Open main menu


Je suis Charlie inversée.jpg
Police were called to a childcare center where they found a three-year-old resisting a rest.
System-users.svgThis user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)
IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth

Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

Popular Science Monthly 1916 Ad.jpg

Wikisource has a number of active Wikiprojects that could use
your help in tackling these large additions to our library.


Popular Science Monthly Project
Work: Popular Science Monthly


Contents

TO DO — DNB footer initials

billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

Note to self and anyone else interested.

Category:Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania should it be a portal too? If yes, we really need a means to autopopulate (minor) portals so we do not have do lots of work in that space.

If it is not, we need to look to adapt {{authority control}} so it can be utilised with arbitrary access to WD so AC can be filled on such a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Move template data to WD

Category:Pages using authority control with parameters has pages with {{authority control}} data that should be housed on the WD page of the item. Look to set to utilise PLbot to move the data to WD, save some queries on its use and set up tracking. Need to be a good lad and set up fully-fledged maintenance pages. Oh for more time! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

To review

billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

template:OGL needs an author: ns version created for use. Currently only has works version.

header WP links and the use of main subject at WD

have a check to see that where we have (encyclopaedic) pages in main namespace that link wikipedia = through header, that these items at wikidata may or may not have "main subject" wikilink. Can or should we be pulling that link via WD to manage deleted and moved items, and also be prepared for any item that has a future wp link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Authors with missing death dates -> Category:Authors without death dates

explore making this change. They are not missing if they are not dead, so we should cater for both scenarios without confusing things. Only would be missing of the person is alive 130 years after death. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Contributing translator -> header template

(parking) See if we should plug in a parameter so something like Popular Science Monthly/Volume 3/September 1873/Hypnotism in Animals I can properly represent the translator. Otherwise we can have it as a note as we do for {{illustrator}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

link templates — to build

billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

convert template:NIE to template:header

Files to recover from Commons

Author disambiguations

Wikisource-bot

Hello. At the moment, it is not apparent to me that I have access to this robot. If I did, I do not, at this point know how to operate such a robot. James500 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Re the message you placed on my user talk page: Are you asking me to make a request for the pages to be created at Wikisource:Bot requests? Please tell me exactly what you want me to do, because I really am not sure. James500 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: Apologies for being unclear. Yes, we can run the bot through to apply the text layers rather than the repetitive and noisy component of having to do it personally. The bot requests page, the bot's talk page, or my talk page are all acceptable places. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, would it be possible for the robot to create the missing 'page namespace' pages of Notes and Queries? James500 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: Which Index: pages? Identify which you need, and I can get the files and inhale the data. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have kicked Index:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu as an example. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I was planning to do all of them, starting with the most recent and working backwards. I have partly completed volume 7 of series 12 (up to the 185th page). The following volumes of series 12 (from volume 8 onwards) are complete. I do not know whether any of the preceding volumes are complete, as I have not looked at them yet. James500 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: I am pushing volumes 4, 5, and 7. Please can you look to see what is the issue with Index:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 6.djvu. If it is overly broken, is it repairable, or do we need to find another version? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure why volume 6 says "Source file must be fixed before proof reading". I suspect it refers to this, which is a request to "create a pagelist for the source file ... to verify file is correct". The pagelist was started by this edit, but it is not complete. The pagination given on the index page is consequently not correct. The adverts do not have page numbers and should be marked as "???" on the index page. While the early adverts are correctly marked as far as I can see, the later ones are not correctly marked on the index page. That may be all that needs to be fixed. I have not seen any missing or duplicate pages in the file yet, and there might not be any, though I have not looked at all 400+ pages. If, for the sake of argument, there were any missing/duplicated, my understanding is that individual pages can be added to or removed from a file, so it would be repairable anyway. All the pages I did see looked okay. I suspect there is nothing wrong with the file. James500 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I have looked again. Page 28 of the volume seems to be missing from the file. James500 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I have completed the pagelist for volume 6. The only missing page is page 28. As far as I can tell, there are no other problems with the file. I apologise for the mistake I made earlier. James500 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: are you able to find an alternative version? See if there has been another scan at either Google or archive.org? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find another copy of volume 6 on the Internet Archive, and I am unable to read the scans of post-1878 books on Google Books. However, I think that page 28 probably never existed. My reasoning is that page 27 looks like the last page of every other issue, and page 29 looks like the first page of every other issue. I think the error is probably an error in the original pagination of the printed volume, and not the result of there being a page missing from the scan. And I apologise for probably having made another mistake. James500 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@James500: I am applying the layer of s12v6 now. We are probably also able to upload s12v11 and s12v12 and s12GeneralIndex if they are now available (I believe that copyright term complete). Note that I have also added a local search engine to the volume table of contents, so you can search for pages with keywords. I have started on working backwards through volume 11. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ser. 11 vols. 1 through 6, underway. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: series 10—1,2,3,4,5,7,8 underway 11,12,index done Index:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 6.djvu and Index:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 9.djvu need fixing or replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any scans of volumes 6 or 9 on the Internet Archive other than the ones we already have. Google Books is likely to have multiple scans of both volumes, but I cannot read scans of post-1878 books on that site, so someone else would have to look there. James500 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will just leave those volumes. You may find someone at WS:S who may look for you as I will probably end up with the same restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to make a start on series nine. James500 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
S9 v1-6 done, v7-12 running. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A further query about the capabilities of the robot

