User talk:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Moved collation page[edit]

You created a collation page for "Susannah Lattin" in the main namespace. We reserve the main namespace for actual works, so I have moved that page to a subpage of your user account. Where we are curating a subject collection, then that would belong in the Portal: ns, though I doubt that we would create such a page for this person, instead we would look to put the links on a more generic subject. You can see Help:Namespaces for more information about what goes where. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

So we pretend she is an author like Author:Thomas Edison. Why are there no pages on a subject. This is the most confusing collection of texts, they are not indexed by the subject. Why is that? Why do we pretend that Thomas Edison is an author when he is not? Why not just have a subject page (like a disambiguation page in Wikipedia) instead of creating misinformation? Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
No we don't pretend that she is an author. I have moved the page back to your user space, and please don't do that again. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:07, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

What is your rationale for keeping Author:Thomas Edison? I already pointed out to you that it violates your rule: "We don't pretend that [he/she] is an author." Please try and be consistent, you are arbitrarily enforcing rules. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 00:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

No excerpts, full articles expected[edit]

Please review Wikisource:What Wikisource Includes especially the component about no excerpts. You should provide a full newspaper article if you wish for the transcript to be retained. I have also been moving your articles to subpages of newspapers, as they are components of the published newspapers, and that makes them easier to produce as listings. Ideally newspapers would all by by edition, though that is unlikely to happen, so we have been working towards "Newspaper/Year/Article". You can see {{article link}} for the fuller scope of articles in published works. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

The same article may appear in a dozen papers, so they should probably not appear under the papers. You wrote: "You should provide a full newspaper article if you wish for the transcript to be retained". We have text-quality of 75%, and 50%, and 25%, we can start by deleting all of them. Let me know how I can help. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 13:55, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

We publish specific editions of an article (word for word), so we publish and state the version that we have, not worry about whatever else happened elsewhere. The quality setting is a prior rating of not proofread, proofread, validated, and is deprecated usage. The template usage is not about partial transcriptions.
Also, in the article at Greensboro Record/1930/Youth Captures Flight Record there is some ellipsis. Are you able to indicate whether there were illegible words or a slab of text that was not transcribed. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:59, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Same with the work St. Petersburg Times/1930/Eighteen Air Tourists End Annual Jauntbillinghurst sDrewth 10:52, 27 June 2015 (UTC)


Hi, I've worked through the creation of the main pages for a couple of the newspapers that the Schneider articles appear in. I did this so I could explain the process I worked through. If the process makes sense could you have a try at a couple as well? Then we can refine the process and start a new Help: page for newspapers and articles, which would hopefully not put someone else through as many hoops as you've had to face in the last week or so.

  1. Create a new page for the name of the paper as published on the masthead;
  2. Use the standard header and leave author, translator, section, previous and next fields blank;
  3. If the paper was published only in a single year, then fill in the year field, otherwise leave blank;
  4. If there is a enWikipedia article or stub (not just a redirect) on the paper, then add wikipedia = ARTICLENAME as an additional field;
  5. Add portal = Newspapers as an additional field;
  6. In the notes indicate the frequency of publication (daily, weekly, monthly ...), the years of publication, previous names, and any merges or consolidations with other papers;
  7. Copy the "prettytable" section from Milwaukee Journal, and change the details of that article to that of the article(s) that we are hosting for the new newspaper. Note that the date is expressed twice: once in CCYY-MM-DD format (for sorting), and once in English. Multiple articles from the same paper should listed in ascending date order (oldest first);
  8. Add Category:Newspapers to the end;
  9. Because this page is an artificial construct by Wikisource, a license is not necessary. However, copying that at the bottom of The Times would be appropriate;
  10. Preview the page to make sure it looks right (this is often the time when I spot my typos);
  11. Once happy with the page, Save;
  12. Add the new paper to the appropriate part of Portal:Newspapers. I think most of yours would go into the Local subsection of the United States section.

I need to think through how to manage the AP articles. The main issues, as I see them, are the potential for multiple copies of the same article in the various papers we end up hosting, and the problem of dating. The AP puts stuff on the wire on a particular date, but the various subscribers might not use the article for some time so the dates could be quite different. I see this happen here with the different print and online papers across New Zealand. There can be anything up to a two-week difference in publication dates. Any thoughts on how to manage this here would be welcome. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

