User talk:MartinPoulter

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Welcome[edit]

Welcome

Hello, MartinPoulter, 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:

You may be interested in participating in

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.

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! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 21:38, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the kind welcome! Nice place you got here. ;) MartinPoulter (talk) 10:14, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Outreach diagram[edit]

The left side of the diagram is roughly where I started in talking at the 2010 WMUK AGM about Wikisource and the DNB. Since the advent of Wikidata what I then went on to say can be clarified, and this (quite recently) is having an impact.

Let me explain with an example. Starting at Godwin, Mary Wollstonecraft (DNB00) one finds a link to w:Mary Wollstonecraft and so to the Wikidata item d:Q101638. There is another way to go, namely to d:Q19050770 which is the item for the Wikisource article itself. What is going on now is that those two items are being linked, by "main subject" (here d:Q19050770 to d:Q101638), and "described by source" in the other direction.

In principle "described by source" can hold all Wikisource articles, in whatever language, describing the item, i.e. for which "main subject" properly applies. Now this is not happening all at once: the DNB itself has about 30,000 articles, and finding the "main subjects" on Wikidata, via Wikipedias, takes some work. And this is just one reference work out of many.

But this cross-linking and link-following is providing a way of realising what back in 2010 I was calling "reference commons". For those articles on a Wikisource that are reference material associated to a definite topic, one can now see how to use Wikidata to collate them with others.

Charles Matthews (talk) 10:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Charles, I hope you are well.
I didn't see your talk so am glad to have this additional information which I'll use in outreach about Wikisource and Wikidata. Are you recommending any changes to the diagram? It sounds like there should be a similar diagram to express the relations between these Wikidata nodes and the resources they refer to. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:33, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Talking to librarians is obviously on-topic ...

Perhaps an approach would be to address the issue of how one would consult Wikisource on a given subject. The category system here might help: but it is really most concerned with classifying texts rather than their content. There is a system of portals here, as you know. There are disambiguation pages that can help, for titles, but they are much less well developed than on Wikipedia. There is search, onsite or by commercial search engine, for keywords or phrases. All of these can be of assistance, but none, really, is a magic bullet for finding reference material quickly here. And that also assumes the restriction to content in English.

With all that as context, it seems that Wikidata offers a solution now. So integrating portal-like content into Wikidata has a lot to offer, especially because of automation, and cross-matching (in the case of people, at least) with biographical identifiers/authority control. I'm in the thick of the latter, right now.

The other theme is "metadata on Wikisource". This addresses the question of Wikisource's USP, from another angle. The Author: namespace pages already do some of that, since they warrant Wikidata items. Anyone interested in, say, Victorian publications, would get the point that the Wikidata item for an article would carry its full metadata, in machine-readable form. There are going to be many places to read a given piece of old public domain text; but we now in Wikisource+Wikidata have great curation tools.

Charles Matthews (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

nop goes on a new line[edit]

Just a note to say that {{nop}} should be placed on it own line when terminating a page: namespace page. Its purpose is to 'trick' mediawiki so force it to pay heed to the new line marker, which otherwise is swallowed by the software (which is otherwise useful but now when you do want a new paragraph). — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 31 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

refs[edit]

Regarding this edit, have you checked all the individual pages to be sure there are no refs? Many of the included pages have not been proofread, so until they have been proofread and formatted, it is only possible to determine whether there are refs by looking at all the individual pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:41, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hi User:EncycloPetey. Correct me if I'm wrong, but the body content of the book seems not to have page footnotes. At least the individual pages in this case seem to have no refs: I think it's clear at a glance, but again, correct me if I'm wrong. If I am wrong, at least it's trivially easy to fix. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 09:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Transcription projects[edit]

Your note on the Scriptorum prompted me to ask if there were plans to hold other Transcription events?

Quite by accident, I found that archive.org had a 9 Volume set of English Statutes by Owen Ruffhead from the early 18th Century. ( Duly placed on Commons, and a a very slow project to transcribe is underway.)

However, it's slightly concerning that I had to find a US source for these.