I have noticed that the OCR text of scans of certain volumes of other periodicals has words to the effect of "digitised by google" etc on every page. Would it be possible and desirable to have the robot perform the repetitive task of removing those words? James500 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@James500: Not really, it would be a separate run and process. It can be cleaned out during proofreading, and if you are using m:TemplateScript (straight or as gadget) then you can take the text replacement script that I utilise in my common.js. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-30

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No notice template

We continue to have editors make well meaning changes to {{PD-US-no-notice}}, but which will cause problems. Specifically, the change people wish to make is not backwards-compatible with prior usage, such the wrong text will be displayed on all of the oldest works that use this template.

I've devised a solution proposal, if you (or someone) is willing to implement it.

  • Step (1) : Add the year of publication as a parameter to all uses of {{PD-US-no-notice}}.
  • Step (2) : Rewrite the template to do the following (except in the Author namespace):
    (a) Check for the existence of the pub. year parameter, generating an error message if it does not exist.
    (b) If the pub. year parameter exists, determine that it falls within the correct range of dates (CURRENTYEAR-95 to 1977) for current usage of the template
    • (i) If it is post 1977 (too late), generate an error message.
    • (ii) If it is more than 95 years ago (too early), display the PD/1923 text, but generate a message / category to permit cleanup
    • (iii) If it is in the correct range of values, generate the current no-notice text.
  • Step (3) : Update the documentation, especially regarding the mandatory pub. year parameter.

The added pub. year parameter will allow us to track and correct old usages each year as the calendar rolls over, which is the biggest wrinkle of previous attempts to "update" this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

  Comment I don't think that we need to change anything (well except I just protected the template to admin only with specific protection statement). The no-notice applies to works between 1923 and 1977, so it will always be factually correct. They should be picking a different license if post 1922 and out of copyright for another reason, and the actual year of publication doesn't need to be there. Only reason for a death year is so it goes to PD-old or equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-31

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals in {{article link}}

This was initially requested by @Levana Taylor when cleaning up the Once a Week (magazine) pages (Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-02#Cleaning up Once a Week namespace) and implemented in the sandbox by ShakespeareFan00. After two months I saw no reason why it wasn't added to the main template, and copied the code over.

My apologies if this was not wanted due to standardising on Arabic numerals. --Einstein95 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about, just don't want it to propagate. It is due to our requirements for future wikilinking that we decided that we would standardise. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain me the reason for this decision? I was not notified of this, and will have to change dozens of author pages if Roman numerals are forbidden ... Levana Taylor (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Roman numerals are not "forbidden" (in big scary letters), but they are non-standard on Wikisource, and should only be used in certain limited cases where there is strong reason to do so. They should never be used to record the publication date of a work, even if the source uses Roman numerals. They should not be used in page names to represent volume or issue numbers, in part because the trend in modern libraries has been to shift away from Roman numerals for these purposes, and to use Arabic numerals instead.
Roman numerals are still used on Wikisource for the page numbers of front matter, for some bibliographic information, for the acts of plays, and in titles of works such as Shakespeare's Richard III. But on the whole, the use of Roman numerals for information about parts of works is discouraged. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
OK! My knowledge of bibliographic practices is evidently severely out of date. Back when (in the Pleistocene?), it used to be that Roman numerals were a way of distinguishing different levels of numbering: in a play, Act III Scene 2; in a magazine, Volume III Number 2. But if that's not done now, so be it. Levana Taylor (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: hi, apologies for the inconvenience, I checked SF00's additions and didn't find particularly anything in their edits, and it was only yesterday that someone identified that it was your work. I will get a bot through and do the maintenance, and it should be able to get done in the next few days. Please do not feel required to make these amendments ... maintenance are us!

