User talk:Martin of Sheffield

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Crystal Clear app clock.svg It is approximately 6:58 PM where this user lives. (England)


TUSC token 0d2143de092c67c18c2277c4667fe01e[edit]

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

The Wikipedia Library[edit]

Hi Martin! I saw your proposal for a library resources template. I think that's a neat idea. I work on The Wikipedia Library project and would love you to join in our discussions and pilot programs, create a profile, add yourself to the newsletter list, and get involved however you think would best use your strengths. I hope to chat more and see you around. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 21:07, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment. I've been mulling the idea over for some time, if you look at the edit history you'll see I've been keeping an eye on Dewey Decimal Classification. The only problem that I can foresee is that OCLC may mutter about copyright; to be effective at least abridged if not the full DDC should be provided. I have no idea about copyright in UDC or LCC, I've never used them. I have a vision of walking into my local public library sitting down at a computer and looking up Wikipedia for a subject, say model steam locomotives, and after reading online being able to walk straight to the shelves at 625.19 and browse the stock. Integrated information! Meanwhile I'll wander over to the Library project, but I'm only an amateur user, not a professional. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:25, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for nice welcome![edit]

Hi Martin,

Super thanks for great welcome message, will keep in touch for advice and help. Still trying to set up my user page so i can list my areas of interest for other wiki gnomes so any links would be really helpful Rachel83

I'm afraid I can't take credit for the design, it is a standard one. All the same, welcome. One tip I will pass on, when setting up your user page (or any other for that matter), feel free to "liberate" interesting layout from other people's pages: edit > select > copy > cancel (don't save) and then paste into your page. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Dewey and Classify[edit]

Hi and thanks again for raising the issue of Dewey numbers and copyright. As Dewey numbers are on the spines of many books all over the planet, I do not believe that the numbers themselves are copyrightable. But that's not why I'm here: I noticed on your Wikipedia Library Project profile that you said you were using your abridged Dewey for your personal collection. You might be interested in a free webservice provided by OCLC Research which will allow you to more quickly classify your materials, . Classify Of course if you enjoy doing it by hand, you can continue to do it that way! Best, Merrilee (talk) 18:31, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. I hadn't come across it before, in the past I've sought inspiration for problematical classifications by searching the British Library or Library of Congress on-line catalogues. Obviously though some older books are not listed. I tried a couple of test books on the OCLC system, the first one returned a rather odd number: DA650, odd that is until I realised that there was no Dewey number, so I was only seeing an LCC number. The next book returned Dewey but no LCC, so the site does have to be used intelligently. A third book couldn't be found via the title search, but eventually I found it through the author; LCC only again. My final test couldn't be found at all and it's not that old, published 1910. I do note that the site is flagged as "experimental", I hope that doesn't equate to "temporary". Thanks once again, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:24, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
Although nothing is permanent, I don't anticipate this one going away -- it gets a fair amount of traffic. I think it gets a fair amount of traffic from the less developed parts of the world. Yes, I should have mentioned that it supports both LCC and Dewey. I'll find out more about coverage. I hope at least now and again it can save your some steps. Merrilee (talk) 23:00, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

AFD of List of Dewey Decimal classes[edit]

I have put in a deletion request for List of Dewey Decimal classes as it appears to be a copyright violation. I'm notifying you as you have either made multiple edits to the article in the past year and/or on the talk page for that article and Talk:Dewey Decimal Classification. --Marc Kupper|talk 04:22, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library Survey[edit]

As a subscriber to one of The Wikipedia Library's programs, we'd like to hear your thoughts about future donations and project activities in this brief survey. Thanks and cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:16, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:English Heritage List entry[edit]

As someone who has contributed to the talk page in the past, please see Template talk:English Heritage List entry#Temp problem -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Long and short cites[edit]