The "Statutes of the Realm" (an important collection of most English Statutes up the end of Quuen Anne's regin) doesn't appear to be digitised completely let alone transcribed.

Perhaps a subsequent Transcibe-a-thon could concentrate on the English Legal Corpus, given that the proportion and quality of the material accessible is highly variable? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:56, 25 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Portraits of celebrated women Florence Nightingale.djvu[edit]

Fast even for me :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:34, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's amazing. Thanks ShakespeareFan00. The event yesterday seems to have been a success and I would love to do more. I will use my residency in Oxford University to agitate for more. The English Legal Corpus angle is interesting: I don't have any legal academic contacts so far, but I can work on it. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 08:39, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

On Transcription projects[edit]

In terms of future events, I suggested the Legal Corpus idea because as I understood it the Faculty of Law in Oxford had an international reputation.

Some other thoughts, on Wikisource the POTM tends to be themed, if you were going to agitate for regular Wikisource events in Oxford, I would suggest creating a theme for each. My experience with PTOM has been that its been used to bring important works into the OER sphere, ( a recent POTM was one of Darwin's works)., to highlight quirky works, or to support efforts to bring less well known subject areas/authors to the public attention. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of my suggestions for potential themes or works for future events, I'd have to have a look at what various current research interests at Oxford are, which is something you might be in a a better position to do.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I did however have one thought already, which was the Rulers of India series, for which Wikisource has scans for some volumes ( This was originally printed by The Clarendon Press, who are I think still Oxford based.)

As a side note, This series seems to have been published at the turn of the century, meaning that there will have been developments in scholarship since it was originally published. This got me thinking, Wikiversity is another Wikimedia project which aims to support the development of OER materials (as opposed to writing an encylopedia). I see no reason why if there was interest, there couldn't be a "research project" on Wikiversity, to note corrections and developments relevant to works on Wikisource, or even potentially develop full-blown commentaries! Such annotations would be in scope for Wikiversity as opposed to Wikisource which is preserving the original texts.

Related to the above, would be whether anyone would be interested in writing the Wiki equivalent of "Cliff's" notes, for major literary works on Wikisource. ( Writing these is different from writing a Wikipedia article.)...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:22, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Another consideration that came into my mind, is that Wikisource is not just in English , there being some very active Wikisources in other languages (I also note Latin Wikisource: la.wikisource.org and Sanskrit: https://sa.wikisource.org). Perhaps as well as a Transcribe-a-thon, you could suggest a Lingua-a-thon, where works on English get translated into other languages, or works in another language get translated to English (This might be good practice for final year language students and classicists ...) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These might also be of interest:-

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:38, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Enquiry[edit]

Over on Wikipedia, I dropped a note a while back to User:Rodolph mentioning that in terms of old documents you had to be careful about how you took digitisation photos or scans of really old material. This got me thinking, about what sort of advice should be given to potential media contributors with "old" material, I would hope most GLAM partners are probably all too aware of conservation considerations, but some private archives and individual contributors might be less so.

Given that the Bodleian has documents dating back to at least the 11th(?) century, I was thinking you might be a reasonable person to get an expert view from. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:23, 13 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Malone papers at the Bodleian[edit]

Hey, just noticed on the Scriptorium that you're Wikimedian in Residence at the Bodleian. Just wanted to drop you a note to lodge a thought in your subconscious: the Bodleian holds most of the papers of Edmond Malone (should be in "MS Malone"), and, I believe, also of James Boswell (I don't have the collection, but assume it should be under the obvious name), both of which I've long wished were easily available to consult. I've been working on the enwiki article on Malone, and have often wished for Malone's letters and notes (on Shakespeare primarily, but also on other related topics), and things like his transcripton of Gerard Langbaine's An Account of the English Dramatic Poets (1691) with notes by William Oldys and George Steevens (it's a pivotal work in Malone's life: it marks, literally, the point when he left Ireland and a career in Law for London and a life spent in service of Literature and scholarship).

