User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 7

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
← Archive 6 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 7 Archive 8 →
All talk threads for the second quarter of 2012


English Statutes[edit]

A couple of years ago you very kindly started a process of providing some lists of English Statutes & Acts Of Parliment.

For some of the pre Tudor Material you provided some lists of Short Ttitles.

I've recently taken another look over these with a view to eventually transcribing a (1763)ish version of Owen Ruffhead's 'Statutes At Large' (Which is currently on hold owing to which Wikisource it should be transcribes at owing to the side-by-side translations of some Statutes/Acts )

However, that hasn't stopped me from transcribing the table given in the front of the volume concerned, and which I am trying to reconcile (i.e add possible links) against various other sources (including Wikipedia & Wikisource's efforts.). In the process of doing that, I'd also like to update the Portal's Generated for various Monarchs :O

Would you be willing to consider expanding upon your earlier efforts upto the Act of Union, Based on the format I was using at Edw3. (Technicaly the Statutes of the Realm goes up to 1714 (The end of Queen Anne's reign), and Ruffhead (in the edition I found to 1764), but the Act of Union seems a reasonable cut-off)

My efforts so far have been in relation to:

The impossible goal, would of course to be to try and have the full original text (as far as possible) of each Statute or Act ever passed in the UK (or it's precursors.) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 00:16, 3 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I have attempted this with Henry V and it seems to be working, if a little incomplete at this stage. While I was doing this, I noticed that part of Ruffhead was transcluded to Repeal of 38 Hen. 6, etc. Act 1460. It is best to keep all parts of one work under the same main page. Among other things, it makes moving and manipulating the whole work easier and keeps everything manageable. As such, I moved the page to The Statutes at Large (Ruffhead)/Volume 1/Repeal of 38 Hen. 6, etc. Act 1460, leaving a redirect that categorises into Category:1460 works and Category:Acts of the English Parliament. To support this, I have started the transclusion of the main pages of the work; mostly title pages at this stage. Everything can be edited and moved around again when this settles. Secondly, the page I moved was a mixture of proofread and original work. As the original work was just a placeholder, I deleted it. The original translation will need to be a separate work from Ruffhead, attributed to Wikisource and licenced accordingly. For example, Repeal of 38 Hen. 6, etc. Act 1460 (Wikisource translation). I will try Henry VI later. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 18:25, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much :)

If you are able to help get this (and the other 8 Volumes transferred intow Wikisource so much the better :) The reason for the link of the particular Act you note above was because the hope was to eventually link the statute text's from Ruffhead to the tables of Acts as they exist on the Portals....

In adding details to the portals -the following may be of use - http://archive.org/details/chronologicalta01commgoog, I'm trying to get someone to do a transfer of the DjVu to Commons, It only goes up to 1878 ish though.

If you know of scans of the updated tables the HMSO made in the 1950's it would be much appreciated. The last revision of the 'Chronological Tables' I can find reference to online is an updated version made around 2007, but that doesn't seem to be online.. So I'm stuck with using the older material that I have found.

The Long title(s) I was using were from Ruffhead, but I've got no objection to you adding in 'Alternates' if they can be sourced to official stuff, like for example the HMSO tables) or the National Archives (UK).

Some follow up on the tables : i) The table formatting might need tweaking so that the columns line up (There's an experimental nested layout here - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/User:ShakespeareFan00/collapsing_tables but I don't want to use that one for real use just yet..) The other alternative layotu is on the relevant portal page for Richard II. (You might of course want to revert that back to having seperate tables of course..)

ii) The importance of the Short title(s) is that they seem to be the De-facto way of linking to specific portions, Perhaps the link of the Portal pages should in effect be to disambig pages, depending on which versions are needed? (and in any case perhaps the stuff in Latin, French should be on other Wikisource anyway?)

iii) I'd like feedback on how to handle transcluding from pages that have side-by side translation, http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/60 transcluding something like this where the side by side translation goes over a page break will be a hassle to resolve ;). The act you reworked showed part of a soloution...

Thanks for your efforts on this , It's appreciated...

I've been busy over the last few days and haven't had much time to do more than small things. However, I have uploaded Index:Chronological Table and Index of the Statutes.djvu if you think that will help and the second volume of Ruffhead is now on Commons too.
i) Having the columns line up is good. As long as the information is there and it is correct, it should be enough in the short term.
ii) If there are two versions available, the short title should be a disambiguation page as you say. With just one version of an Act on Wikisource, a redirect from the short title to the text of the Act seems to easiest way to handle things.
iii) I still thinking of the best way to transclude.. I have experimented a bit with sectional transclusion to place the title at the top and the two versions side-by-side but this has not worked well so far. The pages you have already transcluded, such as Statutes of Merton, seem to work quite well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
THANK YOU! Award yourself a Barnstar ! :) Sfan00 IMG (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Links to scans[edit]

Hello AdamBMorgan,

Do you think it would be a good idea to add links to scans to the {{media}} template and can you do it? Example here. Or would it be a better idea to create a separate template? I appreciate very much all the work you have done. Regards, --Zyephyrus (talk) 10:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think a separate template would be the best method. {{media}} is just a key for icons used in the bibliography below. The link to scans on Charles Dickens' page is different; it actually does something for a start. Separate templates also means more flexibility, so you don't have to add both functions (key and scans) where only one applies and they can be adapted slightly to the needs of different pages. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:32, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Missing SHSP vols.[edit]

