User talk:Mike Peel

 }}

If you can't think of any particular corners to improve on Wikisource, how about taking a look at, or  for some ideas? Don't forget to list your contributions on those pages as well so others will find and read them in the future!

Yann (talk) 19:02, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Copyright-until
I am pretty sure that this will meet your needs. billinghurst (talk) 05:01, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

reply
I replied at my page, but welcome you here :-) Regards, Cygnis insignis (talk) 12:11, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the PSM images uploaded to commons
Hi Mike Peel,

I noticed that you uploaded images from the The Popular Science Monthly Project, and your contributions are most welcome. Could you kindly add this category when uploading to the Commons?

.

I also take this opportunity to invite you to glance through the project's for proofreading tips and and image naming conventions devised to expedite the process for the PSM projects. Again welcome. — Ineuw (talk) 22:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Progress of Index:Mars - Lowell.djvu
Hi Mike, I plan to give it another day to see if we can get anyone to work on the index, though it looks like most of us are hiding from it. I am happy to validate it later if someone else does the determination on what it is meant to look like. If PotM stalls over the index, I would like to roll in some little works until the end of the month. — billinghurst  sDrewth  13:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I decided to be bold, and standardize the formatting. Over to you to validate. :-)
 * BTW, I suggest that we cover some of the Popular Science Monthly articles in the 'little works' - not necessarily a whole volume, just some of the individual articles, which I count as essentially seperate works. Mike Peel (talk) 22:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Index:The History of the Church & Manor of Wigan part 2.djvu or end of 1
Now you may have better luck than I, however, there is 1 page missing from the scan of both parts. If you do know of any institution that has the work, and we could get a scan of p. 181, it would be very nice!!! — billinghurst  sDrewth  23:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let's wait and see whether all of the rest of the pages are there first. ;-) (I believe this is a 5-part work?) Mike Peel (talk) 23:56, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually, see this version on archive - that seems to have p181 in it. Mike Peel (talk) 00:00, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

revert to stable
Hi Mike. There was, as far as I can tell, nothing wrong with the formatting. Do you mind restoring it? Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If you want to, feel free. I was just trying to help, but I was somewhat puzzled that a poem wasn't using formatting - as I thought was standard? Also, something ideally needs doing with the drop caps - are you planning on using the proper images at some point? Mike Peel (talk) 00:15, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The question was "do you mind", if I do it I lose a validated page and whatever corrections you made. Tell me if you saw a problem I should know about? If you didn't please remove your changes to the work I am developing. Poems tags are sometimes problematic, so I avoid them, but use them if you prefer. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think I made any changes apart from the formatting - so feel free to revert that if you want (you can always diff to check). I view the formatting as part of the validation, so it's a case of take it or leave it I'm afraid. Can you elaborate on poem tags being problematic - I haven't encountered any problems, aside from them not working with noincludes? I also view them a lot neater than a whole load of br tags... Mike Peel (talk) 00:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ... it was just the two pages where I changed the formatting that I was talking about. I'm happy to revalidate the other pages if you want. Mike Peel (talk) 00:47, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Cygnis insignis (talk) 00:54, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ... and done. I'll leave you in peace for a bit now. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 00:59, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * see footnote Tamerlane and other poems (1884) Cygnis insignis (talk) 01:18, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

Little request

 * ''Notice modeled after

As Template:New texts is monitored in IRC, and many users have it in their Watchlists, I was wondering whether you would consider adding the name of the text being added to the edit summary, rather than solely +1,-1. Even if it is just have +Name of work, -1 that would be most helpful. Thanks. -- Cirt (talk) 04:18, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks; Billinghurst told me that on IRC shortly after I changed the page. I'll do that next time. Mike Peel (talk) 10:13, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Full Disclosure
Hi Mike, thanks for all your work on Full Disclosure. This is a great learning process for me -- it's been huge help for me to look at your code, and try to replicate it on other pages. It's starting to look like we might actually get it done in the foreseeable future, too! -Pete (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Glad I could help. Most of the credit for the code, though, goes to - most of what I did was copying, pasting and modifying. Let me know if you run into any issues / you have any questions / there's anything else I can do to help. Mike Peel (talk) 20:15, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

New Categories
Hi. Thanks for your work in re-categorization of the PSM articles. I noticed you've added the new category Solar astronomy and I was wondering if you added any others, because I collect them here, and offline. If you don't mind, could you also append the newly added categories to the list of categories here which I occasionally re-sort. Thanks again. -  Ineuw (talk) 17:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Hi Ineuw. The categories I added are all sub-categories of Category:Astronomy, as it was getting a bit big and messy. See also . Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:04, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

Just noticed your response and I am VERY impressed with the Astronomy page. Until recently, I thought that no one is interested in this project and I am toiling away only for my self gratification. My category selection is general, and leave the more accurate assignments to the experts, since my knowledge is general. FYI, I am continuously adding images to the Commmons PSM gallery and I am completing the upload of images to Volume 20. I believe that there are Astronomy related images for articles towards the end of Volume 19. It's about comets, if I am not mistaken. -  Ineuw (talk) 23:22, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Talkback
Care to add? — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:48, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you can help with Talk:Victoria County History -- John Vandenberg (chat) 12:24, 11 September 2010 (UTC)


 * Any thoughts on whether you or WMUK can help avoid duplication of effort on the VCH volumes. I'd like to get started soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 22:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry for not replying quicker. I've left a message on the VCH talk page; basically, if we can help in any way then I'm sure we'll be more than willing to, but clarification on precisely what help would be most useful here would be good. ;-) Mike Peel (talk) 22:17, 20 October 2010 (UTC)

