The header has basically been copied from ]
- I added the tab header to some of the other pages. - PKM (talk) 19:46, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia
- Collections navbox - is there a list or hierarchy of the collections to work from?
- Hmm. Sort of. Nominally the records are arranged by department and so we could supply a list of things like DEFE (Ministry of Defence), HO (Home Office), FO (Foreign Office) and so on. But many of the interesting (or defunct) departments have collections within these categories and we don't have an easy list of those. I thought maybe we'd build something up gradually as we developed better articles on some of them. I've added examples like the Children's Overseas Reception Board to The National Archives category. --Mr impossible (talk) 15:14, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Okay, so if I understand correctly we will eventually want a template that covers two kinds of things: articles on departments whose archives are in TNA, and articles on individual documents in the TNA, organised by department. I think I know how I'd want to structure that; I'll start something in my sandbox and we can play with it. - PKM (talk) 18:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Very rough beginning here. I'll need your help with the structure - should Courts be under Departments, or just listed in with the other Departments, or as a separate catregory as I have them? Do Documents need subcategories like Newspapers, and is Public Records right for Domesday Book? I am completely guessing here. :-) - PKM (talk) 18:54, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm going to have to do some serious work on this. I'm not sure one box will work because of the sheer quantity of material. I had in mind something about private papers (like the Chatham Papers) that we hold here but - of course - the relevant articles don't exist. Leave this with me and I will have a play. Thank you SO much for what you've done so far. This is a steep learning curve for us. --Mr impossible (talk) 17:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- You are most welcome. You might consider a set of "matched" navigation templates, one for the highest level and then individual ones for separate collections. We did something similar for the textile arts project - see the pairs of "brown" high-level and detail-level templates on
Textiles. Let me know if you need help with anything. - PKM ( talk) 22:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
- Participant Userbox
- Done If you like one of these, let me know which one and I'll move it live. - PKM(talk) 17:22, 4 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks very much indeed. We like the second one best. I look forward to sporting it on my user page. --Mr impossible (talk) 15:08, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Project assessment templates and associated categories (this is tedious but not really difficult)
- If someone can give me a list of articles - or just a list of categories - I can slap on assessment templates and do a first-cut assessment automatically-ish FlagSteward (talk) 08:52, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I've created {{WikiProject The National Archives}} and a couple of redirects, plus Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom) templates etc - but can I ask that people don't use it just yet? The bot runs much more quickly if I don't have to check for the existence of the template.... It's also worth noting that the Yanks are already using {{WikiProject National Archives}}. FlagSteward (talk) 10:09, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Ooh, someone with bot expertise! Thank you. Category:The National Archives (United Kingdom) is the place to start. - PKM (talk) 23:35, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- To be honest, that category is a bit of a mess. It should really just be for articles that are directly to do with TNA as an organisation - PRO,
Open Data in the United Kingdom and so on. By analogy with the BM hierarchy, we need a Category:Collection of The National Archives (United Kingdom) (which can be further subdivided if appropriate) and probably a Category:People associated with The National Archives (United Kingdom). I do have a bit of a problem with putting any kind of category on department articles, just because they happen to be archived by TNA. Even if one was to set up a Category:Organisations archived by The National Archives (United Kingdom) - it just doesn't feel like a natural category to me. Likewise, I wouldn't tag the departments with the TNA Project tag, it's a bit like tagging Parthenon or Ancient Egypt with the BM tag - whereas obviously the Elgin Marbles or Book of Negroes do belong in the projects. A list of organisations is the sort of thing to include in the main The National Archives (United Kingdom) article - or more likely as a breakout article, List of organisations archived by The National Archives or something. There's a time overhead in setting up each bot run, but once it's running I can forget about it, so I'd rather do one long run than lots of short runs. So it would make sense to get the categories sorted and then as many articles as possible categorised, before unleashing Flagbot. The way to do it is probably to go through the list of articles over in the To Do page linking to the TNA website, that should catch most articles of interest. FlagSteward ( talk) 11:25, 8 September 2011 (UTC) [reply ]
Commons
- "Institution" template for images from (or of items in) the National Archives (to be used inside of the "Artwork" image summary template).
- Image template with your record identifer links. (If there is another example you like better, just point me to it.)