  • I guess we are going to name them by where they were published, not the author, which is good. AP/UP/INS may provide 3 paragraphs of information and the individual paper may choose to print just one of two paragraphs based on how much space they have available. AP/UP/INS also updates their stories so that the afternoon version of the story may have an additional paragraph of information from the morning version. I have the Associated Press app and a fast moving story may get updated every few minutes. The publishing paper provides the headline which differs from paper to paper. So why don't we also add the stories to the Portal:Morning Foo and to Portal:Associated Press and have it under Category: News agency. We can hatnote them to their published titles and sort them by Associated Press dates. Coshocton Tribune/1930/Boy Flyer Hops Again For Columbus can be [[Coshocton Tribune/1930/Boy Flyer Hops Again For Columbus|Boy Flyer Hops Again For Columbus]] (1930 August 15). What do you think? I will set up the associated Press Partal and add a few and we can experiment till we find the optimal formatting. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:38, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@Beeswaxcandle: you are better to create the Newspaper header page, and the year pages, then utilise {{header periodical}} and let it populate as we do for The Times. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:29, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Hmm, I didn't know about {{header periodical}}. It's got some smarts in it that I wouldn't have thought of. Let me think through the tutorial explanation of how to use it over the next couple of days (RL is about to take me out of action for ca. 48 hours). Mr. Norton, what you've started doing to create the main pages is good and I'm pretty sure that the changes because of this template will be straightforward to make. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:04, 28 June 2015 (UTC)

Portal or Author?[edit]

Are the news agencies going to be a portal or an author? They are the author where the publisher is the paper. Publishers get portals, and authors get Author:Associated Press. If AP is an author the link will be made under "|author=" in the header. What do you prefer? --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 15:45, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Authors is for individuals, we put collective publishers into the portal namespace. Associated Press is the publisher and distributor, not an author. The individual who wrote for AP is simply not identified. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:24, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

Moved a work to a subpage[edit]

I have moved a work to the subpage User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Schneider Flies to Wichita. It has edits within it that appear to be errata corrections, rather than a true transcript. Also, was this the complete article? It appears to be more a few lines from a longer article rather than the full article. I would appreciate those clarifications prior to moving the work back the main ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:23, 27 June 2015 (UTC)

I suggested an interaction detente, where you would not make changes to my work, and just point out what is needed, so I can make the changes myself. Other editors are mentoring me to what changes need to be made, where your impulse is to make the changes yourself, making vague policy references, some of which, are just your personal preferences. There are tens of thousands of older documents requiring someone's attention, and you are obsessively concentrating on the new. If one outside person in the next 10 years looks at these documents, I would be amazed. Point out the policy, and suggest a change, and I can make the changes. Please resist, the impulse to make the changes yourself. Thanks.

/* Erratum */[edit]

Richard, on my talk page you wrote, "Do you correct the error in the transcription and show the original text in the footnote, or do you leave the error intact and show the corrected text in the footnote?" I answered but in thinking more on that situation I realize that User:Ineuw on his talk page would be an excellent person for you to ask. He is a perfectionist and I believe him to be the most determined perfectionist on all of Wikisource. I have known him for several years. His project is the many issues of Popular Science Monthly. He is also an administrator that helps others. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

You have been blocked, the editing guidelines apply to you[edit]

Okay, I have had enough of tidying up your edits that do not comply to the Wikisource:Style guide and its associated pages, and your continued approach to blithely continue outside of the guidance for additions. You are blocked and we will continue the conversation on this page until I hear that you understand that this site is about generating a quality product, not some slipshod convenience to you, that it is has guidelines and they will be followed unless there is an exceptional reason to step outside the guidance.

I know that you don't like that I am removing components from your edits, however, this site has a strong culture of patrolling and it is an expectation that we get the style right, and you seem point blank not wishing to apply our standard. Patrolling is part of that and it is about getting pages to our style. You have addressed your questions to the most experienced users at this site and they have all supported the continuance of the guidance.


  • No excerpts. This is clearly stated in WS:WWI. You have been instructed, you have pages moved back to your subpages for completion and our standard will be maintained. If you do not wish to complete the typing on an article, then that is fine, don't add it until is is complete. No more ... in the middle of an article, and such pages will be deleted as they are out of scope.
  • No more place name linking. We do not do it by general practice and it would take a strong exception to do it. We do not take our user for fools, and we believe that they can read and comprehend placenames or look them up. A link from an old work to a modern encyclopaedia is generally not pertinent to our works. We don't not interpret works and links that we add have to add value to specifically comprehend the work. If we did what you are doing in these pieces with our biographical works, eg. DNB, EB1911, they would be butt ugly. So we maintain minimal linking. If you had cared to read the previous discussions you would comprehend this, instead you just persist with an argument that the guidance doesn't address removal. Okay, don't add them and they won't need to be removed.
  • Style in headers. The notes field is not for the styling of articles that you have added, and you have not paid heed to the repeated edits you would amend your additions. We have developed a style for linking in headers and it has been explained to you.

