User talk:Faendalimas

Welcome to Wikisource

Welcome

Hello, Faendalimas, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

• Help pages, especially for proofreading
• Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
• Style guide
• Inclusion policy
• Wikisource:For Wikipedians

You may be interested in participating in

• Proofread of the Month
• Community collaboration
• Requested texts

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

• Wikisource:Scriptorium; or
• Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! --Xover (talk) 18:15, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Tried first one

Heya @Xover: I put together the first one, I hope, probably over did the proofread status I will go through and make them more realistic. Index:Principles_for_creating_a_single_authoritative_list_of_the_world’s_species.pdf A couple of questions.

1. I assume I use wikimarkup to emulate the formatting of the original text, including line spacing where that seems to have gone awry.

2. The figures need to be saved to Commons and imported separately? Or will the extract from the pdf?

3. Many of the authors in this paper, myself included Scott A Thomson have orchid ids do I leave these out?

4. Does the Page by Page link to PLOS Bio go in the footnote section?

Thanks for your help, As you may have gathered I am an editor on several other Wikis and a Sysop, CU and Ombud, but my first time here so am a newby. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 19:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

We use wikimarkup to approximate the layout, yes. We mostly use formatting templates rather than raw wikimarkup (e.g. instead of headings and indentation) for various reasons. And we don't aim for pixel perfect reproduction, just a reasonable representation.

Figures need to be uploaded separately to Commons, yes. Preferably the original high quality images rather than extracted from the PDF since re-encoding tends to reduce quality rather badly.

On Wikisource we use pages in the Author: namespace for authors and their publications, and tie these to Wikidata for identifiers etc.

The header and footer text fields are wrapped in <noinclude>…</noinclude> so that when we transclude the pages together into mainspace for presentation the running headers and footers are not included. It's one of the functions of mw:Extension:Proofread Page that helps us to adapt from paged media to wiki pages. --Xover (talk) 19:41, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you @Xover: & @ShakespeareFan00: for all the edits, very helpful to see how that was done. I have uploaded the original images, same ones supplied to PLOS Bio, for the paper to commons and used your image float template to position them. I have one other question, as a scientific paper it is riddled with references marked as [[1]] etc throughout. Do you utilise floating text over the numbers to show what the ref is? Or a template that can link it to the ref list on the last 2 pages of the paper? Once I get the hang of this I have 1000s of old publications on reptile taxonomy some over 200 years old I can upload. Some even BHL does not have as I sometimes spent up to 4 years finding a single copy of these texts. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

There are multiple ways it can be done that would be acceptable. What you might find most straightforward is to convert the endnotes to footnotes: grab the text of the note and put it into <ref>…</ref> tags in the place where it's referenced. Once we transclude the pages they will be displayed in a single block at the end (think Wikipedia article) so we'll have a sufficiently similar presentation to the original. Alternately you can use "list-defined references": the two pages of endnotes are wrapped in <references>…</references>, and inside it each note is wrapped in <ref name="Smith 1984">…</ref>. On each place the note is referenced you then use <ref name="Smith 1984" />. The notes won't show on each Page: page, but will connect up when we transclude the pages. There are a couple of other possibilities, but they have increasing complexity and marginal gain except in very specific cases. --Xover (talk) 21:01, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

This particular paper also has an item on Wikidata as do all the authors. Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species if this helps. Faendalimas (talk) 21:14, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

 Comment Transcluded at Principles for creating a single authoritative list of the world’s species. You will see some big muddy footprints, as multiple sections transcluding over pages are UGH! and I farnarkled on the means to best resolve it. Anyway it looks okay. As a comment re uploads to Commons where textual works at WS, the use of {{book}} is better as it takes a wikidata = parameter. There may still need tweaking, esp. if there are things to activate or deactive in header, eg. you don't want author pages all the way through. Cannot play more till later. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:32, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

When you are happy with the work, please announce it via template:new texts — billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: thanks so much for all you did on this, it looks great. Going to go through all the edit history on this so I can see what exactly was done each step. This is part of a series of papers, going back to Garnet and Christidis 2017 a Nature paper. I am keen as much as is possible under copy-write, to get the whole series here as it is a debate, with resolution, important to biological science. It has international consequences and should be available together somewhere. Six more papers in this series are to come out soon in a special volume I will assess the copy-write on those when they are published. These papers are producing a paradigm shift in how Global Species Lists are constructed. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 14:05, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

More than happy to help, the technical transclusion has some quirks when we are looking to get some of the book aspects.

I built on the sections that had been put in place, and just pulled the parts in. It is a little ugly to use old-fashioned LST and possibly could have avoided it, but it makes the top of the work a little neater. I see that my reference hack had been found and utilised.

Further to the note about usage of BOOK at Commons, if you get that in place, then we have a gadget here that will extract that data into the Index: pages, which saves some time too. Seminal papers are fantastic, and having them wikiable, linked and WD'd is beneficial to all. Expands our footprint, though we will more than likely need you to fix the categorisation and don't be afraid to fix what we have, we are true passionate amateurs in that space.

Hope that you are surviving so far from home in these interesting times. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I see what you mean by using book I can use {{Book|wikidata=}} I will upload the rest as books when I get to them. The Thomson et al 2018 paper which is also CCW will be a fun one, 184 authors. Ouch. Yes eventually I would like to place them all under a single category maybe named after the IUBS Working Group on Global Species Lists which was formed as a result of this, along with Zoology, Taxonomy, Conservation and believe it or not Medicine. Then link the papers in order as a seminal series. I have let all the authors know of the link. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 14:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

184? FFS. We may need to do something on the author page otherwise it is going to suck. Setting up xwiki complementary categories is good, though I would think that if you have something sexy to display and promote that we would say build a curated page in Portal: namespace, especially if you have something at Specieswiki. Portal is where we build our subject pages, and apart from the standard ns header is otherwise pretty freeform for whatever you build. We can talk those later. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:44, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

Yeah @Billinghurst: I know its a lot of authors, I was thinking we could do it similar to this template species:Template:Thomson et al., 2018 which displays as it does on my authority page on wikispecies all web usages of the paper shorten the list to the first 6 authors plus et al., with the option of viewng all of them if a reader wishes to. I can set that up using and modifying this template. Cheers Faendalimas (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2021 (UTC)

columns

Generally we don't try to even bother. The world of the printed page and the undetermined expansive width of a web page be it on a wide monitor or a small phone screen mean that we try to be adaptive, and a lot more keep it simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:55, 19 February 2021 (UTC)