User talk:AdamBMorgan/Archive 8

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 7 AdamBMorgan — Talk Archive 8 Archive 9
All talk threads for the third quarter of 2012


Pathfinder of the Seas[edit]

Author: Lewis, Charles Lee, 1886-
Subject: Maury, Matthew Fontaine, 1806-1873
Publisher: Annapolis, The United States naval institute
Year: 1927
Possible copyright status: No known copyright restrictions as determined by scanning institution.
Language: English
Call number: 00489750
Digitizing sponsor: MBLWHOI Library
Book contributor: MBLWHOI Library
Collection: biodiversity; MBLWHOI; blc; americana
Scanfactors: 27

I can't find any trace of a renewal, so it would appear to be public domain under {{PD-US-no renewal}}. Considering the publisher, although I am not sure if Annapolis counts or not, it may also be public domain under {{PD-USGov}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Annapolis looks "government" to me and during the American Civil War it was moved further North. From WikiPedia: The United States Naval Academy (also known as USNA, Annapolis, or Navy) is a four-year coeducational federal service academy located in Annapolis, Maryland, United States. Established in 1845 under Secretary of the Navy George Bancroft, it is the second-oldest of the United States' five service academies, and educates officers for commissioning primarily into the United States Navy and United States Marine Corps. William Maury Morris II (talk) 19:18, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
I see that Amazon.com is selling reprints at $33.xx so it appears there is no new copyright and even if there were it would not matter when transcribing the original (I think). If I d/l the book and then upload that book to commons will you take the giant leap of placing it on WS *pRopErLy*? I believe I can fill in all relevant information. Kind regards, William Maury Morris II (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Sure, just tell me the filename when you've uploaded it and I'll set up the index. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Adam, File:Pathfinder of the Seas.pdf [[1]] Thank you once again, William Maury Morris II (talk) 21:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Index:Pathfinder of the Seas.pdf except a lot of the pages appear blank to me (although text appears in the left hand box). I'm not sure where this is happening. I can read them if I access the PDF directly on Commons but not if I cycle through pages nor on Wikisource. I am trying to purge things at the moment to see if that helps. Maybe it will be OK for you? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
Strange! It looks like someone cleaned all of the chalk-boards. There is no text on any of the images but yet there is text beside blank images. It is as though a blank image replicated itself many times. I can use the file on my computer that I uploaded to Commons and

I can type the text in. I have never seen this happen before today. Thank you for trying. Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 22:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

  • Adam, is there anything that can be done to show the images on this book? It cannot be validated as is. What about me re-uploading it, would that work? I renamed the file and that may be the problem but the original file from Internet archives would have to be renamed. William Maury Morris II (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
    [My first reply got lost somewhere on the internet] I'm not sure but I'm looking into it. I hoped that purging the memory and waiting for the server to regenerate page images would solve the problem but it did not. I asked on Commons but only got one response. The problem may be with Ghostscript, the software Wikimedia uses to generate page images from PDFs (which would explain why PDF readers have no problems but the thumbnails on Commons and pages here are all blank). Some of the other PDFs on Commons appear to have the same problem (eg. File:The prophetic books of William Blake, Milton.pdf) but I have not yet found a common trait to explain anything. I don't think the filename is the problem. It is possible that the version of the PDF is the key. It was a v1.6 PDF originally; I have uploaded an upgraded v1.7 version, just in case Ghostscript does not support the older format. It is possible that downgrading may be necessary, assuming the version matters at all. Another possibility is the font used in the PDF. We may need to log a bug report with bugzilla. In the worst case, we could try the DjVu equivalent. If that works, the existing pages can be moved across to the DjVu by bot without losing any work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:17, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Presidential Proclamations[edit]

Adam, re the discussion on MOTM, I found the list of presidential proclamations - but it's a bit obscure: could you put it an appropriate portal?