More PSM articles on astronomy
Hi Mike. Just to keep you up to date, there are additional astronomy articles appearing in PSM, although they are not yet proofread. If you are interested in some articles, you can track them from the uploaded images at the commons HERE. As of this writing, I completed the upload of Volume 32 images, and I remembered your interest. Also, I noticed your user page, and let you know that the PSM articles waiting for validation have been completed. Take care. - Ineuw (talk) 19:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the heads up. :-) Mike Peel (talk) 20:17, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes (1984, Burt)
Hi. Thanks for validating one of the pages. However, I would like to please ask you, if possible, not to write paragraphs on a single editor line, but to keep them spread on multiple lines (the way you find them on proofread pages). The reason is that it helps locating the changes between different revisions (for instance, I cannot understand whether you actually corrected typos or changed the text in some way other than collapsing paragraphs on single lines) while not affecting the final rendering on the wiki page. In the hope you don't mind, I'll undo your changes and if you feel like it you can validate the page again. Paolo81 (talk) 18:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Updated scripts
Hi Mike Peel. I edited your monobook.js and your vector.js to update you to the latest version of TemplateScript. You were using a much older version called regex menu framework, so the main difference you'll see is an improved regex editor and cleaner custom scripts. Let me know if anything breaks. :) —Pathoschild 20:31, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, thank you! Mike Peel (talk) 18:51, 17 August 2015 (UTC)

Index:Roman Manchester (1900) by Charles Roeder.djvu
I've found a problem - p 125 seems to be missing and a corrections slip scanned? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:06, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * yup, it does. :-( I've had a quick look on archive.org for an alternative copy, but I can't spot one. Any ideas where else we might be able to find a different digital copy? I might be able to get hold of a printed copy at my university's library to recover the page if need be... Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No ideas, sorry.. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:09, 14 October 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, I've put in a request for a physical copy (it's currently checked out to someone else). Are there any other pages that are problematic? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:26, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Not that I found on a cursory glance. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:25, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Everything should have now been fixed - please see Scriptorium. :-) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Wikidata <-> Wikisource: what is needed for a/the/some future
(Attempting to make sense at the end of a day for something that would be better described with a whiteboard, and a computer monitor. So excuse gaps, and hammer me for better explanations. You asked a question about WS and WD, and I am taking that and running with it, though maybe not where you expected. )

As you have probably seen we manually build body of author pages, though with some of our leveraging of authority/link and article link we have a range of templates to be used for collective works per internal link templates. As we have been moving to populating headers in our portals, predominantly author with wikidata.

I would love to be moving to be able to simple do and get a line listing of the work. I have munged together a list of works I have added at user:billinghurst and where I have heavily populated the work's metadata to WD, I add the template. The long term hope for author and user pages is that I can just populate WD, and then just add a template and populate, be it the whole work, or parts of works, eg. Author:Godfrey Yeatman Lagden
 * Qnnnnnnnn

Ultimately, I would see that we can have
 * WD populated with edition data for works (some sort of push mechanism);
 * and when is called, it displays
 * if local interwiki, then active link per std author pages
 * if other WS link, some sort of xwiki link (we have nothing there now, too hard to follow the edition links back)
 * if no local, though if item is populated with IA or GB link, then we can pop up an ext scan link

(Getting to the point ...) Some of our works are well described at WD, many are not. The WEF framework gadget is helping (well, helping me) to populate, though I am not certain how well used it is. From here, it is hard to know what information has been migrated to WD. At this time it would be really useful if we could have a quiet, (in)visible means to know what has been migrated and what data is missing, against the edition framework at d:Wikidata:WikiProject Books. (I won't talk about the gaps and mess between editions [WSs] and works [WPs] and the distributed data population.)

Many of our authors are well-described, though often missing given and family name data at WD, which we definitely have here, though otherwise are pretty good, and we work hard on pushing them through, though run a backlog for the really obscure authors.

All this could lead to ability to blow away Works-A, ...-B, and ...-C (where we stop) and Authors and the manual minefield that they are and have pages that are driven from WD and managed by bots.

I don't think that we have the frameworks set up to readily pull the requisite data, and in some cases, we do, though it differs from other sites as our wikibase has not updated, or developed differently. So I see that we need to review and standardise what wikibases are in place, standardise if possible, extend to missing components. Then we can look to identifying missing fields. At that point we can then look to see how WD can push more data to us. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:59, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Most of the framework that is used for the infobox is Module:WikidataIB, which seems to work here ok. It provides a whole set of functions to fetch info from Wikidata and reformat it as appropriate. I've made a few edits to Wikidata edition/sandbox to fetch info from Wikidata, and that now gives e.g., - it should be easy to link the title to the work as well, I just need to remember the proper incantation for that... The problems here are probably not going to be the tech, but migrating data onto Wikidata, and persuading users here to make more use of Wikidata (those are two of the main differences between the acceptance of wikidata infoboxes on Commons but not on enwp...) Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 14:29, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The title is linked above now. I've also created User:Mike Peel/sandbox and User:Mike Peel/sandbox2 as examples of what can be fetched from Wikidata at the moment - although the formatting needs work. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:03, 1 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Good to know that WikidataIB is now better working (for an enWS perspective), I see we had a pretty old version. Some of the module imports have not been as resilient, and our watching their development, and testing each new version has been less than rigorous. [We suffer from transcription-focus.] The multiple local diverse developments of WD-focused modules under the same name has been problematic. Re using WD data, I think that we are through that where we can demonstrate that it is better/beneficial: AC, images, dates of life have migrated there, so it is not acceptance. Migrating data has been difficult, and the WEF framework assists. I will have a play at WD-edition, as ultimately I wish to fully extend it; though that runs into the problems of publishers. — billinghurst  sDrewth  01:41, 2 October 2018 (UTC)