User talk:Martin of Sheffield/Archive 4

The Wikipedia Library

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!

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

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

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

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

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

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)

Rochester

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

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

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)

Restrictive and non-restrictive modifiers

I'm not sure about your change to the link in the quote from Fowler from "his [ sic ]" to "his [sic]", other than it corrects my failing to italicize sic [sic]. But whilst it still contains it, the link to the Generic he section of the geneder-neutral pronouns article is now completely hidden unless you edit the text. And whilst I'm reluctant to offer anything that might be construed as criticism of Fowler (for I am not worthy), I think that link is important.

Having written the above, I now think what I should have done was this - [sic] -, which fixes both issues of it not being in itallics and the triple brackets. But how are we supposed to put in a link so it apears directly inside square brackets, anyway?

Graham.Fountain | Talk 13:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I was simply adressing the formatting issue. I'm not sure that [sic] is appropriate here in any case. From the Wiki page Sic: "...indicates that the quoted matter has been transcribed exactly as found in the source text, complete with any erroneous or archaic spelling, surprising assertion, faulty reasoning, or other matter that might otherwise be taken as an error of transcription" which I don't think applies. Fowler is using "he" in the correct, normally accepted manner. The article is, after all, about differences between the American and British forms of English, not about sexual politics. Indeed does either sex or gender have any relevance in this section? Still, as I said, I was just trying to adress the formatting issue and employ the standard Wiki template. If you feel strongly that WP:RF requires such a link feel free to reinsert it. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 14:24, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm also not sure that it's actually necessary, as such, to comment on Fowlers use of "his" here. However, I thought it wise, as I would no longer use it like that, and would, personally, always use the "singular they" inflected as "their" in this case. So, I may still go back and make "sic" the link to the article on what I, personally, see as an archaic usage, if not spelling.

But the issue about the link to Gender-specific and gender-neutral pronouns#Generic he is as much about why this template takes that as a parameter and then does nowt wi'it. But that, I guess, I can go and look up when I have chance. I just thought that, since you used it, you might know what it did.

"2 Documenting the problem

"If the misspelling is an unusual one, it may be helpful to include an "expected" parameter: incorrect word or phrase [sic]. This has no effect on the rendered page, but may assist later editors."

I can see the point of this in the template, having had problems in the past with editors "correcting" Mevil Dewey's odd spelling. What might be usefull would be a method of changing the link, not just disabling it.

Off topic - another case of confused Americans. I was taking a group around Durham and mentioned several times that certain buildings were medieval with modern facings. At last one member queried what modern was - in this case slightly older than the USA! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:40, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

And there I was think that medieval was modern. But then I was thinking how I might celebrate year after next as the anversary of the last time we (Yorkshire) wern't part of England. Graham.Fountain | Talk 15:49, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm old fashioned enough to divide history into ancient (to the recall of the legions), medieval (to Bosworth field) and modern. Pick a date! Somewhere at home I've got a mug from the "Monarchy 1000" celebrations in 1973. I was part of the procession to Bath Abbey. I assume the anniversary you're thinking of is Cnut's usurpation. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

"[U]surpation"? I thought we got the throne of England by right of conquest. But, yes, the period when that Knutr was ruler of the Danelaw, and a bit, was, by my reckoning, when we had our last freedom from the English – that bit between Harold and Henry II (Maude's lad), when the English get back in, weren't much fun, apparently.

Watched Schama's treatment of Henry Broom 'tother night on BBC4, and despite going on about how he was the first of the Normans line to treat the English like people not cattle, Henry and the common law, Henry and the creation of the judiciary, etc., etc., he never once even alluded to what his mum must have gone on, and on, and on about, like mothers do, and his relationship to the English through Alfred the Cake-burner, Ethelred the Ill-conceived, and Edmund Rusty-flanks. Mind stew, that's what you get from reading about stuff like 103 Good Things, 5 Bad Kings, and 2 Genuine Dates, and All That, I suppose.

Graham.Fountain | Talk 17:43, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

harvard referencing

Hello Martin. Last January you kindly offered me some help re. "harvard referencing" ... all very much appreciated. I still seem to have trouble getting the system right, however. On a recent page I initiated - Federico Uribe - I have two references there that I used with "|ref=harv": Bartholomew Bland and Susan Hodara. The Bland works correctly, high-lighting the full entry below the reference notes; the Hodara does not. I have studied my entries minutely and cannot see any difference in how I worded them - a total enigma to me. I hate to pester you, but would very much appreciate if sometime you may have a chance to look and see what I have done wrong ... and let me know. I absolutely don't see why the Hodara doesn't work, but the Bland does. Thanks in advance, Martin! -Xenxax (talk) 02:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC) 02:05, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

No problem, it was just a silly typo of the type we all make. You had put last=Susan|first=Hodara instead of last=Hodara|first=Susan! I've corrected it and all 's fine now. Keep up the good work. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Martin! I went back and forth over those references many times but I guess I was just looking at "harv" part of the code; good thing I didn't make "proof-reader" a career choice! :-) Thanks again! - Xenxax (talk) 10:45, 29 September 2014 (UTC)