Adam,

I think I am going to have to scan the missing volumes. I have attempted to place volume 41 [[1]] on WS but this is not going well. If nothing else it is too crowded on one page. It's easy enough to type in the text. If I create the .PDF files do I have to convert them to .djvu files? Too, after I upload a .PDF file to commons can you pull the page images onto WS so we can have the text beside the images? Kind regards, Maury [—William Maury Morris II Talk 21:26, 14 April 2012 (UTC) ][reply]

PDF should be fine. If you want to convert to DjVu, there is a website that does this (or even the Internet Archive, which will convert as part of its standard process). Whichever you choose, I can create the Index pages for them and get everything set up here.
NB: I have volume 9 almost ready to upload and about a third of volume 41 downloaded. As mentioned before, Hathi Trust has these, and volume 42, but only allows single page downloads and even disallows lots of downloads in a short space of time. This is a little frustrating. (The Hathi Trust pages are watermarked as Google scans but I cannot find them on Google.) So, if the scanning process is, or becomes, a problem, these volumes at least are available elsewhere. (I'll try to push volume 9 to get it up in the next few days). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:03, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can scan the missing volumes but I don't want to scan something you are already working with and volume 41 is an excellent example. We both are working on that at the same time and not aware the other is also. The scans I make don't show anything at the bottom. Perhaps I should create one that shows "Morgan & Morris" ;0) -- or "Wikisource". I can also download the even, or odd numbered pages on the volume from Hathi Trust and you would only have to download 1/2 the number of pages. I myself prefer not to have "Google" shown. I would rather scan the volumes. I wonder where the OCR takes place. Should I OCR the .PDF files I will do before uploading them? I suppose I scan at 600 dpi? I have seen two Google Book Sales sites. I think Google owns them both but it isn't obvious at first. Hathi Trust may be another, or someone getting paid for scanning for Google. Okay, I will start scanning volume 5 while you continue with volume 41. Both are small. Maury, <—William Maury Morris II Talk 23:36, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[2]Hathi Trust, N.Y. Times article: "An elephant backs up Googles Library". Also see Wikipedia. —William Maury Morris II Talk 23:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 09.djvu — it didn't take as long as I thought it would; the OCR isn't archive.org quality but it's OK. It looks like I only have about 100 pages left to go with volume 41; although I will have to merge them all later. How about I finish that one but I don't start on volume 42; then you can scan 5, 7, 10, 11 and 42 onwards? Wikisource does (now) have its own OCR software but it would be best to OCR the PDF before upload as well. I'm not sure what the best settings are as I've only done this a few times myself. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I will plan on scanning the volumes you have stated. The scanning is going well so far—just boring! At points I will take scanning breaks and just edit books I have been working on. Therefore even a scanning break is still WS work done. I can make these scans smaller by cropping the white space at top, botttom, gutters and margins. Thus less white space and less file size. I am scanning "line art/text" with b/w @600 dpi. The images look good and all are clean with no discolorations. Do you think I should leave all of that extra white space? I see no reason for it but you might so I ask. —William Maury Morris II Talk 01:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Unless filesize is a problem, I would leave the whitespace. Every volume so far has had the whitespace and we even keep entirely blank pages. It shouldn't make much difference once it has been uploaded. You could be making more work for yourself unnecessarily and you will have a few thousand pages to crop by the end. (The work pattern sounds like a good idea.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I finished scanning SHSP_vol.5 last night and included the white space. All images are clean with no discoloration. I suppose I just upload the .PDF to archives.org? There it will automatically be converted to .djvu? I think it will be better as a .PDF file but I don't know because I haven't done uploading there. Other .PDF files I download from there look good.--Maury
I am uploading to archive.org so that it will be OCD'r. I can re-upload to Commons later if so desired. I cannot see your last statements here as I now type. There isn't even an option to "edit". It is as though someone has tinkered with my preferences when using this browser (MS-8). Meanwhile my Firefox browser is still uploading to archives.org ( I do have a library card :)

I placed it in public domain for anyone to use.

http://archive.org/details/SHSP-05_wmm It stated that it may take a few hours to create the other types of files and extensions shuch as a .djvu file, &c. —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Upload error...

Array
(
    [edit] => Array
        (
            [assert] => 
        )