It needs similar lists for executive orders and maybe others. Chris55 (talk) 19:59, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done (Well, there were already similar lists for other subpages; proclamations was missing though and now it's done) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:21, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Thanks Adam. But I still find it hard to find the Portal:Presidents of the United States page. The only links from the top appear to be in Portal:Index and a very missable one in Portal:United States. I'd expect them in Portal:Political Institutions and Public Administration of the United States, maybe Portal:Political Science. I haven't just fixed them because I suspect there are other similar ones missing at those levels too. Chris55 (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Main page draft[edit]

Hi Adam, preparing the main page draft was easier than I thought. You added an automatic selection of books which need validation, but I feel that the updating of the section should be manual, because displaying also the year and the author would be finer for the main page. Immediately before the list I'd insert something like "Please contribute by validating them"; after the help pages' improvement we get to decide about a link. Another section would feature the already completed work on transcriptions. Do you like the overall layout of the draft? Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I hope that I am not offending anyone here in asking this. I looked through the Portals and didn't see the one for the Southern Historical Society Volumes that Adam and I have worked on. Also, in looking I saw the term "Modern" and wonder exactly what it means for today, circa (date-date). The work done looks very good and appears easy to follow. Too, I have always thought that any work completed should have all validation of it done. Works that show as yellow and green blocks and show the terms proofread and validated do not appear to be completed works. I have noticed that here on WS but more recently I was doing some links on Facebook of completed works and it stood out a bit stronger from that perspective. We here know but others should not have to wonder why the difference. My sincere respects to the both of you hard workers and fine people, Adam & Erasmo. -- William Maury Morris II (talk) 16:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
You can find the portal in two ways:
  • click on "Portals", then on "American History" and you'll find it in the American Civil War paragraph,
  • click on "(category)" near "Portals", then on "S" in the Contents box and you'll find it.
There was a discussion on the Scriptorium in June to revise the eras' definitions, but there was no consensus.
The two sections for new texts might be confusing, but a link to a help page would solve the problem.
If you have other ideas, please just edit the draft and make all improvements you feel helpful. Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 13:27, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the word "modern" should be tossed out completely except by century. Century is definite whereas "modern" always becomes the past. But I do not want to touch the good work others have set up and are setting up because it may create confusion. Create an area other than here for suggestions, make it stand out in a different color and point to it on Scriptorium. Very Respectfully, Maury (William Maury Morris II (talk) 17:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, I keep starting to respond but then have to deal with other things.
EB: The dynamic list was just an idea; I have no problem with replacing it with a manual list. I think the layout looks good. Although just cosmetic, the box around the two texts list on the right is a bit awkward (whitespace above the first title and the titles touch it on the left ut not the right). That should be easy enough to fix. You will probably get some resistance over changing the "new texts" to proofread and validated but it shouldn't be bad. I have considered splitting PotM into it's own box, separate from the other collaboration, to give it more prominence. This might unbalance or clutter than page, however.
WMM2: I added Portal:Southern Historical Society to Portal:American History after reading your comment. It should have been there, I probably just missed it when the portal was created. It is, and always has been, listed under American History on Portal:Index and through its classification. As for the Modern period, that's mostly due to historians defining Modern History as everything after the Middle Ages; or rather the Middle Ages are defined as the bit in the middle between the Ancient Age and the Modern Age. (As always, Wikipedia has an article on it: Modern history). Wikisource currently adds an additional age, Early modern, which was the start of the discussion on Scriptorium (it should really be part of Modern and not a separate period). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:33, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
The particular layout of the titles in the box is not an error, it is a desired effect. The agreement of the community about the new texts' split is necessary as the two lists need to be updated. I'd keep all the collaborative projects in an only box: In this way deciding to add MotM and other items would be easy as an insertion does not modify the page's global appearance too much.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia study[edit]

Hi Adam,

I'm so pleased that you have jumped in to work on the Wikipedia quality study! I wanted to let you know, after a conversation today with w:User:DarTar, it sounds likely that we will be able to get the original .DOC that the PDF file was produced from, hopefully in the next few days. So it might be worth seeing how that goes, before putting a ton of work into it -- it could lighten the load substantially! I'm planning to check in again Monday if we haven't heard anything back. -Pete (talk) 21:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

OK, I'll hold off for a while and see what happens. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:42, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll be sure to let you know what I find out -- and I have already learned some good stuff from looking through your diffs. Thanks again! -Pete (talk) 21:45, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Adam, I received the Word .DOC, and used it (via LibreOffice and the MediaWiki converter extension) to generate MediaWiki syntax. I pasted the output here:

Index talk:EPIC Oxford report.pdf

I talked with User:Phe on IRC, and it sounds like Match & Split may not be a viable option after all (it was what User:Mike Peel had suggested). But, I think having the raw wiki text on hand may prove useful; we can just copy it out a page at a time, wherever it will be helpful.

