Wikisource talk:WikiProject Popular Science Monthly

Pages marked Img now validated
Hi, I thought you'd like to know that I've validated all the pages marked Img. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:18, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for the help. :-) (Assuming that the message was mostly meant for me). The upload of Volume 41 images is completed and will link them as soon as I map out the pages. Also, I want (and will) assemble a sort of progress report, and what & why I do things. - Ineuw 09:42, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Help
I'm helping, but my proxy doesn't actually allow the IMGs to show up - so I'm just having to use common sense - and I'm only moving pages from Not Proofread to Proofread (not going to touch Validation since I can't actually see whether anything should be italicised, etc) - please make sure I am not missing anything too major. StateOfAvon (talk) 22:47, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Sometimes I do come across a word I can't decipher without seeing the actual image, is there any way I could put a template at the word to call attention to it needing assistance? It would be much easier than "put a help template and explain on the talk page, etc". StateOfAvon (talk) 23:04, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the delayed reply, but I am struggling with intermittent internet service for the time being.

For missing images, it’s best if you use the Page contains image template. User:billinghurst has placed this template in the header of of the page you worked on, and I enhanced and proofread the text but didn’t change it’s status because of the missing image. By now, I only consider a page proofread when all elements are included.

Images are uploaded to the commons as fast as possible but I am still in the midst of uploading Volume 47 and trying to do it in numerical order. Italics are important, and so is all other character enhancements, but if you can’t do it, that’s also fine. Any help in cleaning the text helps, and for what it’s worth. I am grateful. Since there is no color indicator selection between "Not proofread" and "Proofread" for indicating preparation, using the "problematic" purple is your only choice.— Ineuw talk 23:22, 8 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Much thanks StateOfAvon (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Meanwhile, I am trying to add all the useful/interesting articles I find, but I'll keep a list here of some on which I would appreciate a quick moment of help adding/categorising/formatting simply because I am unable. StateOfAvon (talk) 02:56, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 28.djvu/871 has a "book review" of Tolstoy's War and Peace, I think it's be great to add that up as soon as possible.


 * Created a sub-section on the project page HERE where you can place your article requests. As well a template undefined and an associated shortcut as prr. This being the fastest way to mark an article.— Ineuw talk 04:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)
 * P.S.: I forgot to mention that the complete article should be proofread, and the template’s placement, or your request on the project page should be the article’s starting page.— Ineuw talk 04:38, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Requests help
When is a request done (do ll the pages have to be validated, or just proofread, etc.)? - Tannertsf (talk) 13:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi. Proofreading is invaluable because it enables transcluding the page to the main namespace. Otherwise, help of any kind is much appreciated. You can choose any topic of your personal interest to make proofreading less tedious. If you’re interested in pages with images, then pages for volumes 26 to 48 are waiting to be proofread and images inserted. If you need help, please contact me.— Ineuw talk 21:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Showing progress
Would there be a way to put something similar to the red/yellow/green bar, or that old four-square (showing 25%, 50%, 75% or 100%) Wikisource logo next to each volume link so we can see there's no need to click Volume 1 and 2, they're 100% proofread, but Volume 3 is only 50% proofread, Volume 21 is 0% proofread and Volume 53 is 75% proofread? It would help greatly in picking which volume to troll through - for those of us (I doubt I'm the only one) who do not just move in order, but pick out "the most interesting stories from Volume X" (currently chosen at random). StateOfAvon (talk) 02:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I think that there is a way but I don’t know how it’s done. The quickest way to find out, and have it implemented, is to ask in the Scriptorium. You can also try Alex brollo who is very knowledgeable. — Ineuw talk 04:04, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I was thinking about this also. I would be willing to do a once or twice a week status update with a chart showing the number of pages proofread, validated, etc. and percentages to go along with it. Thoughts? - Tannertsf (talk) 16:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

Does anybody know why my work is being removed like The Meaning of Easter Eggs being moved to User:StateOfAvon/The Meaning of Easter Eggs? It is from Popular Science...but now it is in userspace like a blogpost? StateOfAvon (talk) 23:46, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

Pages requiring table and list formatting
Pages requiring table and list formatting, tagged with PSMTable now can be found here: PSMTexts needing Maintenance. If we make use of this tag we can easily identify pages who lack something. --Mpaa (talk) 21:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Absolutely! Thanks. — Ineuw talk 21:47, 13 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Note that if PSMTable is splitted into different templates for images, tables, formulas, etc, by creating the correspoding categories, it would be possible to monitor the PSM progress for these items by simple counting. Still to be investigated how to split the picture per volume. Tagging each sigle page with a volume category is a bit heavy, but maybe the information is already there as part they are part of an index. Maybe this could be asked to someone ? I asked User talk:Hesperian --Mpaa (talk) 22:36, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Progress report
Hi. I highlight here an interesting template in Wikipedia that might be useful: Template:Progress box. --Mpaa (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Sketch of a proposal
Here is a first sketch of a proposal to be used as basis for discussion on Progress reporting. The level of ambition is to be defined. Two views should be provided, one for Index namespace and one for Main namespace.