These mostly aren't a perfect fit for Wikisource, but would certainly be a valuable addition to Wikimedia sites in general. They also probably aren't core to the Bodleian's goals for digitizing and increasing the impact of their collections, but aren't entirely outside what they might be interested in at some point (most Shakespearean scholars would find these of at least some use in some fashion at some point of their career, and anything that bears on Shakespeare is by definition sexy).

I have no specific ideas regarding what could be done here, so this message isn't really a concrete request for anything in particular. I just wanted to lodge it in your brain in case it tickles something at some point, now or in the future. Regards, --Xover (talk) 10:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this, Xover. There's a lot I'd like to do with manuscripts, so I'd better not promise to do anything immediately, but I'll keep your suggestions in mind. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:18, 11 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Citations in ruffhead[edit]

Page:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/54

I've put the sidenotes citation as references for now, but I'd appreciate a librarian such as yourself leaving a note somwehere as to what these citations mean. They are presumably references to other important texts on English Law, pre-dating Ruffhead's collection, but would appreciate knowing for certain to aid other researches or cross reference if those earlier works are ever transcribed on Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Beyond my expertise I'm afraid, but I will try to meet someone to talk about legal citations when back at work in January. Sorry I can't promise a speedy resolution!. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:42, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I suspect that Rolls refers to certain court documents, and that Co and Coke, relate to Edward Coke somehow. But thanks for looking into this, having a Wikimedian in Residence is a useful thing... ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:22, 27 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Giles).djvu[edit]

Working away slowly on this, but was wondering if there's a free transcription of the original Anglo Saxon. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:37, 2 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Not that I can find, unfortunately. If it existed, it would be in the EEBO (Early English Books Online) collection which can be read through the Oxford Text Archive, but I can't find it there. MartinPoulter (talk) 11:59, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle (Giles).djvu[edit]

Would appreciate someone taking this on for validation. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ephemera/Games/toys & 'constructables'[edit]

Not strictly you area, but I seem to recall the Pitt Rivers had a small collection of 19th century (and earlier) games, Would you be interested in looking into whether amongst the collections you are in the process of opening up have any complete games that would be open to digitisation, with a view to the production of 'printable/constructable' resources (i.e printable PDF/SVG on Commons :) ) (The other major collection of 'games' would probably the V&A, but I'm not sure if they have any active digitisation projects of old games at the moment. )

Some other constructable items that I would be interested in seeing are : - card/paper models of various things. ( Geometric figures are one possibility, but the more conventional card models of buildings would also be useful). - Out of copyright toy theatres and the scenery/charcter sheets more so. (the V&A distributes an example Cinderella 'thaetre' as an education resource and it would be nice to have others on Commons) - Constructable 'toys' in general

By constructable I mean items that can be made from a flat "printed" sheet by cutting out parts/components which are then assembled with paste/glue etc...

I appreciate this might not quite be in Wikisource scope, but it is for Commons :)

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sacred Books of the East =[edit]

These contained missing scans. As the Clarendon Presswas Oxford based, I was wondering if you knew if the works concerned had ended up in the Bodliean Collections. Patching the scans would be nice :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 30 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Rose 1810 Observations respecting the public expenditure and the influence of the Crown.djvu[edit]

Can you take a look over this, I was slowly doing some OCR cleaning?ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Simple training for newbies[edit]

Do you have a simple training program for Wikisource newbies that could be put on Main Page and/or Community Portal and/or Help (main page) for people who might be interested in editing but haven't the foggiest idea how things work here? Outlier59 (talk) 00:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I've done in-person training, but haven't yet got anything digital to share. Video tutorials are among the things I'd like to do in the future. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 17:07, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You should seriously consider doing a series of youtube videos similar to Blender beginner tutorials. Explain what's on the screen and show people how to use it. If you've done it one-on-one, you can do it to a mass audience with a series of training tutorials. Outlier59 (talk) 00:42, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

File:Balade to Rosemounde.jpg[edit]

Research enquiry- Is this an extract from something the Bodleian holds? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:48, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Sorry for the long delay! I've confirmed with the library and updated the file description on Commons accordingly. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:46, 16 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting for Edinburgh[edit]