(Another option would be to simply skip the page-by-page version, either temporarily or altogether, and just work on the document as a whole.) -Pete (talk) 20:22, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Okay: I have built the structure that I think might work best. I've skipped the page-by-page approach for the text we haven't worked on yet (as I suggested at the end of my last comment). If somebody has the energy to put into the page-by-page version, that's great, but it doesn't seem to me like a major priority.
If you could take a look at what I've done -- splitting the document into sections, transcluding the pages that are already transcribed, and just pasting wikitext in elsewhere -- I'd love your take on whether this is a workable approach, before going much further.
If you approve, I think the major work left would be in inserting or recreating the various images and tables; and of course some text cleanup, especially on the non-English text. -Pete (talk) 01:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I'll work on some of the pages and transclude them as and when whole sections are ready. It's good to have the scans one click away; like having the references on a Wikipedia article. In the meantime, the images will be useful either way. Do you have them as part of the .DOC file? If not, it is easy enough to copy and crop from the PDF. They aren't complicated images, so I don't expect much (if any) loss to compression.
Your approach and structure seem fine. Everything should come together piece-by-piece: uploading images, adding graphs, proofreading pages, etc. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 22:41, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, the document I have does have images; I've included one here: Page:EPIC Oxford report.pdf/14 That's a good idea. Of course, the ones that can be easily reproduced with wiki syntax (the tables) should probably be done that way but with this one, I suppose the original image is the best option. I'll continue adding them. -Pete (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Official Records[edit]

Adam,

would you "please" fix this page http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Southern_Historical_Society_Papers_volume_23.djvu/289 that can be linked to here http://digital.library.cornell.edu/m/moawar/ofre.html ? Kind regards, Maury (AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

This looks like it was done before I saw this message. Feel free to ask in the future, though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
Yes, good ole George Orwell III fixed that just moments after I asked here and I thanked him on his talk page. Thank you, Adam. Respectfully, Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 19:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

SHSP 2012[edit]

Adam,

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Southern_Historical_Society_Papers_volume_22.djvu/9
added "tooltip" to General S. G. French = General Samuel Gibbs French (I have his specifics)
Removed link to Author:(Colonel) Samuel Bassett French

Respectfully, William Maury Morris II (talk) 08:03, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Categorization by genre[edit]

Hi Adam, the current MotM task is a key task for improving our collection. However, I've contributed just a little because I don't know how to categorize works by genre. See for example Azolan. Could you explain me what I should do, please? Thanks for your endurance.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:04, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed while doing this that genres seems to be a little scattered in the category tree. For poems, Category:Poems by theme is the most relevant category (and I've just added it to Category:Works by genre). Specific works require some judgement and there are a few I've found that I could not classify. For Azolan, however, I would suggest Category:Love poetry (Category:Romantic poetry is a period not a genre) and perhaps Category:Religion in poetry (if not Category:Islamic poetry‎). Feel free to create new categories in Poems by theme if none of the existing themes seem to fit. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:24, 13 August 2012 (UTC)

Date Formats in Author pages.[edit]

Hello AdamBMorgan.

I seem to be playing catch-up here (and obviously never quite making it!)
For example, in Author:Perseus of Macedon, what does the slash achieve in the line
birthyear = ca./212 BCE
? Indeed what is the effective difference between (c.) and (ca.) here?
And also: is there some means of qualifying an event (I found one author who was written up as "apparently suiciding" at various times; but whose actual death date was unrecorded... does that mean I should put "deathdate=?" and perhaps add a note?)
N.B. If these dates are only intended as guidelines to copyright expiry, then surely making clear the biblical/medieval/renaissance as appropriate era of the works is surely enough if more specific information is missing?
If I get my mind around what is required in future maybe you won't have to bail me out again!
Regards, MODCHK (talk) 23:00, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Hi. The slash just lets the computer read and understand the date. (It uses a piece of code that was meant to recognise subpages, which is why it uses a slash).
It's a recent change I made to the author template to try to fix an earlier problem (the template can't tell the difference between "ca. 212 BCE" and, for example, "foo" or any other string). Now it can automatically categorise the author by birth (or death) year and by era using a greater variety of inputs. It will also read non-four-digit years and BCE years, none of which were being recognised properly before.
There is no difference between (c.) and (ca.), or even (circa). All three are recognised by the template. You can also enter decades or centuries in either birthyear or deathyear, if only approximate information is available. The other options I added, based on the dates users had used in existing author pages, are tentative dates with a question mark, ie. "212 BCE/?" (which displays as "212 BCE?"), and splits between two years, ie. "212 BCE/211 BCE". "?" is appropriate for a year that is simply unknown and probably will never be known. For the suicide, either "?" or the approximate period could be used, with a note to explain it.
I hope that helps. I've been pottering about adding bits to lots of author pages lately. I only noticed that the author template wasn't processing dates properly when updating something else. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:53, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you very much. As you may have noticed I have been turning up a number of author references which were basically Old Testament biblical to early Roman Empire in vintage; and most lacked any kind of sensible dates (some at best accurate to only a century range.)
In fact I was half expecting somebody to point out until some actual works were attributable to a given author, perhaps I should not be filling in the reference at all? My reasoning is that anything known right now might as well be inserted into a stub entry rather than research the whole matter again later?
Thank you again for clarifying the date formats. Of course I will try not to, but if I err again please set me straight! MODCHK (talk) 11:08, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