    [error] =>
I don't know what this means. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am convinced it uploaded properly because I watched it for a long time while a small uploading "blue line" showed the progress. At the end it stated the file was successfully uploaded. It is a very large file due to the page scans being at 600 dpi. I saw no error message of any kind. I guess archive.org is converting the .PDF file to multiple file extensions such as EPUB, DJVU, &c. but still, it should not take so long. Perhaps try downloading the file to your computer. The scans themselves are very clear. All of my hardcopy volumes are very clean. I wonder if I can upload all of the images seperately to Commons -- if there is a Category? What do you think of this idea? If "yes", please create the Category and point me to it. I have forgotten how. The SHSP-05_wmm.PDF file itself takes too long. Okay? —William Maury Morris II Talk 23:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It is possible to upload page images to Commons but creating the Index on Wikisource would be very difficult. I've started downloading the PDF but this will take a while. I'm not familiar enough with archive.org to know what the problem might be; it might help to ask someone for assistance at that site, maybe it's something simple and easy to fix. I'll see what happens with the download and perhaps create the Commons category after that. (NB: If you want to start the category yourself just, (1) click this link: Commons:Category:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 5 (or a page with a similar name); (2) click "create this page"; (3) type this: [[Category:Southern Historical Society Papers]] and (4) save the page.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, I downloaded SHSP-05_wmm and it still works fine. I am wondering if you can place it on WS? I don't want to start scanning another volume unless I know this one will work.—William Maury Morris II Talk 06:44, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've downloaded and it works (and its a good quality scan by the way). I am still fiddling with it. Part of the problem might be that it's too good: the limited OCR software I have aborted because "the page size is above the maximum of 45 x 45 inches". This reminded me that Wikimedia's file size limit is 100MB. I'm sorry I did not bring this up before you started your work; the problem has never come up for me in the past and I had forgotten all about the limit. (In reference to earlier comments, I don't think the whitespace would have had a significant effect on this; blank areas take up little memory regardless of the amount of it.) This still would not have affected archive.org and I have no idea why it would not open there nor why it is not deriving other formats. I have uploaded larger files to the archive, although the few I have uploaded were zip files of jpeg page images rather than PDF files. I can't see why that would make any difference, however. I will continue trying to work with this file. My next approach is to reduce the page size and re-run OCR, hopefully without much loss, and see what happens (any loss is probably going to be due to the basic software involved rather than the scans). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I think I scanned those pages too high at 600 dpi. The images should be excellent for printing but obviously something caused a problem and image size is the only thing I can think of. Thank you for the tip on file size limits on WikiMedia. I do not know if archives.org has a file size limit. It's strange because when you downloaded other SHSP Files, a couple of times you got 2 files in one download. [45" x 45" ? ] You could print out a square poster. Reduction of file size might work, I certainly hope so, there are more volumes to scan. What program are you using if you don't mind my asking? I sure would like to try to uplload all of the images to a Category where you could easly get to them. Oh....you already have them, geez, I don't know what to do other than re-scan all pages. I will telephone one of my sons who is deep into computer technology and who I have to look up to in my old age, in more ways than one, and ask some questions about this. All of the .PDF Files can be saved as images.jpg &c. I will also take a look at some Google files for comparison of sizes. Do you have to have all files at once to create the Index pages or can you "stich" the images together? I am very sorry it didn't work. I will explore. —William Maury Morris II Talk 02:12, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid that 107.6 MB is still 7.6 MB too much. Apparently this is a technical limit on Wikimedia Commons. There are a few options. DjVu files are naturally smaller (and I'm beginning to see part of why they are used more), so that might be a solution; either the Internet Archive finally deriving the DjVu or using a website like any2djvu. You could batch resize again (just a bit).—Incidentally, that's more technical than my approach. I ended up cheating and using Adobe Acrobat at work: although the built in "reduce filesize" function actually produced a slightly larger file, I was able to print to PDF (using another program as a fake printer that created a new PDF with the print data) and get a much smaller file; I used the built in OCR on this (although this is still not great OCR). I left the PDF on my computer at work, however, so I can't share at the moment.—Back to options, you could also upload the page images and derive both a new PDF, as well as everything else, at the archive. There might also be something that can be done to the PDF to remove that last 7.6 MB. Anyway, at least we're getting closer to the final scan. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:56, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Lions, and Tigers, and Bears, Oh my ! There is a djvu file there but the size is larger (111.8 M) instead of smaller than the .PDF file and yet it was generated by archive.org. My main concern at this point is getting the images too small so that resolution would be lost. Presently the resolution is still good. This is an absurd situation. Back to the drawing board. —William Maury Morris II Talk 22:13, 20 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As per the later message, I will wait for this to derive before doing anything. It is amusing to see the DjVu as larger than the original PDF when smaller file size is one of the format's selling points. Anyway, we should be able to proceed soon. Regarding illustrations: For Wikisource's purposes, the final product is the version in the mainspace. These illustrations don't need to come from the PDF, they can be extracted from your original scans, so the resolution won't be a problem here (although this is not the case for people using the PDFs directly from the Internet Archive). I'm glad everything appears to be working now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:41, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Contributors to the Southern Historical Society Papers[edit]

[[3]] Author:Matthew Fontaine Maury. " A Vindication of Virginia and the South " —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHSP vol.5[edit]