- Draft. There's a version for everyone's review at Commons:Template:TNA-image. I put the template on one file so you can see how it works. Please advise on wording, background color, etc.
- PS: I cannot get it work with a space in the document record identifier...the space breaks the template. I'll ask for help on that.
- So far, the word on Commons is that we'll need to strip out the space to make the template links work. - PKM (talk) 19:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- This is outstanding. I need to look at this very carefully and think about whether anything is missing we need to include. The only obvious issue at this stage is that we are moving to a new online catalogue ('Discovery') and I would like references to be through the new system at http://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/SearchUI/. I hope that's a straightforward fix? --Mr impossible (talk) 15:20, 5 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Commons has a category The National Archives which I believe should be merged into The National Archives (United Kingdom) There only a few dozen files there now; I am going to move them and clean this up as part of adding the image template. - PKM (talk) 00:00, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- And some of the files in this cat are actually the US National Archives. I'll have to be careful moving these... - PKM (talk) 18:27, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
First of all - it's great to see someone putting the "A" into GLAM! I must admit, I'm not quite sure exactly what there is lurking in TNA and how they fit in relative to eg the BL and IWM. I'm sure I'm not the only one - perhaps User:Mr impossible could suggest some things? But these are some thoughts based on my general experience :
Do we want to move the To-Do section from the Main Page to the To-Do page? - PKM (talk) 20:06, 3 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. I was Bold. - PKM (talk) 00:23, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Licencing is the sort of boring thing that needs to get really nailed down before we start - Wikipedia is a lot fussier about that kind of thing than Flickr, and it's obvious that whoever dumped TNA material on Flickr was not that careful about discriminating between genuinely public-domain stuff that is out of copyright, stuff currently subject to Crown Copyright (much of which, but not all is presumably now licenced under the Open Government Licence - we have {{OGL}} for tagging OGL material), and cases where TNA happen to hold a copy of something whose copyright belongs to a third party. For instance, this 1948 Olympics poster was posted with "No known copyright restrictions" yet in the description "Its design is a copyright of the International Olympic Committee." That's really not good enough for our purposes (not if you want to put things on Commons, a low-rez version would be OK as non-free content on 1948 Summer Olympics or somewhere). I suspect similar issues affect images like File:Londons Carnaby Street, 1969.jpg even if it passes the short-term test of having come from a Flickr page that says its copyright-free. There's potential for chaos here, and I suggest it is sorted out before there's any widespread move of material from TNA Flickr to here - in fact it's best if it doesn't get moved from Flickr but comes direct from TNA with a more watertight licence. We've got plenty to be getting on with just the genuinely copyright-free stuff and OGL material in the meantime. Le Deluge (talk) 13:31, 6 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Au contraire Le Deluge, I have been pretty careful about what I've added to Flickr Commons (I run the Archives Flickr presence as well as muddling my way through this project). As the rights holder we can release specific instances of our own content as we like and the same goes for Crown Copyright material under the OGL (or the old Crown Copyright waiver, as was). The tricky thing is that, on Flickr of course, we don't have to specify which of those methods we've used. We can just assert, in Flickr's words that we have "legal rights sufficient to authorize others to use the work without restriction". Wiki Commons requires us to go into more detail. I'm not in favour of wholesale dumping of all the Flickr content on to Commons when we could extract greater benefit from carefully matching relevant content to needy articles. I am in favour of saving us a lot of stress and suggesting that we use http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/ as the licence. (That's almost certainly the licence I'll be using as we upload new material, as opposed to stuff already on Commons). The reason for this is the paramount importance attached by my organisation to maintaining the archival link between a piece of digital content and its original context within the collection. A CC-BY licence is the most straightforward way of maintaining this link. Is any of that helpful? The Olympic poster is a one off, by the way, the British Olympic Association kindly gave us permission to post it with that wording. --Mr impossible (talk) 16:30, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you need help navigating the Commons:OTRS process to enable you to upload files? Do you need help with a bulk upload? - PKM (talk) 23:03, 7 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- That's awfully sweet of you. I might need help with a bulk upload at some point. I'm fine with individual images I think - I want to get a few up and check I'm doing it right. Then I'll be walking colleagues through the process. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:12, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Apologies if this isn't the correct place to ask, but would File:Green cross man take it.jpg fall under the Open Government Licence? http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/legal/copyright.htm states The material featured on this website is subject to Crown copyright protection and licensed for use under the Open Government Licence unless otherwise indicated. I see no obvious other indications at either [1] or [2]. If the conditions are met, then the image could be moved to Commons. But I'm reluctant to move it yet under what may be incorrect assumptions. Thanks for reading. -- Trevj (talk) 14:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Should the tasks relating to QR codes not refer to QRpedia? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:00, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Certainly should. I'll pepper some references immediately. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:07, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a good place to ask whether there's a consensus (on Wikipedia or more widely) on how to cite unpublished materials held in TNA? I haven't been able to find anything that seems specific enough in the general WP help or citation template pages. Docben (talk) 16:56, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- There is, of course, the Archives' own guidance,foolish me Docben (talk) 17:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- It would be amazing to have a citation template for TNA, similar to that for the London Gazette. Is there one? I can't find it, if so? FunkyCanute (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have just created Pat Keely and previously Bert Thomas, where is the best place to log new articles as part of this teamwork? --Fæ (talk) 11:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I felt I'd drop a note here -
It would be appreciated if someone within the TNA GLAM collaboration team could liase with the National Archives team responsible for legislation.gov.uk, as I feel the transcription effort being made at Wikisource, has the potential to get expired (but historic) measures (which are not a priority for legislation.gov.uk) into a text format.