Index: The following figures shall be provided in a table (absolute) for both the whole PSM project and each Volume, Progress bar should report the progress in %.
 * Status
 * Non-existent pages
 * pages not proofread
 * pages not validated
 * Total pages

Main namespace: The following figures (absolute) shall be provided in a table for both the whole PSM project and each Volume
 * total number of articles
 * total number of articles transcluded
 * not proofread articles
 * proofread article
 * validate articles

Progress shall also be reportes in terms of progress relative to:
 * images in text vs. total number of images
 * backlog of pages in need of Maintenance (e.g. those tagged with PSMTable or other specific templates to be created)

Comments welcome. --Mpaa (talk) 20:44, 14 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Mpaa, I feel your proposal might coincide with something i'm about to do, which is to make a table (list) of each article, which would be sortable and contain Title, Author, Year, Month, and would have links to the ones we already have set up and finished. We could add your progress stuff to that ida? - Tannertsf (talk) 23:41, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. I think your view will be the Main namespace status view, which I have not taken care yet. I have so far done this: WikiProject_Popular_Science_Monthly/Statistics, which is the Index/Page namespace status view. So I think we will complement each other quite well. If you have comments on my work so far, please let me know. The update now is done by running scripts manually and keeping a history dB offline. An automatic script running weekly would be nicer. --Mpaa (talk) 15:54, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Good work so far. I like it! I agree that the mainspace fits me more. Do you think you could create a table including my stuff (year, title, author, etc.) and your stuff? - Tannertsf (talk) 16:01, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I think it is better to keep the two things separate. One is the "development" view, the other is the "customer" view. We can divide the Progress Page in these 2 sections. --Mpaa (talk) 17:12, 9 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Ok. I will start mine soon. My plan is this: I will first start by going through the volumes on Google Books and getting title, author, month and year information. Then I will get volume # and status for each article, followed by putting respective links in titles, authors, etc.- Tannertsf (talk) 18:56, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
 * At this point I am a bit confused. What is your ultimate goal? Summarize PSM content or summarize quality status and progress of PSM project? Mine was the latter. I think you should coordinate with User:Ineuw before you start. He has a lot of information already, collected and sorted. And also think on which kind of info you want to show and how it will be structured. It will be a table of thousands of entries and difficult to navigate. --Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

I sent him a note about my table. My goal is to summarize PSM content and give a short feel of progress. Not trying to override your table. And I am ready for a difficult table-making process. In fact, I welcome it. - Tannertsf (talk) 23:36, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

PSM Sketch category & more
What do you think about the creation of a "PSM Sketch" category containing all Sketches from PSM? In this way, it would be very easy to find out which persons have an article, if someone is looking biographical information. More in general, in addition to categorization, have you started thinking about how to make accessible all the information from PSM from other perspectives that year&month&volume? E.g. a portal? That would be the second stage of the project. --Mpaa (talk) 19:12, 11 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In the area of categorization, I am somewhat deficient in their organization. and for guidance I defer to User:Hesperian who has initially given me help. I think you should talk to him about it.
 * Answer from Hesperian, copied from his talk page follows:
 * I think that makes sense, but we already have Category:Biographies, so I would make a subcategory called something like "Biographies in Popular Science Monthly" or maybe "Biographical articles in Popular Science Monthly". I wouldn't use the term "sketch" or "sketches"; that might be PSM terminology but that doesn't mean we have to adopt it. Hesperian 03:08, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * In my humble opinion "Biographical articles in Popular Science Monthly" with a sort based on the subject's last name the would be the most appropriate. — Ineuw talk 08:20, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * As for additional stages of organization, to be honest, I haven't thought of it yet. Others work on organizing articles into portals, but I haven't explored this myself, being focused on other things.— Ineuw talk 08:47, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Sequence numbers on author pages
I haven't studied the bookkeeping for this project, but the sequence numbers on the author pages look strange. If they are necessary, I suggest including them as HTML comments so they don't show in the presentation. I have done this for Eliza Ann Youmans. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:40, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. Many thanks for your help and for going out of your way to demonstrate a solution. I also like your term "bookkeeping". I will implement the change in the procedure that generates the author's contribution list. Since it's not visible, I will place the HTML comment at the end of the line, keeping the left side clean. — Ineuw talk 18:33, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Addendum:If you see numbered contributions list in other Authors, feel free to remove the numbers without hiding them. If they have no additional contributions, then the numbers are not needed. and if they do, the numbers will be hidden. The procedure generates a complete list which I just copy and paste, rather than just the latest contribution.— Ineuw talk 21:15, 12 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes, end of the line sounds better. I will feel free to just remove numbers when I see them and I'm not in an edit.  Glad this worked out. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:56, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation in article titles
I suggest always including the punctuation in the article titles. For example, Sketch of Edward L. Youmans which I found as Sketch of Edward L Youmans. This is the usual practice. If the punctuation causes problems for some browsers, a redirect link can be constructed without the problem punctuation. The article mentioned now has such a redirect. I think including punctuation in titles is the standard practice on Wikisource.

