poems from the unindexed Second Series (1919) edition that are not present in the earlier indexed 1917 edition? I assume I will come across more than the three I have noted on my User page (in the table), and it seems like it would be at least useful(?) to make mention of the added poems somewhere/somehow—even if merely hosting them thusly [[A Treasury of War Poetry (2nd Series)/St. George's Day]]—without being indexed, but with a link to an online page image source on the Discussion page. Just for reference, the reason the 1917 edition was chosen to be indexed here over the 1919 was because more poems were present in the 1917 edition, and so—the more the merrier... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

They could be left where they are, at least for the time being, as you say. Perhaps at some point the 1919 edition ( will be added alongside the 1917, just to collect all the later additions (it might be interesting to be able to show the differences). We can add the link to the scan at the Internet Archive to the remainder of A Treasury of War Poetry (2nd Series) (in the "incomplete" tag), just as a pointer for anyone who wants to add that work and to forestall any potential deletion. (As for 1917 vs. 1919, adding the first edition before the second makes sense anyway.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:17, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The Facts in the Case of M. Valdemar, did we consider a move and versions?[edit]

A bit hard to tell without burying into the two variations of the work, but I am wondering whether this may have been a case of going to a move and having a replacement {{versions}}, and from what has been done it is hard to tell whether that was part of your consideration or otherwise. Do we know whether the two sources for the work are the same or is there a difference? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The wording was the same on both copies; Amazing Stories only added the picture and the boxed preface in their version. The source for the preceding version was almost certainly not Amazing Stories but it did not quote any source at all, which is the main reason for simply superceding it. I did think about {{versions}} but with no provenance for the copy-and-paste version and no editorial differences in the body of the text that I noticed, I thought it would be awkward to keep both—I'm not even sure what the version of the pre-existing text was nor how to rename if I did move it (and I did think that there was some consensus for doing this; now I'm not sure where I got that). I should probably have merged the history. I can find a version on and quickly add that too if a separate publication is necessary.
Regarding {{versions}}: I've actually been thinking more about this template in the context of Off on a Comet (in two parts over two issues, with a version already on Wikisource, possible variantions in translation). Even without the pre-existing version and translation issue, this or a similar template might be the best way to host serialised fiction.
Incidentally, the same thing has happened with The New Accelerator. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:55, 12 August 2011 (UTC) has a copy of the original publication (in The American Review). The only potential problem with adding that is it will leave a 500+ page DjVu file to be proofread as well. That itself isn't the problem; rather, I'm trying to not add more indexes to my list until I've cleared some of my personal backlog and I don't know if anyone else will be interested enough to proofread it. I'm not sure if having seemingly abandoned, unfinished Index pages is OK or undesirable (there won't be a technical problem, just policy). What do you think? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:24, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. You did think about it and that resulted in your judgment call; I am comfortable with trusting your judgment. I just wanted that assurance. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

The last word is different. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:12, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

So it is; I missed that. However, I still don't know what version this is. Regardless, I have begun proofreading The American Review and the very first publication of this story will be here eventually (at which point I'll change the redirect to a disambiguation page). Ironically, the last word is the same in both versions so it was probably an error in proofreading in the copy-and-paste version. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:24, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

SHSP Vol.II[edit]

Adam, header shows: "Diary of Captain E. E. Park" but it should be R. E Park (Robert) E. Park. I do not know how to change that header and perhaps I am not allowed to? I did change the text within though. Thank you, William Maury Morris II 03:11, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - more on your talk page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:22, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

I like[edit]

I really like your Proofreading example and propose to be included in the general proofreading Help pages.— Ineuw talk 04:28, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. It isn't quite finished yet but I thought it might be useful. I'm trying to (slowly) improve the help documentation available; it seems to be the biggest complaint newcomers have regarding Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2011 (UTC)

Author names/initials[edit]