Adam,

I have just finished uploading volume 5 which I compressed to 64.8 megabytes. It is in the process now of being OCR'd and making other formats such as .djvu, epub, et cetera. I downloaded the .pdf file and the resolution remained good so the text portion, once processed by archive.org, should also be good. In all of these trials, I had not "set a compression ratio" until this upload. This was new to me but I understand the process in my program. http://archive.org/details/SHSP-05-wm is 64.8 M PDF but let archive.org run through the processes, especially its OCR process. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 20:00, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I will transfer it as soon as I notice the derived files (and I'm glad to see that the derivation process worked on the previous uploads too). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think that small file will create derived files. It seems to me that it has had plenty of time for any derived files to be created. I downloaded it and checked the OCR and that is intact from my doing OCR on the .pdf before I uploaded the file. I ask, would it be easier to work with at this point to place that file on WikiCommons? Y/N? BTW, archive.org allows Gigabytes to be uploaded. I read that last night. Firefox, which I use, will handle uploading/downloading Gigabytes. —William Maury Morris II Talk 00:47, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK. Index:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 05.pdf (I used the same name format as the prior files because I like things to keep to the same pattern). I don't know why the Commons limit was set as it is; I believe it used to be lower. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:27, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NB: From correcting the page numbering: There appears to jump after p. 263. There's a hyphenated word between the two pages, which appears to be correct, so I assume this is a typo in the original. (There's also a duplicate of p. 285 too but that can just be ignored.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:30, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I knew you could handle that file. I haven't seen anything technical defeat you yet and I do follow your footprints to learn from you. I like the same pattern too as it's not confusing. A duplicate--oops! I spent a lot of time trying not to have duplicates or missing images. I have learned a lot in all of this too--including the fact that I had never uploaded anything to archive.org before this experiment of ours. Well, Adam, SHSP-5 was not on all of Internet and now, after our struggles, experimentation, more struggles and learing, it is on wikisource! I think we should get a gold medal award for this! wink —William Maury Morris II Talk 02:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
pages 264-5 are MIA —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:04, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can you insert the 2 missing pages? They were never in the original file. My fault. —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:36, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can make an Errata page that makes an appropriate statement and points to the last two blank pages where the text can be inserted for pages 264, 265. —William Maury Morris II Talk 04:49, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If you can make the two missing pages available, I can insert them into the PDF at the right place. I'm not sure which way be best. Can you create a PDF of just pages 264-5 and upload it directly to Wikisource? I can add them to the current version and then delete the two pages on Wikisource when I am done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can certainly try. "WikiSource" or WikiCommons? I thought nothing is supposed to be uploaded to WikiSource. I really want to do some editing on shsp-05 for awhile if you don't mind. Hopefully the other missing volumes will be easier now that we have explored the process so much. You're fantastic with the many kinds of work that you do! BTW, all of the text for shsp-05 is located in my sandbox which I will delete later. I fully intended to get shsp-05 here one way or another. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 17:20, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No rush; it's your project. I say upload to Wikisource as I can delete files on Wikisource but not Commons. It's just way to get the file to me so I can insert them into the existing PDF. There are other ways, like Google Docs, but Wikisource seemed easy and appropriate. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:31, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to upload the 2 pages within 10 minutes or less to WikiSource. —William Maury Morris II Talk 19:48, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
File:5 264-265.pdf Done —William Maury Morris II Talk 19:58, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that's done. I have inserted the new pages, deleted the duplicate, uploaded the new PDF, renumbered the Index page and deleted the two-page PDF on Wikisource. I also deleted one of the blank pages you had saved as, with the modified PDF, this page was no longer blank. Deleting it made it easier to re-create the page with OCR'd text layer available; I hope you don't mind that. Volume 5 should be entirely finished up to the proofreading stage now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent! You always do good work. Personally, I would remove all blank pages at the end of a book except for one. —William Maury Morris II Talk 18:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/* SHSP 9 and 41 */[edit]

Adam, are you still "pushing on volume 9" and volume 41? Just curious. I would like to see all volumes, the complete set, on Wikisource and be done with them.

Too, there are about 31 volumes of the 40 volume set of "The Confederate Veteran" magazine on archive.org I have looked at and downloaded 31 volumes. All of these materials allows for a tremendous amount of primary source cross-referencing and photo gathering. It is not that I need any of them because I have the hardcopy volumes plus I have them on searchable DVD or CD as welll as all 100+ of the Official Records" I *think* the Confederate Veteran set is priced now is $2,000 sold by Tom Broadfoot's company in Carolina. All of this is American History and it will never go away because, in part, it is considered by some as the "Second American Revolutionary War" Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Scratch out shsp-vol.9, we have it.—William Maury Morris II Talk 04:13, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm still working on volume 41 (almost all downloaded, although I will have to reassemble it at the end). Moving files from the Internet Archive is easier, so the first 15 volumes of Confederate Veteran are on Commons (I will upload the rest soon too). So when you want to start on one all that is needed is an Index page. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I like your pulp zines a LOT better! -- Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 08:30, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
How would one go about creating the Index page? I like to get as many volumes started as soon as possible because perhaps some others will come along and contribute to the transcriptions once everything is laid out. Kind Regards for this beautiful day, —William Maury Morris II Talk 14:23, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The quick and dirty way is to just start a page with the same name as the scan, except replace the "File:" prefix with an "Index:" prefix. ie. File:Confederate Veteran volume 01.djvu becomes Index:Confederate Veteran volume 01.djvu. At that point you can enter details (title, editor, year etc) or just save the page; the details can be filled in at any time. As for those details: it helps if the title, author and volume are wikilinked to jump to the right page; the progress should be set as needs proofreading, to put it in the right category; volumes will probably need a special template. There's a quick overview at Help:Beginner's guide to Index: files. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that was easy but it didn't fly. I think I had best stick with what I think I know how to do. Too, I still have compression issues with the shsp volumes I have yet to scan. —William Maury Morris II Talk 19:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Back asap, I took a short break from mowing my lawn. I don't know where you are but the temperature here today, and projected for a week, is 90 degrees. —William Maury Morris II Talk 21:11, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
London, UK: It's been raining for a week and is forecast to continue (although we are in a technical drought and hose pipe bans started a short time ago). Incidentally, the only problem with the index you started was a rogue full-stop. I've removed it and purged the data; it's working now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:06, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
London, England, a place of great antiquity, history, and architecture. Home to many of my own ancestors. My wife traveled all over London. Blindness never stops that woman. Well, sir, I am honoured to meet you. I ask, this rogue full stop -- is that something typical or unusual? I am wondering if another would stop me for the other volumes. I will go do a comparison to see what stopped me. I had expected images to pour in like a flood. Most Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 01:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/* Confederate Veteran Volumes */[edit]

Adam,

Thank you so very much for teaching me these things. I was reluctant because I did not want to fail and also because I did not want to mess something up on Wikisource. Respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 16:04, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adam, I ran into a problem with volume 16 and could not fix it. Same thing happened with volumes 17, and 18 when I tried to continue onward. I have halted now. The previous volums 1-15 worked easily and there were no problems. Can you please look into what has happened starting with volume 16. It shows red lettering and states, No such volume. —William Maury Morris II Talk 22:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's probably my fault. I got the file names wrong for a block of uploads and didn't notice at first (I repeated the word "File"). I've marked them to be renamed... and a quick check on Commons shows that that has been done now. So, they should work now. If the pages still aren't working properly, purging the memory should fix it—edit the page and either (1) replace the word "edit" at the end the URL with "purge" and enter to go that page, or, (2) just save with no changes. Sorry about the slip up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My friend, no offense but I am pleased it was your slip-up because I have so many and it's a rare thing for you! I am enjoying this process since it's new to me. I am really enjoying this process. You have had the patience of JOB (Bible) in teaching me so many things. Most respectfully, Maury (—William Maury Morris II Talk 03:22, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Review requested[edit]

  1. Page:Chronological_Table_and_Index_of_the_Statutes.djvu/29 Any thoughts?
  2. I note an absence of data for the portals relating to Acts of the English Parliament passed under the Stuart Monarchs?

Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:11, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  1. It looks like everything is working here. Is there anything specific that you wanted reviewed?
  2. These portals were moved from existing pages in the Wikisource namespace, which were almost certainly just copied and pasted from Wikipedia. They probably had not been filled in to that level at the time but it should be easy enough to copy and paste the rest now. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've added lists to James I and Charles I based on Wikipedia's List of Acts of the Parliament of England, 1603–1641. Is this useful? It doesn't look like all of the short titles are complete (where they are in brackets) but this might just require adding the word "Act" and the year to the end of each description. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:07, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... What was on Wikipedia seems to have been cribed from the Chronological tables, I was actually needing the Short Titles to be able to wikilink the chapter numbers and so-on. But it's a start. There is a later print version of the Chronological Tables which should have the short titles for the period in question, IIRC Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
BTW There are a number of other sequences of Statute Collections (I've included links to Archive.org for some volumes namely:
  1. By Danby Pickering & others - Various - Under 'Statutes at Large' (from Google it seems) (These are NOT the Ruffhead ones)
  2. 'Statutes of the Realm' - (Single volume at http://archive.org/details/statutesrealm00etcgoog & http://archive.org/details/statutesrealm01etcgoog - The 'Statutes of the Realm is a multi volume work that contains nearly All the General Acts from Hen3 up to the Death of Queen Anne.
  3. Revised Statute (revised upto c. 1868) in 4 vols - 1st vol is http://archive.org/details/statutes00britgoog
  4. The Statutes Revised (3rd Ed) (1950) HMSO / Stautues in Force (4th Ed.) (If someone can find scans of this it might be suitable for Wikisource) - Later editions continued until 1991 , when the print publication was replaced by a computerised system, that eventually became legislation.gov.uk.
  5. Public General Statutes (for 1896}} - http://archive.org/details/publicgeneralst00unkngoog 9 (Importantly - c.14 contains Short title data)
I think between these sources it should be possible to get MOST of the General Acts for England. For Great Britan and the UK will be harder.
Other 'statute' law in the UK - will be in the form of
  1. Statutory Rules/Statutory Instruments. ( These seem to have started in the Early 20th Century.)
  2. Orders in Council.(I don't know when these were formalised.)
  3. Charters
  4. Proclomations
As a side note I also found this :- http://archive.org/details/statutesofwales00wale relating to Wales.
Perhaps you could make a friendly approach to Shimgray or Ironholds over on English Wikipedia to assist in indexing it all? Sfan00 IMG (talk) 01:58, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[Quick courtesy response] I'm still looking through this. I'll reply in further detail soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:54, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I've started Index:Public General Statutes 1896.djvu, mostly to get the complete list from the Short Titles Act. James I and Charles I are still poorly featured in this list but it seems more complete from the Act of Union onwards. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/* Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography */[edit]

[[4]] Adam, I am not quite sure how Wikisource works when bringing in more materials. We have the SHSP volumes and are waiting for the few missing ones that I can provide and we have the Confederate Volumes and I do the same with those as time passes. I am requesting now that the 5 volumes of the Encyclopedia of Virginia Biographies be added to Wikisource. They are filled with biographical materials such as John Esten Cooke who was a Confederate soldier and a well-known author of poems and books. Would you please set those five volumes up on Wikisource as you did with the Confederate Veteran volumes and let me fill in the information the same way you did the Confederate Veteran volumes? Is this an unreasonable request? I honestly don't know if it is or isn't. They are djvu files and all five volumes are there. I am not an in and then out person here. I am in this for as long as I can work here. Most Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 06:34, 2 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the delay, real life intruded for a few days. I shall do this over the weekend. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:48, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fully understood. I love this place. It really is "a dream come true". It is what I wanted even as a youth of age about 10 yrs. I grew up in the shadows of my own ancestry, plus in between Thomas Jefferson's home "Monticello" and U.Va. — areas of grand history which has always influenced me strongly. U. Va. students were always around me with wonderful knowledge influencing me even more. One has to maintain a B average at U.Va. —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:43, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OK, all five volumes here: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. I've also started copying the other "Men of Mark in..." volumes to Wikimedia Commons (they seem to have some of the same information) but only Virginia is complete so far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. When dealing with the American Civil War (SHSP, Confederate Veteran, Virginia Biography, Men of Mark, &c.) you will often see history and names overlapping. Virginia itself was the Capitol of the Confederacy. Virginia history and Virginia names are what I know best while other things about that war and time period are just absorbed as I go through life. It is not my favorite subject either. Kindest regards, —William Maury Morris II Talk 02:32, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Undo request[edit]

Because of some concerns that were raised about how to format the Portals, I've reverted the portals back to the unformatted lists.