Apparently the dots create problems for some MS-DOS browsers? I think the usage of these people should be facilitated, but not at the expense of the presentation to the vast majority of users. This problem may explain the otherwise puzzling phenomena of people who won't dot their initials on Wikipedia. The fix there would be the same of course. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:55, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Template:TPSM3
Hi. I think the final dot is not needed in TPSM3. See e.g. Page:Popular_Science_Monthly_Volume_57.djvu/5. Did not change it as there might be a history behind this as well. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I corrected this and please feel free to make any changes necessary. :-) — Ineuw talk 01:12, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

PSM categorization in general
I've been mulling over some points on categorization and want to take this opportunity to add some thoughts on the subject as User:Mpaa has taken an interest in organization of article categorization.


 * 1) If there is an agreement on separating the PSM bio sketches, it would be best to name it "PSM biographical sketches".
 * 2) Some monthly issues contain additional biographical sketches to commemorate a recently deceased academic/scientist. This bio is not titled "Sketch ...".
 * 3) Most, but not all PSM biographies are of scientists. However, it's safe to call them all academics.
 * 4) Most, but not all PSM biographical sketches begin with the word "Sketch".
 * I created Category:Biographical articles in Popular Science Monthly and started to populate it (only vol.42 for now).
 * Note that I left other Biography categorisation (e.g. Category:Biographies of scientists) in the articles as otherwise one should already know that the person has been a subject of PSM to find it. Do you agree on this?
 * Pls take a look and let me know if this is OK. If OK, we can proceed to populate, starting from Vol. 1 ... :-) --Mpaa (talk) 22:40, 13 December 2011 (UTC)


 * 1) Numerous articles are so ambgiuous that they defy categorization. Then, it's best to place them in Category:Uncategorised subject for the time being.
 * 2) When categorizing an article, I focus on a single category and I encourage anyone interested in subject categorization to check my selection, change, or add any other applicable category.
 * 3) Belatedly, I recognize the value of adding the sort parameter to the category and encourage interested editors to use this feature, so that not everything ends up sorted by the letter "P".
 * 4) Article titles can be very deceptive when categorizing. One particular category which needs reexamining is the Category:Academic discourse.

I hope this helps to start some discussion on the subject.— Ineuw talk 01:02, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Design of the monthly redirect segment of the PSM main namespace header
The following is an example of a redirect which allows the reader to navigate to the Month of the TOC in PSM.

Popular Science Monthly/Volume 73/October 1908 — Ineuw talk 05:05, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