Hello. I have validated one of the Index pages you proofread, removed the line breaks and adjusted the header to follow the formatting User:Stinglehammer had initiated (to keep formatting styles uniform throughout the Index). I do suggest line breaks be removed during the proofread stage. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Never mind :) I see you have removed line breaks with subsequent pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

User:Londonjackbooks: Thanks! Sometimes I eliminate line breaks when it makes a visible difference but I'm not always in the habit. Is there a consensus on line breaks that I haven't seen? I wouldn't be surprised. MartinPoulter (talk) 23:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I usually refer others to WS Help:Beginner's guide to typography on the subject. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Customise a work header[edit]

To make things easier with PDBP, I think that it would be better to customise a header template, like has been done with {{DNB00}}. That way we can just have someone complete the template parameters, and stick the formatting into the background, and not have to worry about coding links, setting defsort, or other formatting. Happy to do that if it suits you better. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:15, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: This sounds awesome if we can have it: anything that decreases the repetitive work of the transclusion is great. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:21, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Template:PDBP it may need some iterations to get perfect. I know that the way that I have set it that we will need section labels in the same case as the pagename. I will go back and convert the others in Page ns: then convert the transcluded to utilise the template. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If you use m:TemplateScript you can add the regex
			// converts header template to PDBP
			{
				name: 'PDBP',
				position: 'replace',
				script: function (editor) {
					editor.replace(/\{\{header[^\}]+\}\}\n/, '{{PDBP\n | article    = \n | from       = \n | to         = \n | previous   = \n | next       = \n | wikipedia  = \n | notes      = \n}}');
				},
			},
which allows click replacement of {{header}} with {{PDBP}} — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
and fwiw, when WMF puts in place TemplateStyle, we can look to more readily apply alternate styling. Alternatively I am thinking that maybe this should all be migrated to a separate Layout and apply that with {{default layout}}, then allow others to push it as they wish. Anyway, just thought bubbles. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:02, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst:: I haven't been working on this recently, mainly because I've been working on a project proposal about bibliographic data that could use the Plomer data as a source, but thank you very much for the work you've done on this. I'm aware of templates but didn't realise the process could be made so elegant. This has made it very easy to make progress on the Plomer dictionary. I wasn't aware of TemplateScript but I will look into it. It looks like I need to upskill a bit. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:51, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It would be good if you could put into that consideration about putting the bios parts into WD, as has been done with other biographical works. Then looking to how we might set up matching bio article with a corresponding person item. There are tools available for components, so it is a matter of working out what is wanted/needed, especially as you mentioned that you were working with another body who had an interest in matching the data with their resources??? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 16 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, sorry to jump in, but I'm just starting to help, and the PDBP template is really neat so far. But something about the formatting seems to be breaking the funny fraction with no line thing in entries like A Dictionary of the Booksellers and Printers who Were at Work in England, Scotland and Ireland from 1641 to 1667/Bowman (Francis). I don't know if there's an easy fix for this or whether it's not worth trying to match the formatting so closely and just use 1646/7 which is a common way of writing it. — Kastrel (talk) 18:32, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Kastrel: I did start looking at that, and have yet to work out the specific issue of why it is not inheriting the parent, I did poke it at someone a little more CSS savvy, though haven't got back tot hem to hassle yet. As it is early in the project I suggest keep going as is, and when we get the style fixed it will all be sweet. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:37, 8 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu[edit]

Much appreciated if you could work out a consistent way of formatting this and then document it so I can make progress. Thanks.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:19, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index:The Hardships of the English Laws in Relation to Wives. Bodleian copy.pdf[edit]

Was this being held for an event? If so, can you let me know? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: It's not. Just something I saw that would be good to add to the feminism portal. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 12:10, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Index:English-Swahili Dictionary.djvu[edit]