The one remaining Portal using table is : Portal:Acts of the Parliament of England/Henry V which I can't revert back to a list myself, because it was you that converted it to table format in the first place.

If you could revert it back to the list format it would be most appreciated, pending a disscussion at some later date about how to get a consistent format across all of the portals.

Attempts to use templates have cause too much hassle. Sfan00 IMG (talk) 19:03, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of undoing it, I've started playing with the format to see what looks best. If you have a better idea later, just edit over my work (going back to an old version if you need to). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

/* Southern Literary Messenger */[edit]

Adam, I am presently working on The Southern Literary Messenger. Today (now yesterday!) I telephoned the Edgar Allen Poe Museum and got permission from Mr. Semer to use their color image (photo of a portrait) online of Thomas Willis White, the founder, publisher, and editor of the SLM so that we can have him shown on an "Author" page. Wikipedia has none and I found no others except for a b&w on Encyclopedia Virginia which I also contacted (Mr. Gibson) I just wanted to place this statement online somewhere and here on WS is where I edit. Too, just so that you know, on Archives.org there are several of these (SLM) that are available for download. Whenever any download is available the darker images are easier on the eyes to edit. The white images are usually stark white and produce too much light on the eyes to look at for any good length of time and cause eyestrain for anyone. The one here on WS is excellent and I am enjoying working with it. With all due respect, —William Maury Morris II Talk 06:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wikilinking[edit]

Hello Adam! On Wikipedia it is not permitted to wikilink inside of quotations. I was wondering what was the policy here? And I would assume that most of the content here is considered quoted. Thanks, Lionelt (talk) 10:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. There is no strong consensus on this (it would be covered by the Annotations policy) but it is permitted in general. To my knowledge, the only current policy is the wikilinks section of the Style Guide. Briefly, internal wikilinks, ie. wikilinking author names to author pages and titles of other books/works to the appropriate main namespace page, are definitely permitted. Linking to other projects, especially for specific unusual words or terms, is usually OK but overlinking should be avoided. What constitutes overlinking depends on personal judgement at the moment. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:56, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Copyright[edit]

Adam, for the discussion at Wikisource:Requests_for_assistance#Copyright_status_of_speeches_by_Irish_politicians, would see if you can add the list of works created by User:O'Dea that have been deleted? I don't have my tools with this ID. JeepdaySock (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The tools wouldn't have helped anyway, O'Dea came up as having no deleted contributions. It turns out they were moved to his user space. I've listed them at Requests for assistance. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:44, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Request by wmm[edit]

Adam, would you please pull this book into Wikisource so that I can edit the text? http://archive.org/details/cu31924029975053 With all due respect, —William Maury Morris II Talk 03:14, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm having some problems with my internet service provider at the moment, so I can't do this yet. If someone else hasn't done it by the time my problems are resolved I will be happy to set the book up for you. (I am only logging in through a work computer at the moment, which, among other restrictions, cannot access the Internet Archive). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:01, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have very good manners, Adam. However the request is now canceled as I have the book on Wikisource. I thank you for your kindness as always. Most respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 16:42, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Adam, please, I need your help. I have a book placed on WC and somewhat pulled into WS but something is wrong and I don't know how to fix it. If you click on the blue cover you can see all images but the file name is, I believe, creating problems since it is not the same name as the book title. I haven't encountered this before now. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II Talk 16:31, 26 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[[5]]

OK, I see the problem: you are right, the names have to match. We need either (1) File:Cu31924029975053.pdf and Index:Cu31924029975053.pdf or (2) File:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf and Index:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf. I've put through a rename request on Commons to create the latter pair. Once that goes through the page on Wikisource should work (although it might need to be purged to remind the computer to check again). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:10, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One other thing: to match, the index page needs the .pdf suffix as well. I will move the page to adjust this when the Commons file is renamed. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Which has apparently been done already. The new index page is here: Index:A Life of Matthew Fontaine Maury.pdf. Done - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:27, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

another request: wright brothers; robert goddard[edit]

thanks for the swift work at Author:James Smithson. now i have uploaded correspondance from Wright Brothers Papers and Robert Goddard Papers. any help would be appreciated. Slowking4 (talk) 17:02, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I've done the Goddard papers, the Wright papers will follow soon. I think I have the pages in the right order this time:
- AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
thanks very much the SI archives will be happy. Slowking4 (talk) 02:40, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The rest:-
NB: There are SVG versions of both brothers' signatures on already Commons, if you want to use them. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:19, 9 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DNB disambiguation[edit]

i see where you have made a transclusion page for a DNB "redirect" Morell, Charles (DNB00). however, i thought previous practice was to put those on the index page only i.e. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 1 Abbadie - Anne. i don't know what consensus is. Slowking4 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am not aware of this practice; I mostly dabble with DNB and am not that well versed in the specific project SOPs. I don't know what the consensus is either. I could not find anything in the DNB style manual but there is an old thread on the DNB project talk page that mentions this (apparently there wasn't a consensus two years ago). That thread mentions Osborne, Dorothy (DNB00), which is similar to Morell, Charles (DNB00). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:45, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

fs90 template spanning two pages[edit]

Hi. Unfortunately, the {{fs90}} template closing and consequent opening in the header and footer doesn't work in the main namespace. The codes - opening on one and the closing on the other page show up. This is problematic because the template cannot be changed from div to span. Is there a way to do this with HTML? — Ineuw talk 03:21, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I thought I caught that. I know I've encountered something similar before, I just need to remember where it was and see if it will work here as well. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:37, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It was an instance of {{smaller block}} where it happened before. In that case, the template has separate open and close version, so I added them to the font-size templates. For example:
I have implemented this and it appears to work in the mainspace. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 04:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that's great. I will make a note on the template page, because this occurs elsewhere in the volumes.— Ineuw talk 04:27, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You've done it! Thanks again.— Ineuw talk 04:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

SHSP 14 p.169 Address by Hon. James C. C. Black[edit]

Adam, I noticed you were working on authors recently and moments ago I looked this up.