So where are we going from here? — billinghurst sDrewth 14:29, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Also can you please inform us whether the piece User:Richard Arthur Norton (1958- )/Biography of Eddie August Schneider (1911-1940) has been published, or is it simply a written document in the papers. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

Author pages and main namespace pages—to style[edit]

Hi. You have been around long enough to be able to create author pages, and main namespaces to our styles, so it would be appreciated if you did it according to our practice. If you are still in doubt, or need assistance, then please ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Moved unpublished work to user space[edit]

Hi. Your recent work has no evidence that it is a published work, which is a requirement per Wikisource:What Wikisource includes so I have moved that page to your user space. Further, I have removed your link at Wikidata, as it would be an inappropriate link to link from a cemetery item, to a Wikisource edition. If you have queries about any of the practices then please ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. I note that this is a repeat of previous conversations about your out of scope work, and I again ask for you to keep within scope. Others don't seem to have issues, nor take the liberties that you seem to undertake. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:03, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

History of Delaware County[edit]

Following up on this.

So far as I know you're pretty well versed with MediaWiki editing in general, so I'll try for a lightning bootstrap on the stuff that's unique to Wikisource or that's counterintuitive for someone used to how things are done on enWP. Please let me know if it looks like I'm making bad assumptions in there!

Anyways… The fundamental unit on Wikisource is the Work (as in "a literary work"), rather than the "article" or the "page". A work here will typically be a book, an issue of a newspaper, or of a magazine. A short story that appeared in a magazine will conceptually be more akin to a section in a Wikipedia article: it's a subdivision or part of a larger work.

All our works are also previously published (this is vaguely analogous to w:WP:NOR), which in practice means that we usually do not upload or transcribe a single newspaper article, chapter of a book, or entry from an anthology or collection. For on-wiki structure and setup, it will always be the stuff you could go to a library and physically hold in your hand as one unit we start from. It is what was published, in the form it was published.

The workflow and technical setup is fairly different on Wikisource vs. enwp, and based almost entirely around the ProofreadPage extension.

The short version is… Upload a scan of a book to Commons; make a page with the same name in the Index: namespace; create a <pagelist /> to map physical to logical page numbers; proofread (transcribe+format) each page of the book on a separate wikipage in the Page: namespace; then transclude the book into mainspace for presentation to readers.

For each physical page in the DjVu or PDF there will be a wikipage in the Page: namespace. The Index: page ties together the file on Commons with the pages in the Page: namespace. In mainspace the ProofreadPage extension has a special tag (<pages index="filename.djvu" from=n to=m … />) that uses the information in the Index: page to transclude the individual wikipages in the Page: namespace for presentation.

This initially quite convoluted workflow is designed to give us verifiability back towards the scanned pages, and flexibility in how we present the work. Working page by page also lets us divide a 1000-page work into manageable chunks: one can do a page here and there and still contribute towards continually improving it.

For big projects (a 1000-page work for example) we don't have to finish everything before we transclude the work to mainspace, but it needs to have some reasonable subset done. The deletion discussion on History of Delaware County—which looked like this when it was proposed for deletion—is mostly revolving around whether the non-scan-backed tiny excerpt with poor formatting should be allowed to be sitting visible to our readers, when nobody has worked on it for a decade. The scan and Index: that was created are usually allowed to sit indefinitely even if incomplete because they're not visible to readers. And a text that is being actively worked on can be transcluded into mainspace a chapter at a time (or other reasonable chunks) so long as someone is working on it so that it will eventually be complete in some kind of reasonable timeframe.

So… for History of Delaware County, the scan of the original publication has already been uploaded at File:History of Delaware County (1856).djvu, and an index has been created at Index:History of Delaware County (1856).djvu. As you can see from the page list in the index, some of the pages have been Proofread (transcribed + formatted; the yellow ones) while some have just had un-verified OCR text added (the red ones) and most have not been touched at all (the redlinks). In addition, what little is there has been transcluded to mainspace at History of Delaware County (view source on the page to see the syntax used for transclusion there).

To work on this you would typically start proofreading page by page the pages that are not yet in Proofread status. Once you have each chapter complete we'd typically transclude that to mainspace, in a subpage like History of Delaware County/Chapter 1 (I can help with that so you have an example to look at). And then repeat for each chapter.

Feel free to ping me if you need help with anything, or the community is usually pretty good about helping or answering questions if you post on Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help. --Xover (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

The standard welcome template[edit]

I see you never got the standard welcome template (I'm guessing your account predates when we started routinely adding the welcome template), so I'm going to go ahead and add it here because it contains the most central links to documentation and forums for discussion. I find it's a handy reference when you need to look that stuff up. It's aimed at newbies so apologies in advance that it explains how to sign your posts on talk pages etc. :)


Hello, Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ), 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:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

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.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

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) 15:07, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

We don't take excerpts[edit]

History of the Municipalities of Hudson County, New Jersey, 1630-1923 is out of scope in its current form per WS:WWI as it excerpts of a book, not a complete book, and there is little chance that we can do the complete work without available scans. If you don't have scans available, these excerpts will need to be deleted. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 13 March 2020 (UTC)