SHSP authors & wikilinks[edit]

Adam, I saw your notation on needing more authors and wikilinks so I started with someone I am familiar with as shown below. However, WP has a good article on him and they also have an image. I tried to add that image to WS but for some reason it shows:File and I cannot add the image to WS. Would you please fix that? I am familiar with images but Alas! I cannot figure this one.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Author:Charles_Scott_Venable

Most respectfully, Maury ( William Maury Morris II (talk) 23:32, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

The portrait was uploaded to Wikipedia instead of Wikimedia Commons. I've moved it to Commons and the Author page is working now. (It was flagged to be moved already but it looks like no one had got around to it yet.) Cheers, AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:11, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you. I didn't notice it. Do you think it is best to place tooltips in an article or in the indices? (CAPITAL CHEERS 2U—Collegians Helping To Educate And Encourage Responsible Socializing Academic & Science) William Maury Morris II (talk) 01:06, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I would say it depends on the tooltip; to what it is being added and what information it provides. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:16, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Index and corresponding article show "C. S. Venable". Tooltips to fill in initials with full names. William Maury Morris II (talk) 01:54, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I think the tooltip on Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 12.djvu/195 is fine. If you mean Page:Southern Historical Society Papers volume 12.djvu/9 as well, I wouldn't put a tooltip over a wikilink. It risks conflicting with the link and strictly, the title of the article is correct with the initials. When that article is transcluded to the main namespace, a note can be added to the header as well. It's the final article in the mainspace that matters, so having the information there is the only place that is important. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 03:27, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

WikiMap[edit]

Adam, is there a map like this http://ultimategerardm.blogspot.com/2012/08/openid-for-users-of-wikipedia-please.html anywhere for Wikisource? William Maury Morris II (talk) 12:56, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I don't think so. I tracked the map back to here but it looks like it was a single commission. There are some raw page view statistics for Wikisource here but it is split by language and not by origin of viewer. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:14, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Not sure how I missed this, thanks for fixing it. Jeepday (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Needed corrections[edit]

Adam, I found this moments ago. The spellings of two words are incorrect. Can you change these? http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Mexico_as_it_was_and_as_it_is.djvu/58

Two spellings:

"If his ancestor celebrated, here, a bloody sacrifice of victims takeh in battle, the modem Indian may purify the hill from the crime by the celebration of a peaceful mass, and the sermon of a worthy padre!

The Spanish version may have the same situation. I tried but it seems people are locked out from making any changes. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris IITalk 20:01, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Done. I locked the English version as it is going to be the featured text for September. The Spanish version is not connected to anything I have done. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:26, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you, Adam. You really are a very kind and helpful person/Administrator. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris IITalk 01:50, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Mexico[edit]

Hey Adam,

What can you make of this page, an error in the TOC, missing section? Prices page seems to be appendix 4, not 5. 5 is listed as prices though... for now I've unlinked appendix 5. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:28, 27 August 2012 (UTC) I found the missing section... on pg 384. - Theornamentalist (talk) 02:35, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

