User talk:Sgconlaw

This is Sgconlaw's talk page, where you can send him messages and comments.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Archives

Articles
2009–2010 • 2010–2011 • 2011–2012 • 2012–2013

Talk page
2010 • 2011 • 2012 • 2013 • 2014 • 2015–2020 • 2021–2025

Moving student articles into mainspace

Hello, I have been editing the M Ravi page recently and have discovered that some of his cases, namely Kenneth Jeyaretnam v Attorney-General; Ravinthran Ramalingam v Attorney-General; and Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs have draft articles under this account done as part of a student project. I am wondering if these can be moved into the mainspace as articles? I think they would be useful as pages on Wikipedia. Cheers, Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:17, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawkin Verbier: yes, they were done as part of a student project some years ago, but I didn't have time to edit them for the mainspace after marking them. Perhaps you can suggest a priority for them to be rolled out, and I can see if I can find some time to work on them. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:32, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. What do you mean by "priority for them to be rolled out"? Cheers, Dawkin Verbier (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Dawkin Verbier: I meant, which are the articles which you think are higher priority? I could have a look at them first. No promises, though. — SGconlaw (talk) 14:18, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Do you have a list of draft articles you have not in the mainspace? I could take a look and let you know - and also assist with the moving and edits. Dawkin Verbier (talk) 09:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Barrow book scan

Hi Sgconlaw,

I originally reverted your replacement of an Isaac Barrow book scan from the internet archive with a Google books scan. But then I "un-reverted" it and included both links on the page, since your link is to a scan of the first edition of the book. As a general matter, I find the internet archive's web UI to be significantly more usable than Google books's. Hopefully the IA will eventually get around to adding this Google Books scan to their collection. Cheers. –jacobolus (t) 01:55, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: I will be uploading the scan to the Internet Archive later today as https://archive.org/details/barrowpopessupremacy. I work a lot with quotation templates of first and early editions over at the Wiktionary (see, for example, “wikt:Template:RQ:Barrow Pope's Supremacy”), and came across Barrow’s book in this context. Generally, if a work is available only at Google Books and not the Internet Archive, I upload it to the Internet Archive as a backup. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:04, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome, thanks! Do you have a good method of getting the best-quality possible version of a book from Google? –jacobolus (t) jacobolus (t) 04:21, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A tangentially related question, but while we are here, do you happen to have any recommendations for what I should do if I have obscure books that aren't yet in the IA and want to scan and add them? (I guess the first step would be to hire someone with a book scanner ....) –jacobolus (t) 04:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: regarding the first question, not really. I just use Google Books’ PDF download option. Before uploading the file, I do sometimes delete duplicated or wrongly scanned pages, and have on occasion combined two files if there are missing pages in one file. As for the second question, anyone can register a free account with the Internet Archive and upload files which are in the public domain. So, yeah, do a good-quality scan! — SGconlaw (talk) 05:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ah. Perhaps we should chat with other Wikipedians about trying to better scrape Google Books for higher-quality images to upload to IA. My experience is that the downloadable PDF is not the best image quality available when looking at Google Books (and sometimes much worse, e.g. in black and white instead of full color). –jacobolus (t) 05:06, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: yes, I’m not sure why Google Books PDFs are stripped of the original scanning colour. Sometimes full-colour scans are available from the HathiTrust Digital Library, but I find that most of their content, even those obviously in the public domain, cannot be downloaded entirely but only page by page, which makes it impractical except for works with, say, only a few tens of pages (and you’d still need a lot of patience to do that and to recompile them into a PDF). I only did that once with a short 17th-century play which, for some reason, was presented with the pages arranged backwards from the largest page number to the smallest. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:13, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That’s why someone needs to write a computer program to download the separate images, stick them in a folder with the appropriate XML metadata file, and zip the thing up ready to be uploaded to IA. This should be eminently technically do-able (though I’m not sure if Google would appreciate it). –jacobolus (t) 05:20, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: ah, that would be beyond me. (It might also be against the Google Books use policy; I don’t know.) — SGconlaw (talk) 05:23, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Jacobolus: OK, I've uploaded the file to the Internet Archive. — SGconlaw (talk) 16:50, 17 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wiktionary

Hi there. I removed the link to Wiktionary from the Further reading section of Tight end. AFAIK, links to Wiktionary are mostly common in disambiguation pages. Is there a reason to link from a page where there is already encyclopedic content on the subject? Regards. —Bagumba (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: those of us who work on Wiktionary usually add interwiki links in appropriate Wikipedia articles to the Wiktionary, and not just on disambiguating pages. I don’t see anything wrong. It’s no different from adding a link to the Wikimedia Commons. — SGconlaw (talk) 04:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the input. It's the first time I noticed the wikt links. Was there any past discussions on this? In the case of Commons, presumably more pictures are provided than already on the WP page. —Bagumba (talk) 05:09, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba: see “Wikipedia:Wikimedia sister projects”. — SGconlaw (talk) 05:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Nothing explicit about adding wikt to any page, but also nothing discouraging it. I still question its worth, but not sure I'm motivated to start a wider discussion. Thanks for discussing.—Bagumba (talk) 10:13, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:33, 28 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good article reassessment for Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs

Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 21:13, 29 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

CfD nomination at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections

A category or categories you have created have been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 July 14 § Museum collections on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Ham II (talk) 07:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Singaporean case law by topic has been nominated for merging

Category:Singaporean case law by topic has been nominated for merging. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 03:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation to participate in a research

Hello,

The Wikimedia Foundation is conducting a survey of Wikipedians to better understand what draws administrators to contribute to Wikipedia, and what affects administrator retention. We will use this research to improve experiences for Wikipedians, and address common problems and needs. We have identified you as a good candidate for this research, and would greatly appreciate your participation in this anonymous survey.

You do not have to be an Administrator to participate.

The survey should take around 10-15 minutes to complete. You may read more about the study on its Meta page and view its privacy statement .

Please find our contact on the project Meta page if you have any questions or concerns.

Kind Regards,

WMF Research Team

BGerdemann (WMF) (talk) 19:29, 23 October 2024 (UTC) [reply]