Martin, thank you for your detailed message here. I continue to be confused. I have to admit that I am not a computer expert, nor am I a professional writer, just an ordinary sort of guy who likes to improve the content of WP, and even win the occasional star, if it is merited. In my discussion with Goodraise here I realise now that we were talking at cross purposes; hence the impasse. I thought it was about authorship and publisher, when apparently it was about mixing short and long cites, which I do not understand, nor can I find any guidance that I can understand. Apparently the use of the NHLE template (which I like and have used on hundreds of occasions) produced long cites in List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley which were mixed with {{sfn...}} refs, which I understand are known as short cites. So how do I make the NHLE template into short cites, and how do I link it to the lower section (in this case titled "Sources")? I have searched for a model to use and found Rochester Castle, a FA in which you were involved. But this seems to mix long and short cites (in this case IoE rather than NHLE) and this has been accepted. And what should I have done about, for example, refs 12, 21, 70, and 72, or are they OK? Sorry to trouble you about this, but my experience at FLC with this list dissuaded me from nominating any future FLCs because I felt I had been criticised rather than helped, something I had not experienced with my previous 19 FLs. Any expert guidance would be much appreciated. Best wishes. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:01, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Peter, let's start with a conventional book citation. In order to make a useful citation one needs to identify the book and the page. Long inline citations use {{cite book}} or {{citation}} and repeat mostly the same information each time, simply with a differing page number. Consider Richard Watts Charities where Hinkley is cited around thirty times. I could have inserted <ref name=Hinkley14>{{citation |last=Hinkley |first=E.J.F. |title=A History of the Richard Watts Charity |publisher=Richard Watts and the City of Rochester Almshouse Charities |location=Rochester |year=1979 |isbn=0-905418-76-X |page=14}}</ref> followed a line later by <ref name=Hinkley104>{{citation |last=Hinkley |first=E.J.F. |title=A History of the Richard Watts Charity |publisher=Richard Watts and the City of Rochester Almshouse Charities |location=Rochester |year=1979 |isbn=0-905418-76-X |page=104}}</ref>. This produces a list of full citations, but it is confusting to the reader who sees the same information repeated, and worse for the editor who just sees more markup than text.
To simplify this we can put the main details of the book in a bibliography and reference it from within the text. Earlier work I did, such as Rochester Cathedral, has this style with rather simple inline citations: <ref name=Whitelock18>Whitelock p189</ref>. The reference at the bottom are then in the form "4. ^ Whitelock p189". I was helped and advised by another editor and then started using the Harvard citations. The templates add the author and year, but will also link to the long form. Moving on from <ref>{{harv...}</noref>, there is an ever nicer form: {{sfn}}. Have a look at Temple Manor where both sfn and the closely related efn are in use. Clocking on reference [1] for example takes you straight to the relevant citation, and then clicking on that takes you to the entry for the scheduled ancient monument record, from where a reader can click to view the original.
To sum up so far: long inline citations provide all the details in the text and are adequate for small articles or publications only referenced once or twice. Short citations keep the source tidier and make for an easier list for the reader.
So how do they link together? This is where the NHLE dispute comes in. {{citation}} and its friends generate hidden markup known as CITEREFs. {{citation}} does this by default, the others such as {{cite book}} require the "ref=harv" parameter. NHLE is a jacket around citation and there conforms to this. The short form citations look for and link to this markup. The markup format is CITEREFauthorDate, for instance <ref>{{harvnb|Rigold|1975|p=6}}</ref> will expect to find CITEREFRigold1975. If there is no author, the linkage gets confused. Hence the requirement for there to always be an author: human, corporate or anonymous. The missing year for NHLE has caused problems in the past (see the earlier discussion), hence the use of the entry number as if it were a year.
I hope this explains the somewhat convoluted discussions. If I may proffer advice then I personally try to stick to {{sfn}} in the text and {{citation}} in the bibligraphy section only.
Martin. Many thanks for the rouble you have taken over this. I will use Temple Manor as a model, and see how it goes. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 13:38, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes New Years Double Issue[edit]

Books & Bytes

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

Volume 1 Issue 3, December/January 2013

(Sign up for monthly delivery)

Happy New Year, and welcome to a special double issue of Books & Bytes. We've included a retrospective on the changes and progress TWL has seen over the last year, the results of the survey TWL participants completed in December, some of our plans for the future, a second interview with a Wiki Love Libraries coordinator, and more. Here's to 2014 being a year of expansion and innovation for TWL!