I think there is a page missing in the third edition, either from the scan or from the original print run. Looking at the Internet Archive, this page of a different scan clearly has both appendices. The meteorological appendix may have been left out of the third edition (and the table of contents wasn't changed or this was not intentional) or the page may have been lost prior to scanning (which doesn't explain the prices appendix being numbered four). If you follow the page numbers, they don't seem to run in sequence. The 464th page of the scan is page number 383 and the next page with a page number is the 467th page, which should be page number 386 but is numbered as page 388. It looks like a page is missing. Looking at a different scan of the 3rd edition, it has the same numbering problem and no meteorological appendix (NB: This scan comes from the Library of Congress' copy of the book; I would expect it to be in reasonable condition). So, it might be an error that occurred with the original printers. If so, adding a note in the header to this effect should be enough to cover the discrepancy. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Thank you for clearing it up, I didn't realize they were different editions. -Theornamentalist (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Re: new dynamic layouts[edit]

I'd love to add/refine dynamic layouts as you've proposed but I feel we need to fix a thing or two before taking that next step. Rather than "blowing up" your proposal on WS:S with my concerns, I thought approaching you individually first would be better in this instance.

I've gone on and on about what I believe to be simple changes to the current dynamic layout scheme but have gotten very little in feedback let alone action to date. I'm hoping to gain your insight (& ultimately your support) for these changes. I've drawn up a whitepaper diagraming the current state of things and proposals for the changes I think are needed in this area. Please review it when you have the time and let me know what you think (if anything) about it. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:09, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

I've looked through it and I would support these changes. It seems to be more about implementing good practice rather than a change that would be noticed by most users. Change 1 is great; it removes confusion. I don't know whether change 2 or 3 is the most practical—I know enough about HTML etc to follow the Basics section but get a bit lost at this stage. I can't see why change 2 wouldn't work but I am happy for either to be implemented. Can we make these changes or does it need a Bugzilla request? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:27, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I believe it will finally fill out the ~3em or so offset expierenced by the header template under layout 1 on the left hand side as well as stop the skewing of the page highlight function by the same amount so users will "see" a slight difference (a difference that I believe to be the intended rendering had the designer had the tags available back then like we have today). And yes, for the most part the change is proactive rather than reactive with an eye towards future co-existance with multi-language or auto translation features still being developed.
As far as how to approach fixing this - your guess is as good as anybody's. Technically, Dynamic Layouts are not part of the ProofRead Page extension though it shares many of the same routines and files as the formal extension does (that's how it was gained "consensus" for implementation - by hostage - in the first place). I've brought to the attention of folks who I'd hoped could fix this with no luck. I'm not sure a bugzilla would solve to what amounts to a "self-inflicted, local" problem. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:53, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Request[edit]

Adam, would you please bring a book to WS so I can edit it? the specific information follows. The pages are discolored but I prefer that because it is easier on my eyes than stark white pages. The edited pages won't be discolored when I am finished. Have a very good day either way, —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

http://archive.org/details/facetofacewithme00igle

Author: Iglehart, Fanny Chambers Gooch, 1842-1913
Subject: Mexico -- Description and travel
Publisher: New York, Fords, Howard, & Hulbert
Possible copyright status: NOT_IN_COPYRIGHT
Language: English
Call number: b2601861
Digitizing sponsor: University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

Yes check.svg Done Index:Face to Face With the Mexicans.djvu - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:38, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Heavens! You're very intelligent and swift, Adam! Thank you so much. —William Maury Morris IITalk 19:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

My thoughts on Maintenance of the Month[edit]

Yes, Adam, I have some thoughts on MotM. First, the project needs to be advertised better: on the Main Page, of course, but also in the {{welcome}} template. Second, we might give awards to participants—I don't know how the PotM awarding system works and if there are "tools" for this. Third (but this affect this month's task only), I'm going to simplify the help workflow page. For the first point, will you start the proposals on the Scriptorium? Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:17, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Your changes to this month's task look good. I've added a proposal to for both the main page and {{welcome}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 11:58, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Also, the awards aren't too complicated. They are just {{userbox}}es and I don't think there's any tool involved. Copying that part of WS:POTM shouldn't be a problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:03, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource:Subpages[edit]

Within the help pages, I am thinking that we should be migrating Wikisource:Subpages to Help:Subpages or maybe to a subpage of the style guide, alternatively introductory text there with a lead to wherever the page belongs. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:51, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, I'll move it to Help; there is a request for subpage help already. Putting the documentation for subpages into a subpage might be counter-productive. :) A summary and link to help could be useful though. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:08, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Coords[edit]