Do you know of a source that might have a year of death for the author? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:24, 10 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ShakespeareFan00. I don't know where to find one, and it looks like the BnF, DNB, and other libraries have not succeeded. I have edited his Wikidata entry to add in some links. I see that he studied at Christ Church, Oxford. Is there any indication he stayed on at Oxford as a staff member? If so, I could take it up with the archivist of the relevant college. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not from my sources, but it might be worth chasing up with a college archive in any event. Mentioned here Page:Alumni_Oxoniensis_(1715-1886)_volume_3.djvu/112 but no indication he became a staff member. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:56, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Had a bit of a further dig and his death is reported in Nature in August 1917. And his brother was Bodley's Librarian! I've added the info to his Wikidata entry. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:24, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A long shot..[edit]

https://archive.org/details/cutterspractical00vinc

This is missing 2 plates, However these are also missing in the source. Do you know of a library source that might have another copy of this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:50, 11 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Since this is an American publication I'm not optimistic about there being a copy in the Bodleian. It turns out the Bod has a couple of cutters' guides for men's garments, but not this. Ah, but Hathi Trust has another scanned copy. Does it have the plates? I'm not sure where in the book they are supposed to be. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:36, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not as US publication.. The Tailor and Cutter was a British Publication (see. Page:The_cutters'_practical_guide_to_the_cutting_of_ladies'_garments.djvu/5 , The missing plate is around https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=caia.ark:/13960/t10p2630j;view=1up;seq=66 , which jumps between Plates 1 and 4... The Hathi copy seems to be the same as the IA copy.
Argh. Then I'm baffled as to why it's not in SOLO. MartinPoulter (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Trade publication with a limited circulation? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:27, 13 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Style guide for British Legislation?[edit]

Another long shot..

Presumably at some point, there was a printed style guide or at the very least advice (to the publishing and printing trade) on how to layout and print UK legislation. Is this something too technical to have ended up in an archive collection?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Foreign Economic Espionage in Cyberspace.pdf[edit]

I have fixed those couple of pages. Wiki-headings are a bit of a 'playful' thing in ProofreadPage space due to their expectation of seeing the new line character preceding them. Sometimes mediawiki doesn't play well with mediawiki. I have added that spacing back in, so those remaining pages are ready for you to validate.

Hope that you didn't mind me migrating it to the scan, as I needed to get the text for that missing section 3, and it was just as easy to bring the whole beast in. Please do add this to Template:New texts, and note that you will need to do a little tweaking with overrides to utilise the portal link for the author link (see doc). Will you also add it to Wikidata, or did you want me to do that? (noting we have a good gadget to allow it to be done more easily without popping over there). — billinghurst sDrewth 00:24, 24 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: Thanks so much for what you've done. It turns out my attempts to validate the pages were causing an error because I had the "Easy LST" gadget enabled in my preferences. Disabling that gadget fixed the problem. MartinPoulter (talk) 14:58, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Explanatory notes of a pack of Cavalier playing cards.djvu[edit]

Been trying to find some information on the author, and didn't turn much online.

The work is most likely public domain, but wanted to try a different approach to getting an author lifetime.

F.S.A after his name means he was a "fellow" of the w:Society of Antiquaries of Scotland and F.R.H.S applies the same affiliation with the Royal Historical Society, as I understand it. As both are learned societies, his death would most likely have been noted in an obituary in their respective journals? Am I thinking along reasonable lines here?

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:34, 13 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Absolutely reasonable! Looking at the Scottish society, they announced at a meeting in November 1894 that he had died in the previous year: http://journals.socantscot.org/index.php/psas/article/view/6572/6541 (also that he was elected to the Society in 1885). We've found something that none of the library authority files have! MartinPoulter (talk) 13:58, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - Wikidata item updated :) - https://www.wikidata.org/w/index.php?title=Q15732131&type=revision&diff=811861196&oldid=811736669 ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:07, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index:12 days angus.png[edit]

Anymore information in the catlog for this? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:21, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: ANything known about it will be in the Ballads database where you got it, or in ESTC. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index:A Comprehensive History of India Vol 1.djvu[edit]