The Wikipedia Library completed the first 6 months of its Individual Engagement grant last week. Here's where we are and what we've done:
Increased access to sources: 1500 editors signed up for 3700 free accounts, individually worth over $500,000, with usage increases of 400-600%
Deep networking: Built relationships with Credo, HighBeam, Questia, JSTOR, Cochrane, LexisNexis, EBSCO, New York Times, and OCLC
New pilot projects: Started the Wikipedia Visiting Scholar project to empower university-affiliated Wikipedia researchers
Developed community: Created portal connecting 250 newsletter recipients, 30 library members, 3 volunteer coordinators, and 2 part-time contractors
Tech scoped: Spec'd out a reference tool for linking to full-text sources and established a basis for OAuth integration
Broad outreach: Wrote a feature article for Library Journal's The Digital Shift; presenting at the American Library Association annual meeting
...Read Books & Bytes!

Rochester[edit]

Your point is fair and I apologize if my edit summary was chauvanistic. However, I'm not an American and the edit was not simply US-centric. Wiki searches for places are naturally going to reflect population size and there's orders of magnitude difference between Rochester, NY and others on the list. I think it does serve the reader placing the largest city first. Dontreadalone (talk) 19:14, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Short[edit]

Hello Martin, The answer was a bit short ... You know, you beat me once too! That was pretty frustrating. Unfortunately Wikipedia doesn't inform you someone is working on a page simultaneously. Good to see that the page keeps your interest! Have a nice weekend and ... best wishes for 2014! Kind regards, Berkh (talk) 10:49, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Commons category[edit]

Hi, re this edit: please see: Template:Commons category#Location "this template should be placed at the top of the ==External links== section"; WP:SIS#Where to place links "box-type templates such as {{Commons}} shown at right have to be put at the beginning of the last section of the article"; and WP:ELLAYOUT (which says exactly the same thing as WP:SIS). --Redrose64 (talk) 11:01, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Good point. However WP:ELLAYOUT also states that "nor should links used as references normally be duplicated in this section" which is why I've requested concensus to remove the external links section in this page altogether, see Talk:North Tyneside Steam Railway. BTW, I haven't yet found out where User:Stevie742 has got his history from; I hope it's not a WP:COPYVIO, he's a young lad who has put a lot of effort in. Could you have a look at the talk and respond when you've got a few minute please? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:38, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 4[edit]

Books and Bytes

Volume 1, Issue 4, February 2014

Eurasian Eagle-Owl Maurice van Bruggen.JPG

News for February from your Wikipedia Library.

Donations drive: news on TWL's partnership efforts with publishers

Open Access: Feature from Ocaasi on the intersection of the library and the open access movement

American Library Association Midwinter Conference: TWL attended this year in Philadelphia

Royal Society Opens Access To Journals: The UK's venerable Royal Society will give the public (and Wikipedians) full access to two of their journal titles for two days on March 4th and 5th

Going Global: TWL starts work on pilot projects in other language Wikipedias

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:00, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes - Issue 5[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 5, March 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New Visiting Scholar positions
  • TWL Branch on Arabic Wikipedia, microgrants program
  • Australian articles get a link to librarians
  • Spotlight: "7 Reasons Librarians Should Edit Wikipedia"

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 17:54, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

Books & Bytes, Issue 6[edit]

Wikipedia Library owl.svg The Wikipedia Library

Bookshelf.jpg

Books & Bytes
Issue 6, April-May 2014
by The Interior (talk · contribs), Ocaasi (talk · contribs)

  • New donations from Oxford University Press and Royal Society (UK)
  • TWL does Vegas: American Library Association Annual plans
  • TWL welcomes a new coordinator, resources for library students and interns
  • New portal on Meta, resources for starting TWL branches, donor call blitzes, Wikipedia Visiting Scholar news, and more

Read the full newsletter

MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:59, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia Library: New Account Coordinators Needed[edit]

Hi Books & Bytes recipients: The Wikipedia Library has been expanding rapidly and we need some help! We currently have 10 signups for free account access open and several more in the works... In order to help with those signups, distribute access codes, and manage accounts we'll need 2-3 more Account Coordinators.

It takes about an hour to get up and running and then only takes a couple hours per week, flexible depending upon your schedule and routine. If you're interested in helping out, please drop a note in the next week at my talk page or shoot me an email at: jorlowitz@gmail.com. Thanks and cheers, Jake Ocaasi via MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 23:41, 20 June 2014 (UTC)