Hi,

I can see coords are very rarely used, in fact the template seems only half implemented, so I appreciate there is probably little in the way of good practice established. I was not sure what you meant by mainspace in your comment <http://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:Kefalonia_Fae51_text.pdf/1&curid=1371970&diff=4052139&oldid=4051967> - did you mean the index page for the inscription or somewhere else? Thanks -- (talk) 12:52, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wikisource; I just know you've worked with Wikipedia and Commons a lot. By the mainspace I mean the equivalent of the article namespace on Wikipedia or galleries on Commons. The proofreading takes place in the Index and Page namespaces (sometime collectively called the workspace). When this is finished, the text is transcluded (like a template) into the main namespace. I did this for your inscription here: Inscription at the Assos Venetian Fort in Kefalonia. This is a little more important for multipage works but the principle still stands for your PDF (incidentally, the ProofreadPage extension can work directly with JPEGs if preferred; it's just a little more difficult to set up). I moved the co-ordinate template to the page in the main namespace when I removed it from the page in the Page namespace. The template is not used much, so it is not fully implemented. I suspect it was imported or copied from Wikipedia at an early stage but, as it doesn't really apply to books often, it hasn't been kept up to date. I put it in the "notes" part of the header but there is not policy about how to use it if you want to change that. (NB: I transcluded the Latin version as well, although I'm not sure about the page title I used.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:15, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it, the terminology is not intuitive for me as it doesn't directly map onto working practice here. After getting a bit of advice, I have changed the Latin title but left the page as a redirect as I don't have permission to move the page there. I'll ponder coords in the longer term for Wikisource, the only reason I would want to push for a better template implementation, or try and establish guidelines for it, were if I started an inscriptions project of some sort (where external use of the coords would be great for creating a map of inscriptions), though I remain unsure if Wikisource is really the right project for something along those lines. -- (talk) 13:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Inscriptions are within our inclusion policy and I can't think of a better fit for your project (although Commons could include the text on the File page); it's up to you how you want to proceed. We can always import the co-ord template from another project.
My turn: I'm not sure what you mean by "doesn't directly map onto working practice here". The workflow on Wikisource is typically:
  1. Upload a scan (to Commons or Wikisource).
  2. Proofread in the "workspace":
    1. Create an index page in the Index namespace.
    2. Create and proofread all pages in the Page namespace.
  3. Transclude the text to the Main namespace.
  4. Add any categories, portal links, notes and additional items to the page in the Main namespace.
The final product that the average reader is expected to see is the page in the main namespace. The workspace (Page and Index) is the "backroom" element of Wikisource. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 14:50, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
Wikisource has interesting strengths for creating multiple free translations, though keeping an inscription on Commons would be okay, the ability to have many languages embedded on the same page is pretty nice for a short piece of text. In general, I would probably recommend that as a workable solution as other projects have made good use of geotagging there to create some innovative maps. As I say, I'll ponder on it further as sites like CISP have transcriptions handled pretty well, though not for easy re-use (in fact attribution/copyright seems clear as mud on that example) and the CISP database is not being maintained so the knowledge ought to go somewhere else at some point... My assumption is that there probably would be no (clear) copyright on a simple transcription but if a transcription has significant expansions that assumption would look very weak.
For ancient texts, there are other issues, such as how we support some form of transcription mark-up (showing uncertainties or re-constructions) and the question of which project should be used to support ancient Greek.
Thanks for the explanation; it probably did not seem intuitive to me as I have been dealing with things that are not books (letters and inscriptions) where seeing the scan or photo at the 'page' level is most useful to me. I'm pretty busy with other things (like the Chapters Association) but this has been on my back-burner for a long time and I'll mentally ear-mark the topic for follow-up next year unless something pops up to make it more urgent. -- (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

PD-US-not-vested[edit]

I closed the discussion on PD-US-not-vested. It looks like you might be interested in follow up after the close. Jeepday (talk) 20:39, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I have restored The Rats in the Walls to test everything is working and acceptable. I'll move on to the others after a short time. NB: I moved the template to Carl Lindberg's suggestion of PD-US-not renewed-unvested before moving it again to {{PD-US-no-renewal-unvested}} to match the wording of {{PD-US-no-renewal}}. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:55, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Talkback[edit]

You have new messages
Hello, AdamBMorgan. You have new messages at Mariewalton's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Gday Adam. Would you mind if I pointed you to the conversation for your input/noting. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:28, 14 September 2012 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Gadget-Edittools now a redirect[edit]