PSM Volume 75 conversation moved from User talk:Ineuw
Hi. Is it right that Vol 75 is missing? --Mpaa (talk) 16:19, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Yes. We just have to wait for a complete copy to be posted by Internet Archive. The copy they offer is from Google, who blanked all photos.— Ineuw talk 17:04, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I've just recently been combing through Vol 75 on Google books, and downloaded it (images were present)... Haven't yet checked IA to see if a better version has since been made available... Are images somehow "lost in the translation" from Google to IA at times? I'm not sure how that all works...? Londonjackbooks (talk) 17:09, 16 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry for the late reply. Spent some time trying to unravel the mystery of how to download that copy for myself - I failed. Here is a not so short history of Vol 75. Ever since I joined WS, the copy was unavailable on IA. User:Mattwj2002 bought a copy at his own expense and mailed it to IA to be scanned and posted. As far as I know, this never happened and his demands for a return were unanswered. Then, IA posted a Google scanned copy where they blanked all photos but not the drawings.
 * As an example, compare this PAGE with your downloaded copy and see if it's not missing this image (among others). — Ineuw talk 00:50, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The image is present in my downloaded copy... but that doesn't necessarily mean that the image would be present for WS purposes... For example, I have been (slowly and piecemeal-like) been copying images to Photoshop (saving individual pages and using an online OCR converter to "pull" the text) from V. 29 (Index of contributors section) of EB1911 that I downloaded from Google Books... Already, a couple pages have blocks of text that I can see (although the blocks of text appear lighter than the "OCR-readable" text), but the text for some reason doesn't get picked up in OCR translation... Not sure why this "phenomenon" exists, but I haven't been curious enough to ask about it until now. Now,—where an image (as opposed to comparable text) is concerned, there is really no way that I can compare it with another image to see if it is "lighter"—i.e., whether it would likely be lost in an IA, etc. "translation."  THAT SAID, I am not against improvising... Feel free to upload the image-free version, and I can supply the images myself as necessary... I did similarly once before for GO3 for a text that was lacking images... Let me know... Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The above being said... and I have asked this question before more than once here (but still remain hesitant), is it OK to copy the downloaded images (from Google books), clean them up, and post to Commons, etc.? One answer I received (a paraphrase), was "public domain is public domain" (can't remember who, when, or where)... but I also recently read a comment mentioning "commercial use" restrictions (I also can't recall where).  I would love to know once-for-all, however... Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:51, 17 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To reply in the order of LIFO (Last In First Out) I also posed the same question on several occasions and the reply was the same. Popular Science images prior to 1923 are DEFINITELY in the public domain. I noticed that a very few pre-1923 images claim copyright by renewal of the inheritors. My repeated inquiries to a lawyer acquaintance specializing in intellectual property and copyright was "don't bother me." Based on the various comments here and on the Commons, I use the following rule:
 * I never upload images that are knowingly or doubtfully created post 1923. A small collection of PSM contributor images on my computer I won't upload because of doubts about the year the images were taken.
 * When uploading pre-1923 images, I honestly attribute them to the source where I copied them from. If there is a complaint, I will deal with this according to Wikimedia rules. Our time is not worth the hassle of a couple of old images. Eventually, they will end up in the public domain.
 * As for Volume 75, it's not worth wasting your time because we'll need the complete volume in .djvu format uploaded to the commons. — Ineuw talk 03:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good to go... better safe than sorry! Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

Changing PSM biography category.
This post is a continuation of the above discussion on categorization and is mostly intended for User:Mpaa, but anyone interested can contribute as the editing is very fast. I listed all PSM pages categorized as Category:Biographies of scientists and created links so that the pages open for editing to facilitate replacing the above category with Category:Biographical articles in Popular Science Monthly. ALSO, the link to the Index: page in the note portion of the header can also be removed because it unnecessarily duplicates the [Source] page tab. Thanks.— Ineuw talk 02:44, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. One question. Shall categorization be done indexing Surname or Surname, Name? I saw you removed the name somewhere. Bye--Mpaa (talk) 18:17, 17 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Removing the first name was my mistake and please blame it on late night anal retention. By that time I functioned in a mechanical mode and should have quit editing. It doesn't really matter. — Ineuw talk 18:40, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

New article title templates
Five new PSM templates were added for monthly recurring articles. For speedy definition, their basic appearance are based on the PSMTitle template, and this can be later modified for a closer match to the original.

PSM article titles can be found in both the Category:The Popular Science Monthly Project templates and Category:Specific article templates

Wikilinks to multi-part-articles
To link Multi-Part articles I am following this convention, more or less agreed in previous discussions on talk-pages:

1) if the Multi article has 2 parts:
 * first article: notes =
 * second article: notes =

2) if the Multi article has n parts:
 * first article: notes =
 * x-th article: notes =
 * last article: notes =
 * last article: notes =
 * last article: notes =

If you happen to connect multi-part article, please follow this, so there will be consistency through PSM project.