Currently the Wikisource transcription isn't as deeply cross referenced as legislation.gov.uk, and some guidance on the cross referencing used by legislaton.gov.uk would be appreciated.
Elsewhere on Wikisource there is a project to transcribe a 'Chronological Table of Statutes' from around 1877. (No more recent edition as yet having been found in scan form). This index is important because it assists in building Wikisource's portals
to the measures themselves, however the 1877 edition did not appear to yet contain 'short-titles' hence the transcription of
the 1896 statutes which contained a Short Titles Act. Should the National Archives hold a copy of an entire table of 'short-titles', it would be very much appreciated if this could be shared with Wikimedia projects as it would help ensure consistent
naming and referencing.
Sfan00 IMG (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- This is extremely interesting and I'm going to think about how we can take this further. --Mr impossible (talk) 12:31, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's a lovely idea moving all the departments over to .gov.uk - but someone hasn't half made a pig's ear of it. Originally, the 404 page just said they'd moved to .gov.uk, but made no mention of the fact that the page you were looking for was probably not there, but could be found somewhere in the archives. There now seems to be some of that happening - but there's not even a custom 404 page (in fact it's a 403) for entire subdomains like www.aof.mod.uk. Just to really complicate things, some things have ended up at webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk but a lot of the older, more obscure stuff seems to be at http://collections.europarchive.org/tna/. At first I thought that must be some kind of dodgy cloning site, but from what I can work out it's legit, even if TNA do their best to disguise the fact. Is there any kind of word on what's going on? To give you an idea of the impact on Wikipedia, we have 8948 links to mod.uk alone - obviously we don't want to have to change them all to europarchive.org links if the long term plan is to mask them as nationalarchives.gov.uk links in the long term, in the meantime some more helpful 404's and/or redirects would be quite nice..... Le Deluge (talk) 12:56, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The National Archives logo has been nominated for deletion in Commons. See the discussion here. - PKM (talk) 18:38, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
[majestic titan] 21:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- I think we're all still around, but not sure if any of us are actually in and around Kew :-). MI may be able to say if this is achievable or not, but it looks at a glance that FO 508 mostly covers Uruguay and is general consular material, various naval courts and so on - there's some general South America reports but 508/8 is the only bit of confidential papers. Andrew Gray (talk) 22:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- @
[majestic titan] 22:43, 19 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- FO 420 and FO 118 seem to be your friends here. FO 508/4 and /5 (say) could be anything. There's no particular reason to assume they have any relevance to Argentina. You'd be better off sticking to what's in the AM resource. I've asked the cataloguing team to confirm that no other bits of FO 508 have been digitised. Really, Discovery should make clear that there is some mechanism to access the piece digitally and I've asked for it to be amended accordingly. --Mr impossible (talk) 11:54, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi
[majestic titan] 04:10, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
- This sounds like reason enough for you to have a research trip to visit Kew ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 11:48, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Someday, like when I have a grant ... ;-)
[majestic titan] 18:37, 21 October 2014 (UTC) [reply ]
|