The author is linked but which one? There are two identically named authors, and someone had updated this from the later dated one to the earlier dated one. It would be nice to confirm which one actually wrote the work concerned. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Hathi Trust, National Library of Australia and the Bodleian all ascribe this work to the 1799-1863 Beveridge. Cheers and thanks for all you've done for Wikisource in 2018! MartinPoulter (talk) 17:58, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Philosophical Transactions - Volume 053.djvu[edit]

I would suggest checking to see if there are missing image plates. There seems to be a discontinuity in the numbering of those present as full-page ones? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:48, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShakespeareFan00: Thanks for noticing. I may have to look for alternative scans. Can you be more specific about where the discontinuity is? MartinPoulter (talk) 11:50, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Djvu Page 235 is Plate (XIVb) , the next one I've found is Djvu Page 366 is Plate (XVIII) meaning that Plates XV, XVI and XVII need to be located? I may have missed them if they are inline? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks so much for finding and clearly marking these problems. I'll look for other sources but I'll also look at other ways to compile a DJVU from the archive.org images. MartinPoulter (talk) 10:41, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Found the missing Tabs, They were also numbered within the main page numbering sequence :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:32, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu[edit]

A very quick enquiry on this.. Is there a way to determine what the original paper size was?

I can then use the information on the dimensions to set up the layout appropriately :)

Most likely Foolscap or Crown? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your expertise needed in determining if someone misattriubted something years ago.[edit]

See:- Wikisource:Scriptorium#The_Prince_(Marriott).

What's needed is someone to examine 1908 edition to determine what was actually present, because the other noted author isn't mentioned except in respect of some post-war editions, and it would be nice to have clarity so the relevant pages can be made unambiguous. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Long-term research Enquiry[edit]

Index_talk:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu#Identification_of_references.

It would be nice if you could find a suitably interested researcher, to help document who the cross referenced external sourcesand authorities mentioned frequently in the margins of this work. I appreciate that you said this was outside of your area of expertise previously, but figured you may have interested parties within the Bodleian or within the wider University community.

Identifying the external sources, would assist greatly in confirming precisely what certain sidenotes are making reference to, to enable them to be more appropriately placed, as it's not possible to exactly reprduce the print layout locally here on English Wikisource.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Index:Worldwide Threat Assessment of the US Intelligence Community Unclassified 2016.pdf[edit]

Hi. I see that this work is untranscluded and you have set this to be small chapters. Wondering whether it may be just as useful in just the two subpages based on the two parts. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:06, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Billinghurst: The idea behind breaking into small chapters is for Category:Climate change and Portal:Climate change. There are sections, albeit short, in these intelligence reports about climate change and I want to be able to categorise & link those relevant sections from elsewhere. These reports mention a lot of different issues, so there is a virtue, I think, in making it especially easy to find and bookmark the section about a given topic, and compare it to similar sections from other years' reports. More broadly, I'm less good at finishing things than starting them, so I'm aware of a number of texts I've not finished off, and they will be priorities as the winter nights draw in up here and I spend more time on Wikisource. Cheers, MartinPoulter (talk) 16:21, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Makes sense. 👍 — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paleographic and Manuscript contractions.[edit]

In researching something else, I found these notes in the front of "The Statutes of the Realm" reprint. [[1]]

Is there an out of copyright publication on this that goes into more detail in relation to other works? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your WD advertised presentation around books[edit]

Nice! Can I suggest that it would be worthwhile announcing it to the community at WS:S. There is a true use in putting it past the community as part of the broader education of those who just transcribe. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:05, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and you may be interested in the conversation at Template talk:Plain sister where we have started a conversation about some more automagical links utilising WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:10, 11 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst: Thanks! I do a lot of outreach that mentions WS: I usually present Wikipedia, Wikidata, Wikisource and Commons as the four projects most relevant to the study of historical figures. I wasn't sure whether to publicise that talk here, but I suppose I should when so much of the content is about WS. MartinPoulter (talk) 16:10, 14 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For WS to thrive it needs to be better demonstrate that it works best as a tetrahedron of WP/WD/WS/C. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:15, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MartinPoulter&oldid=9705327"