There is always space for exemptions, in cases with special requirements. --Mpaa (talk) 08:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

Before you settle using this style of links, I urge you to look at the use of the PSM link with the John Stuart Mill series of articles and its links. You can still use the small caps template as before, but I find that "jumping" to any article in the series is better than a sequential access.— Ineuw talk 04:14, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Having nullified the above post as it looks too busy, (and we have 15 part articles), I decided to try another tack using the running header in the notes section of the header template. I tried this in one series STARTING HERE.

While you're gone, I am going to place here some additional ideas here, before you finalize.— Ineuw talk 00:01, 29 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi. I have done and tested the links, with rh-style in the file you sent me for all articles whose series ended within Vol. 46. And Vol. 68. For the others, I will wait for the series to be completed. I mailed you issues in your file, now fixed, that I found during test-browsing in case you need to know. Bye. --Mpaa (talk) 23:02, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Obituaries
Please refer to this post at Scriptorium as background info.

I am following Billinghurst suggestion and:
 * 1. place anchors in obituary articles (e.g. the anchor below is placed)
 * 2. anchors are commented with to prevent removal
 * 3. create redirect page with syntax: Popular Science Monthly/Volume N/Month Year/Obituary: Name Surname
 * Content of the page is:
 * #REDIRECTPopular Science Monthly/Volume N/Month Year/Proper naming of Obituary section




 * 4. Where possible, Obituary is added in Author page under section "Work about" using:

See as example: Popular Science Monthly/Volume 2/April 1873/Obituary: Matthew Fontaine Maury, in Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly If this is OK, I am proceeding with this approach. Bye --Mpaa (talk) 20:28, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * It looks great, but what is a symbol (UTF-8?) on the left of the word "Commodore". Am I the only one who sees this? Just curious. — Ineuw talk 21:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * No, you're not the only one to see this, but it's to the left of the word "Professor". I'm now using Firefox 9 for Mac. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Has now been removed in Index - showed as square in edit mode --kathleen wright5 (talk) 22:48, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I could not see anything in any of the versions (mine or Ineuw's). I suspect that it might be something dirty inserted as I copy-paste anchors from excel, where I build the string. Why I do not see it on firefox?! --Mpaa (talk) 22:54, 5 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you make a sanity check on pages from vol 36 in Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly to see if you see something else that looks wrong? Thanks. --Mpaa (talk) 01:12, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The rest of the category is OK. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 02:15, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Additional obituaries
Death_of_Professor_Billroth— Ineuw talk 15:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC) ✅

For those who are interested: starting with Volume 48, Obituaries are part of the Notes section. — Ineuw talk 03:29, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

2012-04-25 Obituaries found in PSM

 * Death of Dr. Livingstone of Congo fame.
 * Death of Fernand Papillon. — Ineuw talk 08:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

PSM renaming of images on the commons completed
Images that were listed on commons:Category talk:Popular Science Monthly illustrations/Volume 47 were moved and old links were deleted.— Ineuw talk 03:58, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

A proposal for the PSM biographical article titles
Ineuw, with regard to your proposal at my talk page regarding naming biographical articles, I would just use the title as it appears in the article, and not use Wikipedia guidelines. The only exception I would make is if the title ends in a period and it is not a period terminating an abbreviation. In that case, I would omit the period. Wikisource generally tends to reflect the original article as much as possible in adapting it to the electronic medium, so it is different from Wikipedia. In the EB11, I have found omitting honorary titles resulted in some naming conventions that really seemed kind of awkward. But I don't think you have the same problem here since the title is given very plainly over the body of the article, as opposed to an encyclopedia entry where the title runs right into the text body. I guess a PSM title is usually all caps, and the only issue to me seems what words to capitalize, since I think all caps doesn't really work as a title, and hardly anyone uses them in a citation. There I would of course capitalize proper names, honorary titles, and "major" words, giving lower case to particles like "of", "the", etc.

I recently found an article without a title: the obit for William Jay Youmans. It was all on one page, with only mourning bars to indicate it was an obit. I just gave it his name as a title, but maybe I should have prefixed with "Obituary:" given the discussion I see above.
 * Hi. No, that is OK. Obituary: ... are only redirects to these pages, with the appropriate anchors in case a page contains more than one obituary. --Mpaa (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:35, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Article title resolution is requested.

 * Would this be considered as two separate titles in the Main namespace?
 * Or should I create a disambiguation page?
 * If disambiguation page, which should be the title?