I don't see the point in having the gadget and the default edittools to be offering different options, so I have been bold and converted the latter to a redirect. Seems to work, not sure if you see any issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:27, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

No, that's fine. I wasn't sure why there was a duplicate anyway. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 15:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Cell phone call for AdamBMorgan. Re: Please Help[edit]

Adam, *please* fix this link to Spanish Wikipedia for this English article. I have tried several things and none work. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:20, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:Our_Sister_Republic_-_Mexico.djvu/195

Yes check.svg Done The "es.w:" needed a colon instead of a full stop as well as a starting colon: ":es:w:"; and there was only one closing bracket. (The colon before the "es" tells the computer that it's a wikilink; otherwise it thinks it is an interwiki link, which you would see in the side bar under "In other languages.") - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:37, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
Adam, thank you so much! This page and another can be used to create a en.Wikipedia article that should exist but doesn't. From your example I will know what to do the next time. Very respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris IITalk 21:59, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Themed featured work wikiproject[edit]

Maybe I'm jumping the gun on this one, but I really like your suggestion for the up and coming months. I wonder, would it be a viable project to kind of come up with something like you have in an effort to continue this in the future? I mean, we could probably come up with a good reason for featuring any text at a given time, but it could be a neat way for us all to collaborate: to specify like "this author died 100 years ago in May 2013; let's try and fully validate a handful of texts to feature," or "it's the birthday of José de Diego in April, let's try to gather some poems/documents to feature" and so on. - Theornamentalist (talk) 22:17, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

It sounds like a good plan. Finding appropriate themes and anniversaries might be the tricky part but Wikipedia has several lists: 1913, 1913 in literature, 1913 in poetry, etc. We also have our own Category:1913 births and Category:1913 deaths. (1913 chosen as 100 years before next year; other major anniversaries also apply as well.) User knowledge would help too; User:EncycloPetey actualy suggested two of the timings in WS:FTC. Getting people to take part might also be an issue but it's worth trying. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:28, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


[Category:1881 deaths]

Today is September 19th, 2012. On this date in 1881, the 20th president of the United States, James Abram Garfield, died of wounds inflicted by an assassin. —William Maury Morris IITalk 12:54, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
On wikisource [2] This covers both wikipedia and wikisource and is only an example of what can be used for the comments above. —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:00, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Is this the sort of thing you are thinking about, or thinking about if we cannot find something better, or perhaps it can be something additional. Again, this is just an example that happens to fit today's date. [I know about this date because when he died my kin became descendants of the next president Chester A. Arthur. His wife was Ellen Herndon of Virginia, daughter of William Lewis Herndon who became famous two times over for the WS "Exploration of the Amazon Valley" and for WP going down with the gold-laden SS (Side-wheel Steamer) "Central America". WP Herndon, Virginia was named in his honor and west point has a memorial in his honor.] —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:21, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm, okay, how about on this date in 1796 U.S. President Washington's farewell address was published and WS has a copy? —William Maury Morris IITalk 13:41, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes, although a month rather than a day considering how featured texts work at the moment. If we knew of an upcoming anniversary or other event we could work ahead towards it. If we had enough time we could choose a text, proofread it and nominate it to be featured in the same month of the anniversary. (Incidentally, Theornamentalist is referring to Wikisource talk:Featured text candidates#Looking ahead, where I suggested a sequence of texts largely based on suggestions of timing.) - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:15, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Cell call for AdamBMorgan: Fort Hood, Texas: "You've been drafted"[edit]

Adam,

I and a friend in Mexico City, Raul, have been copying some of your method of editing and thus far all is well. However, the 2nd portion of a 3 part poem strays too far to the right. Would you please fix it, or tell me here how to fix it? I have tinkered with it but it will not line up with parts 1 and 3. Why not? 1 and 3 line up and part 2 should line up since your stolen borrowed code is the same. [[3]] —William Maury Morris IITalk 18:55, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done {{block center}} bases its width on the length on the lines of text it contains. The middle block has shorter lines, so it created a narrower block. One way you can fix it is by using one {{block center}} around all three verses instead of three separate blocks. That way, all the blocks are definitely using the same width. This is the way I did it. Another way would be to use the width parameter of the template (eg. {{block center|width=250px|"From Heaven she descended... etc), which would force the block to be the width you have chosen. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)