SHSP: Address of J. C. C. Black, at the Unveiling of the Hill Statue, Atlanta, Georgia, May 1, 1886. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Southern_Historical_Society_Papers_volume_14.djvu/169

Then I sought out and found this on Archive.org

Contested Election Case of Thomas E. Watson vs. JCC Black: From the Tenth Congressional...(1896)


http://archive.org/details/contestedelecti00housgoog


Looking into that work I found this "Hon. James C. C. Black, Augusta, Ga. 1895"

I will look for an image and more information. Most respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II Talk 19:54, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Portal structure[edit]

Adam, I'm trying, as a newbie, to make the Help documentation on Wikisource a little more understandable to other newcomers. So I'm starting with users/readers, then going on to proofreading and adding texts. I have a few questions about where portals fit into the whole picture, and since I see you created Help:Portal classification I thought you might be able to help me.

  1. Was the Library of Congress classification part of Portals from the beginning or was it added later?
  2. How much does it have the support of the Wikisource community?
  3. What's the mechanism for insuring that new texts get given an entry in the Portal sections. How systematic? What's the average lag time?
  4. The common categories such as Library_of_Congress_Classification/Class_P#Subclass_PN go down to 6 levels but I can't see any way for the user to follow them down in the same way that the wiki category system works (e.g. links on that page). Is there one?

Any help would be appreciated. Chris55 (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Diagram of the portal structure.
Sure. By the way, portals are intended for navigation and mostly act as a subject index to supplement categories. They provide more information, in a more structured way, than is possible with the a category page. (Author pages also fill part of this role.)
  1. There were a small handful of portals before the LOC classification. However, a lot of the current portals used to be in the Wikisource namespace. The classification system was introduced when the pages were moved. More portals were created after the system was adopted.
  2. I haven't heard any objections.
  3. None yet. I'm thinking of ways to do this but I have to research Python and running bots first. Works are added to portals manually. If any pages are missed, then they will stay missed until another user adds them. I have a subpage, User:AdamBMorgan/Portal stats, to monitor the portalspace in general and I've experimented with templates like {{Latest additions}} (for example, on Portal:Geology) to help keep things up to date. Essentially, however, it is a ad hoc manual process.
  4. I'm not sure what you mean. There are no wikilinks on that page because there is little consensus about wikilinking and any wikilinks that were to be added would probably link to articles on Wikipedia rather than the portals. If you mean starting/landing points for the portalspace, the top of the portal tree is Portal:Portals and you should be able to follow that down. Alternatively, Portal:Index provides a list of everything in one place. You should be able to navigate up and down the tree from the links in any given portal (that was my intent anyway; please tell me if it doesn't work). If you mean the numeric portion of the classification, we currently only use the alphabetic portion as the numbers represent more detail than we expect to need. For example, poetry starts from PN101 but Portal:Poetry just uses the "PN" element. The only portals that are really fixed are the classes and subclasses established by the LOC classification; any child portals are up to Wikisource users. For an idea of how I see the portal structure in my head, see the diagram to the right.
I think the history behind portals and the LCCN system is covered here:
Classification mostly started with Cygnis insignis' comment "We provide searchable content, if we need a subject index to that we should adopt a published and authoritative one." Of the classification systems available, Library of Congress Classification is in the public domain (Dewey is under copyright).
Incidentally, I started a Beginner's Guide for Wikisource but I haven't finished it yet (I plan to move it to the Help namespace when I have). That was meant to cover some of the same area, as I know there isn't much help at the entry level. I'm not sure if that will help or not. (It doesn't cover reading offline yet, by the way, which is a very recent addition to Wikisource.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Adam, that's really helpful, particularly the links to the archives which I'm in the process of reading.
I've already revamped the Help:Reading page and added a Help:Exporting a book page, and I think your Beginner's guide is a big improvement on Help:Introduction and I'll purloin it if I may. My next step is to rehash the main page Help:Contents. The best model I found was the French one which I think is brilliant. Unfortunately it's being rehashed, though whether because of someone's hobbyhorse or for some better reason I'm not sure. I'll probably stick to a more mundane tabular form.
On (3) I'm at the same stage as you, wanting to do some bots but not quite there yet.
On (4) what I mean is to replace the names in Library_of_Congress_Classification/Class_P#Subclass_PN by links to the appropriate Portal entries. I was thinking I could do it systematically but I see it's a little harder since, for instance, the entry Medieval (to 1500) corresponds to Portal:Medieval texts which is understandable. But I'd be happy to do the systematic edit if you are prepared to go through and make the corrections;-) Incidentally, would it make more sense if those pages were themselves in the Portal namespace?
One question I forgot. Are there a significant number of portal entries that are not included in the LC classification?
Chris55 (talk) 09:19, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops, forget my comment on (4). I got confused between PN and PR! Chris55 (talk) 10:39, 18 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The only really unclassfied portal is Portal:Index Librorum Haliday because I'm not sure what it is (probably an archive and/or biology). Technically, the contents of Category:Miscellaneous portals list portals not covered by the original LC classification; I added Class X to cover these cases. As it's come up, I've moved the beginner's guide to the Help namespace. I will finish it there but it might still be of some use to users in the mean time. It can be moved or further adjusted at any time. The Library of Congress Classification is a work in it's own right, so it should stay in the main namespace, but I have no personal objection to wikilinking. Be aware, though, that there have been objections to wikilinks in the past (where any wikilinking in the body of a work has been called an annotation, a subject on which there is currently no consensus on Wikisource). Your rearrangement of the Help contents page looks good to me so far. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I see that the recommended place to start browing in places like Wikisource:Welcome is still Wikisource:Works. I thought I found a reference to that in the help section too, but can't find it. Since most of the branches are in your LCC portals I guess it doesn't matter.
I've added your Beginner's guide to the main help page. That's a really helpful addition. I realise that to some extent we're setting up parallel trees so I haven't added all the descendents. Many of the existing files are very poorly written but I'll be taking a little time off to take a project through from A-Z to make sure I understand the issues of loading files, which I haven't yet done.
I see the style guide says "Words or references that may be difficult to understand can be linked to their Wikipedia or Wiktionary entries using the syntax [[w:Article|word]] (Wikipedia) or [[wikt:Article|word]]." Seems a rather silly distinction: the Wiktionary article on transclusion is not at all informative, for example. But both take you out of the Wiksource environment, which is presumably the argument against it. Chris55 (talk) 16:15, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