 * Popular Science Monthly/Volume 2/March 1873/Earthquake-Phenomena redirect = Earthquake-Phenomena
 * Popular Science Monthly/Volume 27/July 1885/Earthquake Phenomena redirect = Earthquake Phenomena

Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 02:49, 17 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Given the very similar spelling, maybe a dismbiguation page is the best case. We can turn Earthquake Phenomena into the disambiguation page as cancel the other redirect. Other opinions welcome. --Mpaa (talk) 18:46, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I will do that.— Ineuw talk 03:38, 18 January 2012 (UTC)

Available PSM images include volume 72
For all who have been waiting with unabated anticipation, images up to and including Volume 72 have been uploaded. — Ineuw talk 22:33, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Small question concerning style
While working on Vol 3, p. 24 I found that text cited is formatted with template fsx at 90%. Is that the style that's used throughout PSM for these quotes? If so, I have to revert the previous page. Here I changed it to 85%, which, to my humble opinion (and on my screen) looks much better. Greetings, Dick Bos (talk) 07:42, 7 March 2012 (UTC)


 * It should be 85%. It was I who experimented in the beginning with 90% but didn't work out. You will find some more, and feel free to change them to 85%. — Ineuw talk 08:04, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

He is Legion?
Could use some help, was looking up the name "Potgresserus" after noticing it appeared in Popular Science Monthly/Volume 22/April 1883/The Legal Status of Servant-Girls, notable on page Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 22.djvu/825. Google returns only other other copies of the same article, Google News and Google Books find nothing; it doesn't even seem to be a name...what is happening? It only appears in the article once, "Potgresserus says that not till the twelfth century was the power lost", which is proper context so it's not an errant sentence...but the article never mentions the guy...nor does the web. Any ideas? StateOfAvon (talk) 23:33, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

How I Made $22.50 by Reading the Popular Science Monthly
Is this the original "How I Made $2000 by Using Google!" spam? Haha! StateOfAvon (talk) 22:14, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Good find. :) — Ineuw talk 03:19, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you looking for amusing articles, Volume 88 is the best I've found thusfar in all my searching; it appears PSM briefly just became Instructables.com and started running on articles on "Can Robots Make Toast?" "How to make your horse carriage levitate" and "Building your own guillotine" - it's quite amusing going through the article list. I bookmarked quite a few I want to proofread. StateOfAvon (talk) 05:43, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

July 2012 featured text
The first volume of the PSM is a candidate for featured status. While it only has one vote so far (see Featured text candidates) I have provisionally selected it for the July 2012 slot. You can see how the main page will look here. Does this look OK? Is there anything that should be mentioned or that can be pruned from the current text? If you wish to object to the featured status, please vote on WS:FTC. Potential problems have been mentioned with volume 1 but I haven't found anything yet, is this still an issue? (Note that I will protect the volume later in June as per featured text policy). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 19:38, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for considering this as a featured monthly item. I find everything at the above link, concise and very well written. I looked at the comments on WS:FTC, but none mentioned potential problems. Would it be possible to know where they are? — Ineuw talk 21:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Mpaa's vote recommends a review and mentions possible incorrect page numbers and missing nops. Nothing big, just small errors that need to be cleaned up. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 12:43, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi. Mpaa was correct and the nops were added last night. For re-checking the page numbers, I will paginate through the Page ns. I am also in the process of making numerous small corrections by looking at each article in main namespace.
 * However, there is one major omission I still need to address, and that is anchoring some index entries to the topics which are paragraphs. Currently, I only point to the correct articles and page numbers in the index but must add the anchors. — Ineuw talk 17:06, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Additional PSM pages need replacement
belatedly moved here from GOIII's talk page

Hi. At your convenience and whenever you have the chance, could you kindly replace four pages of Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 22.djvu marked as problematic? They are not insertions, just direct replacements and the required text layer, and no pages need to be shifted. Regardless of what you see there, the IA attempt at correction, I carefully checked the pages previous and post replacements.

The replacement pages are prepared as .jpg images and are named:

File:PSM V22 D526 Page 510 Replacement.jpg

File:PSM V22 D527 Page 511 Replacement.jpg

File:PSM V22 D874 Page 854 Replacement.jpg

File:PSM V22 D875 Page 855 Replacement.jpg

Thanks in advance.— Ineuw talk 19:49, 23 November 2011 (UTC)


 * ✅ Will get to Volume 10 soon. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:03, 23 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi. May I add exactly the same request for the problematic page (djvu page no=83, text page no=73) in Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 10.djvu?
 * The replacement page is prepared as .jpg images and named:


