User talk:James Hare (NIOSH)

Index:NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods

Do you have a style manual? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Hello ShakespeareFan00, I am not sure what you mean? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 20:23, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

As in is there a 'guide' on how to format these? as in relative font sizes and weights, and double space vs single space etc? I asked because if these a LOT of these with the same format, it might be worth making a template.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

ShakespeareFan00, that's a good point. I don't think we have any particular style guides, but I agree that a template would allow for more consistency. In the meantime I am preparing a proper list of pages so that each link on the index links to a proper page, rather than the PDF as a whole (which appears to be problematic). James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 20:28, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I will note here that data sheets I've dealt with on in other areas, have standardised the style, layout. Of course a style guide for these is perhaps something you could pass on as a recommendation to your standards review process, assuming it's acceptable for WiR involvement to be a two way process. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

You could just create an Index for each data sheet, which given the files are already uploaded would be quicker, you would then just need to add a conventional <pages 1=1/> on each index rather than building a complex page list. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:29, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

@James Hare (NIOSH), @Harej: I have deleted the Index: in that form as it is won't work for transclusions where we need an Index: to pair with the File: I have created Portal:NIOSH with each of the indices individually listed, and I will work through creating those. However, before I do, I am needing to know a few things to work out how we wish to display in the main namespace, and with this how to take into account editions/versions of the methods. So …

Is the publication (version control) on the overarching manual, ie. NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (1994), or is the version control on the individual methods, ie. …0500 (1994)? We should be looking to anticipate updates and how they occur. Then we can plan around disambiguation of {{versions}}. [From my time in labs we always version controlled methods, though we didn't publish them as a corpus.]

• If we based around the overarching Manual, then we would have the methods as subpages, and we could do something like NIOSH Manual of Analytical Methods (1994)/Method 0500 Particulates not otherwise regulated, total or similar (if you have a recommendation, please express it), etc.
• If we based around the component parts, then maybe something like NIOSH Method 0500 Particulates not otherwise regulated, total (1994)

I suspect that as we have a manual with a published year and OCLC and LCCN that we are going for the former example, and if that is the case, then settling the nomenclature is the priority. Noting that we can still do a mix of both if 1994 is considered static, and their production methodology changes, and I will express how I think we would do it when I better understand the scope. (Please ping me when you reply). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:22, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello billinghurst. I would use the edition number as the overarching version control system. That said, I don't think the manual changes that often; the last edition was in 1994. If there are "slip" versions that are published between editions, they can be treated differently from those that are published as part of a larger compendium. For the naming scheme, I recommend Method Title (NNNN), e.g. Particulates not otherwise regulated, total (0500). As a point of order: can main namespace pages be created before transcription is complete, or is it customary to wait until transcription is complete (or at least most of the way there)? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Note that some of them have publication dates of after 1994, but are nonetheless considered to be part of the Fourth Edition. I would just leave them as Fourth Edition. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 18:30, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst, I looked into it more, and I found that method numbers are lasting identifiers, with "issues" representing different versions. For example a Method XXXX could have Issue 1 published in 1989 and then Issue 2 published in 1994. Despite the current edition being the Fourth Edition, published in 1994, there are methods from as recent as last year. So doing version control on the basis of issue numbers might make more sense here. James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 15:21, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

@James Hare (NIOSH): okay (I think). So it sounds as the edition has a specified set of methods, though the issue version of the method can be of any age, and pretty much independent of the data of production of the edition. So WS is trying to capture a work at the time of its production, with any reflection of the real time world is coincidental, not through requirement (ie. we are not the real time reference site by design). We may or may not need to reflect as we are faced with 1) different editions (plus next/prev; disambiguate at level), 2) different methods within edition (plus next/prev; disambiguate), 3) different issues of the method (plus next/prev; disambiguate at level). My initial thoughts are that we look to have version pages for edition/method/issue, and maybe they contain the prev/next, and we just drop down to the specific components, with upward navigation. Otherwise maybe we need to customise the header template if we wnat a more complex navigation. I am also thinking how this then flows through to Wikidata. @Hesperian, @Beeswaxcandle, @EncycloPetey: I would value your 20c opinions on such within the existing framework, especially with {{disambiguation}} and {{versions}} templates. I may consult at WD for their wikiprojects books. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Billinghurst, understood that Wikisource is meant to be archival and not "updated" with new information. I will say for now that I am not planning on back-porting the old editions, since my priority is information that is current and useful. This makes it a simpler problem for now, but it will be an issue when there are new versions. As for Wikidata, I have created Wikidata items for each method, such that there is a 1:1:1 relationship between Wikidata entry, Commons file, and Wikisource Index-space page. When other versions are uploaded, different Wikidata items would be created and so forth. Does that sound reasonable? James Hare (NIOSH) (talk) 00:10, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Request on something else

Given where you are currently based I'd also appreciate a second view on some articles at Wikivoayge if you have the time. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 20:37, 18 December 2015 (UTC)