Thanks for the redirect for Pickthall... I read dialogue here recently about what the best practice should be for author names, initial use, common use, etc., but can't remember where the discussion was or what the decision was, if there was one. I'll try to find the reference again to brush up. I have quite a few more author pages to add yet that are similar to Pickthall's, so I'll try to be "good" about getting it right the first time, and adding redirects as necessary. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:16, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

There isn't actually any policy about names and the discussion did not come to any conclusion. (I think I started th mose recent discussion, I was caught out by this recently, and there isn't anything available to explain the situation). Therefore, I've just started Wikisource:Author names; it's an essay not a policy (and I need to clean it up a bit later) but it should summarise the situation. I've been thinking of using essays to explain some of the arcane practices and elements of Wikisource, information should be available without the need to excavate the Scriptorium archives (or, worse, random talk pages). This seemed like a good time to start. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:40, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:55, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the following was meant for you...[edit]

The following is brought over from my Talk:Page Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:20, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Southern Historical Society Papers[edit]

Adam, something strange has happened with volume 1. The image I transcribe has disappeared after transcription. Thus, I cannot flip through the pages to see the images to be transcribed. Please be so kind as to look into this. Thank you, —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:58, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Place de la Concorde, et al.[edit]

Hi, Adam,

"Place" should actually be made into a versions page, as there is another version also hosted here. Thanks for all the other stuff you've been taking care of as well... Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:02, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't notice the other version. The rest isn't problem, I like doing stuff like this. The Treasury being on the front page prompted me to try to fill out Portal:War poetry a bit more (on which I'm still working), which is how I noticed the need for redirects (or versions in this case). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:36, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
I like doing stuff like that too, so let me know if you're ever in a bind... I have lots of Coates version pages to get to as a result of her 2 vol. 1916 collection and previous collections. I'll get to it some day! Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:44, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Proper format[edit]

Adam, please see

I added an 1856 speech but I could not link to "Author" properly due to length of title. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 00:35, 19 September 2011 (UTC)


So we have to manually add authors to the Wikisource:Authors pages then? I think I remember adding some here and there myself in the past, but then forgot about the necessity... I have some back-tracking to do. It would be nice if once an author page was created, it could be added automatically somehow...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:52, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'm afraid it is manual. The author categories are automatic, if that helps. I don't think everyone updates the WS:Author pages, the categories remain the main index, so you don't have to consider it strictly necessary (or at least not urgent) if there's a lot to do. It should be technically possible to complete the pages by bot (the information is held in a standard and clear format in both the WS:Author pages and the individual author pages) but I do not know of one and I don't know how to create one (yet). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Thanks for the info... I'll add it to my list of (non-urgent) things to do! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:46, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

SHSP Vol.26[edit]

Adam, could you, or rather, "would you please" set up shsp <vol.26> for me to edit? There are some tidbits of history there that I am anxious to get to. Even if not, I thank you for the consideration. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:33, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

SHSP Vol.1[edit]

Adam, Under "Note:" The 2nd paragraph should be as small as the 1st paragraph. I see the code in the 2nd paragraph at the end but it isn't functioning. Respectfully, Maury - —William Maury Morris II Talk 08:51, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

I've changed it; it should work properly now. I think the line break might have been causing the template formatting to end (although templates don't usually work like that). Regardless, I just used two separate formatting templates and it seems to be OK now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:22, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

SHSP Vol.26[edit]


Adam, I gave the above my best try but no way can I do what you do with codes. So, would you be so kind as to look it over and correct any or all of it? I included an image that I had cleaned and uploaded to commons. BTW, the main reason I requested vol.26 is because (Diary of Captain Robert Emory Park) is actually the 1st part of his diary that was found and sent to him. Thus the 2nd part in SHSP started *before* the lost and found part of his diary. The headers in the 2 parts also differ but I kept them as the SHSP has them. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 07:09, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I didn't seem much I could do to that page but I've validated. The image had a border because of the thumb parameter, removing that word solved that. I've meddled with some font sizes and used {{small-caps}} in a few places but that's just cosmetic. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:46, 30 September 2011 (UTC)