 * File:PSM V10 D083 Page 083 Replacement.jpg
 * I realized i did not follow Ineuw's convention. FYI, I have asked the above file to be renamed as File:PSM V10 D083 Page 073 Replacement.jpg. Not sure if this will affect your work, sorry if this might create problems. --Mpaa (talk) 17:38, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks also from me. --Mpaa (talk) 22:01, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Should not be a problem. I'll take whack at the two during the coming weekend (hopefully). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:06, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A reminder in case this has gone under your radar. Unless I can't see the change due to something else. --Mpaa (talk) 16:57, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I did not forget - its been the holiday season (plus DjVu Libre has a never version out this month that I wanted to upgrade first) that hass been getting in the way. I'm shooting for before the end of the year. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks again! --Mpaa (talk) 22:37, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

✅ -- The 4 pages in Volume 22 & the 1 page in Volume 10 have been swapped out for "good" ones and the new DjVu files have been uploaded to Commons. Sorry it took so long. Let me know if there any others / problems. I leave it up you folks to follow-up and/or delete any remaining stand-alone or test files (such as the one for Vol. 10 above) -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:41, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi GO3. I consider the service excellent, so please don't apologize. Also, it'll be some time before we get to proofreading those volume since I am only at volume 8. — Ineuw talk 03:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource:WikiProject_Popular_Science_Monthly/Authors_L_to_R
Author:Frank Schuyler Mathews has been split into Author:Ferdinand Schuyler Mathews and Author:Frank S. Mathews. The above page will need to be adapted accordingly. — billinghurst  sDrewth  09:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I need some clarifications as to author name display preference in the main namespace.

In cases where the articles use abbreviation and the full name is known, is it preferable to use the abbreviated name and create a redirect, or use the full name as is in the Author page? — Ineuw talk 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

PSM images
For those who are looking for PSM images to be inserted in proofread pages, there is no need to mark pages as "Problematic". Volumes 1 to 87 uploads are completed. For Volumes 88 to 92, I have all image pages offline, but the estimated number of images for the five remaining volumes is ~10,000. Currently, Volume 88 is being sporadically uploaded in batches of 25-50 images. — Ineuw talk 04:47, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
 * Hi. I stumbled upon a missing PSM image. See Popular Science Monthly Volume 51.djvu/449.  Thank you. --Mariewalton (talk) 13:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * Thanks for letting me know. I will upload it shortly.— Ineuw talk 14:05, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Inserting References
Hi. I noticed template:ref was chosen when inserting references in paragraphs that have identifiers like * † ‡ listed. When identifiers are listed as opposed to numbers, I chose to insert then placed the reference with a font size of 85% in the footer. Since character enhancements are important for proofreading, does the difference matter? If so, changes will be made accordingly. --Mariewalton (talk) 03:47, 8 August 2013 (UTC)


 * Hi. We always use the standard and inserted in the page footer. I don't know how symbols appear in transcluded articles when they are applied in subsequent pages, Also the main ns header wrapper includes the  .— Ineuw talk 04:30, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

Volumes and correspondence categories
I've created Category:Popular Science Monthly volumes and Category:Popular Science Monthly correspondence. For volumes, I have subcategorized the volume categories; for correspondence I posted a bot request. These are probably noncontroversial, but as these are fairly large edits and I am a new Wikisource editor, I feel I should mention this in case there are any concerns or suggestions. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 08:50, 10 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your efforts which adds another dimension to viewing and searching the PSM project. In case you are not aware, the Portal:Popular Science Monthly lists all the monthly recurring sections which defy subject categorization. These sections run through volumes 1 to 87 and appear under different names. IMHO, categorizations of these sections are of tertiary importance as there are more important areas that need attention, proofreading being the first. I don't know what your interests are, but if you need additional info on the project and what needs to be done, please post here.— Ineuw talk 15:01, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

PSM progress report
After four years of work covering volumes 1 to 87, the proofreading of the PSM project's more difficult pages have been completed. From volume 88, the publication changed from a scientific and academic orientation to a popular, novelty news with images driven format which is of no interest to me.

Work completed in the Page namespace:
 * Completed the article title pages, pages with tables, pages with images and volume indexes.

Work completed in the Main namespace:
 * Completed the tables of contents, transclusion of articles, multiple part article navigators and some 1,500 of the 2,418 author pages.