danged w:[edit]

Adam, why is it that when I create a hyperlink on wikisource to wikipedia the w: always appears before the wording as in "General Grant's w:scorched earth policy". Is it supposed to be that way? I think the w: should, somehow, be concealed. I think I must be doing something wrong but I do not know. —William Maury Morris II Talk 04:15, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maury, its happening because it's a bare link. If you pipe it it will disappear. e.g. [[w:scorched earth|]]. Note Cheers, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:58, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OH! Thank you ever so much! I once knew that but I had forgotten it! Whew, what a relief! Thank you, Beeswaxcandle. You sure are handy to have around! Respectfully, Maury <—William Maury Morris II Talk 05:19, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Outlines of European History[edit]

Hi, I've been told that Tannertsf is not planning to return here in the near future, so I've been looking through his works and sorting out where I can the half-transclusions etc. I've now come to Index:Outlines of European History.djvu. I can't see that anything has happened to it since I sorted out the print-pages in the page list back in February. Looking carefully at the pages, there are very few proofread pages and those that are marked as "not proofread" have at most a couple of paragraphs of their content. I'm inclined to revert everything back to the way Blurpeace had it before it was demanded for the classroom, but I thought I would check in with you as you were the admin who reset it back in May 2011. What do you think? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:05, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I know the above is not for me but I would like to state that I like Tannertsf, believe he does good work when he wants to, and I hope that he returns. He is a very sensitive fellow but apparently (to me) a good person. Kindest regards to everyone, —William Maury Morris II Talk 05:44, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Beeswaxcandle: I always planned to revert the deletions, to return Blurpeace's contributions to the edit history, once the proofreading was complete. If the proofreading isn't going to happen at all then feel free to revert. WMM: I hope he comes back too. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
All done. I too hope he returns, we did some good work together on various works. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:31, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Adding texts/proofreading help[edit]

Adam,

I'm confused by the addition you've made to Help:Adding texts. In particular you've added a "proofreading" section of which the first 6 items are nothing to do with proofreading afaics. Already there was a section "Transclusion" in the Help:Proofreading article and these two are now hopelessly intertwined.

I had been thinking of separating the two articles out more clearly with cross-references. ie. (mainly) move the transclusion section to Adding texts. The rationale is that I assume that many people do proofreading without understanding much about setting up documents and transclusion at all. Once people get on to adding texts, they can take on board the transclusion process. So "adding text" doesn't need to deal with proofreading at all. Are you happy with that? Chris55 (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Help:Adding texts is meant as a quick guide rather than a full help page (at least, according to the note in the header). It follows on from Help:Introduction and it's intended more for new users, to tell them how to add a text. My change was mainly to provide an overview of the preferred system rather than instructions to copy and paste from Project Gutenberg. The problem is not that people do not understand proofreading; it's that many people don't proofread at all and paste the text into a page, sometimes without attributing it to a source at all (eg. Gutenberg, Archive, Google, personal transcription etc). Proofreading is preferred, and unproofread texts should be attributed, but this was not what we were telling new users to do with our own documentation. Help:Adding texts at least needs to mention proofreading and provide links for further information.
I'm happy for this page to be modified further but I don't think it should be made any more complicated than necessary. If the new user wants to know more, they can follow the links. Help:Proofreading can be split but, for this reason, I would not recommend adding any of it to Help:Adding texts. Perhaps copy over the redirect for Help:Transclusion? As for the section, "Proofreading" was a general title for the whole "workspace" approach to transcribing texts, as I wanted to break up the larger "Basic procedure" section. I've made a modification to the section titles and included a link to Help:Proofreading that I should have included originally. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 16:59, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand that some people skip proofreading altogether and that's a major problem. But I can't see how loading a file comes under proofreading at all. And the "adding text" page is called an "introduction" - I'm not sure where it is supposed to be in the hierarchy! But transclusion isn't actually dealt with elsewhere. You haven't yet written the "finishing work" beginner article.
Basically I assume we need 2 series: an introduction and a systematic treatment. Your beginners series overlaps the "introductions" that were there and to which I've added. We should probably try and merge them. e.g. your slot for "reading offline" is what I've termed "downloading a book". I would see "adding texts" and "proofreading" as part of the systematic series. Do we need a "quick guide" series in addition? Chris55 (talk) 09:32, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive_7&oldid=4042358"