Work remaining:
 * Proofreading of text, adding a missed image or table, volume indexes anchor links, and completion of the authors' pages.— Ineuw talk 02:43, 26 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I would like to do some proofreading. Is there a way to get a list of the Indexes that shows what proofreading needs to be done?  Something similar to an author's "Scans" link?  Or do I just have to go through the volumes one by one?  Laura1822 (talk) 17:42, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3AIndexPages&limit=100&key=Popular+Science+Monthly+Volume+&order=alpha&sortascending=1 Mpaa (talk) 18:09, 14 September 2014 (UTC)


 * I set Mpaa's sort above to "alphabetic". The following may be of some help.
 * * Volumes 1-22 + 42 + 50 + 86 are proofread.
 * * Every article has been categorized proofread or not WikiProject Popular Science Monthly/Categories
 * * Volumes' Table of Contents and Volume indexes have been proofread.
 * Just select any page, article, or category you are interested in, and go for it. — Ineuw talk 19:19, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Great, thanks! Laura1822 (talk) 19:22, 14 September 2014 (UTC)

Thomas Foster, author "Morality of Happiness" vol 24 thru 25 Popular Science
It seems to me that the Thomas Foster, author of 9 articles "Morality of Happiness" vol 24 thru 25 [1883-1884] Popular Science is a different person from the wikisource author: Thomas Campbell Foster (1813-1882) whose DNB entry says "Foster was in bad health for a considerable time before his death", en.wikisource.org/wiki/Foster,_Thomas_Campbell_(DNB00). It seems unlikely to me that TCF would have articles printed in the years 1883 thru 1884 without using his full name Thomas Campbell Foster


 * I am not disputing DNB or you, and you are welcome to correct and move the info to another author named Thomas Foster. However, before you do it, be sure that the article wasn't written at a much earlier date. PSM often printed older material, especially as a memorial to the recently deceased. I am currently posting a question at the U.S. Library of Congress to find out.— Ineuw talk 18:45, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Footers
In main, shouldn't there be a rule above each smallref, per the Page: footers. eg. Popular Science Monthly/Volume 41/September 1892/New Chapters in the Warfare of Science: Geography II. Moondyne (talk) 08:17, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

article from Ppular Science Monthly syndicated into another publication
A major portion of the article, Popular Science Monthly/Volume 6/March 1875/Chameleons-Their Habits and Color-Changes, was published in a compilation A Natural History Reader, for school and home (1883) by Author:James Johonnot. How can this information be incorporated on the article page? --Siddhant (talk) 03:45, 24 April 2015 (UTC)
 * Oh and here (page 5) is a (badly) paraphrased article by "Fairfield". Has a lot of verbatim overlap with the original article. --Siddhant (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

use smaller or smaller block?
On Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 43.djvu/182, should I use the {smaller} template, or the {smaller block/s} & {.../e} templates? One difference between them is the different line heights. {smaller block} also reduces the line height, while the {smaller} template does not. If we see the actual image, it looks to me that smaller text has the same line spacing as the normal text, thus suggesting that I should use {smaller}. However, personally, {smaller block} looks more aesthetically pleasing to my eye. --Siddhant (talk) 07:01, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Typographic apostrophe in Template:PSMPage1Title2
What do you think about changing the typewriter apostroph (') in Template:PSMPage1Title2 to a typographic one (’). --Nobelium (talk) 17:28, 2 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Will change it, but neither looks as the original. — Ineuw talk 00:55, 10 January 2016 (UTC)


 * ✅ — Ineuw talk 01:04, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Adding The Scientific Monthly to the project
The Scientific Monthly launched in October 1915, the same month as the first issue of the post-acquisition Popular Science Monthly (which was really World's Advance, which was previously known as a variety of things according to Wikipedia). Cattell's statements in the September 1915 issue make it clear that The Scientific Monthly is intended to follow on directly from the pre-acquisition Popular Science Monthly, and indeed not only did subscribers of that get the new journal, but there are columns (e.g. The Progress of Science) and article series that continue directly from the old journal (e.g. The Evolution of the Stars and the Formation of the Earth, A History of Fiji). I think it would be a good idea to add this to the project, thoughts? Arcorann (talk) 07:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Also apparently the editorial board wanted Jul-Sep 1915 of PSM and Oct-Dec 1916 of Scientific Monthly to be bound together, stating that "We hope libraries will maintain a set continuously, the Scientific Monthly being, on the editorial side, the natural successor of the Popular Science Monthly." (from Bulletin of Bibliography and Dramatic Index) The article was pretty funny, actually.
 * Arcorann (talk) 08:18, 21 September 2023 (UTC)