With regard to the style, we have long had the guidance about the use of numbers rather than roman numerals for subpage titles (different from the presentation layer), and it came about as one of the changes that we would make to a book to enable future-proofing and to have one standard rather than multiple standards for our works. This information should have been put to you by the community ages ago, and that should truly have been said when the linking and templating was being envisaged. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, and I see that {{Once a Week link}} hasn't been particularly used, and there has been a direct use of {{article link}}. I will convert all existing plain links, and convert the particular article_link to use the template, though will do it when I can concentrate on the task at hand. It doesn't look overly egregious. Noting that "Once a Week link" is simply a dressed up "article link" and meant to allow easier finding and manipulation of said articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason I wasn't using {{Once a Week link}} is because it doesn't have enough parameters. Thank you very much for doing the conversions but could you please add the display title parameter and also an "author" parameter? Levana Taylor (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
ETA: Please don't convert any more of my {{article link}} to {{Once a Week link}} until you add the title parameter ... I had reasons for doing the titles the way I did ... Thanks Levana Taylor (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Not a problem, I do these conversions slowly and with testing, diligence and looking at what is in place for existing manual links. The template already has contributor, coauthor, year, p and pp parameter fields that can be used now. (These "link" templates were pretty much converted to utilise these base templates so these additional parameters can be made available, and allow a universal presentation, I have converted over 20 old disjointed formats.) FYI I ran a test on one author looking at what was involved, and saw that "display" was not present, and will be adding it though will only do so after sandboxing that change. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Sounds good. What do you plan to do for translations? You can see the format I've been using so far for translators on the pages of George Borrow and Blomfield Jackson. I hadn't yet settled on a format for putting these works on the pages of the original authors; you can see two of my attempts at Emanuel Geibel and Ludwig Uhland. Levana Taylor (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Urk, more complexity. @Levana Taylor: 1) The neat thing about the approach of nesting children templates is that the formatting is something that can be easily changed on all the templates without effecting the data, to the point that we can plug in the parameter even when it hasn't been created and when it is done, it will magically appear (a trick I have used when I know that I need to improve them but don't want to remember where); 2) the template is a bit of a complex beast, so will need to look at it when I have 100% concentration (hasten slowly). With the receiving author of a later translated work, I would suggest that we would want to keep the template data the same though look to have trigger text that switches, so one indicates "translated work of" with a text switch that indicates "translated by" if at all possible.
I suggest that what we want to do is start populating testcases in {{article link/testcases}} (and I would point to what I have done at our complementary template {{authority/link}} and {{authority/link/testcases}}). So let us start populating simple through to complex testcases—even with ridiculous amounts of parameters to worse case scenario—and then when we build the sandbox we can tweak the formatting. I will build for the situation without translators, and we can work from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added some test cases to that page. In the best-case scenario, the information I give about the original work is its author, title, and original publication date. However, sometimes I don't know some of those facts. In the worst case, some sort of free-text explanation seems unavoidable, like when the work is "from a Russian folktale" instead of a work with an author and date, or when I wanted to note that the poem "From the French of Malherbe" (Jackson) translated only part of its source. Levana Taylor (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Thanks for the test cases, and I agree with your thoughts. We can try to design so text can be (seamlessly?) appended outside of the template, or we can look to have a "comment" parameter as I did with template:authority/link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

searches, regex, etc.

"\[\[Once a Week \(magazine\)\/Series (\d{1,2})\/Volume (\d{1,2})\/([^\|]+?)\|.*\((\d{4})\)(?:.+)?\n
{{Once a Week link|series=$1|volume=$2|article=$3|year=$4}}\n
<Typo word="<enter a name>" find=""\[\[Once a Week \(magazine\)\/Series (\d{1,2})\/Volume (\d{1,2})\/([^\|]+?)\|.*\((\d{4})\)(?:.+)?\n" replace="{{Once a Week link|series=$1|volume=$2|article=$3|year=$4}}\n" />
  • {{Once a Week link}} needs an article/link parameter update, look to translator; build testcases

Aribtary break

I am now slightly confused as to why I even got asked about this, as my recollection was that I'd put this in the sandbox with a view to a wider discussion (which didn't happen, with the additional functionality being swapped in by a single contributor).

The actual structure of links, (as I indicated on the relevant template's talk page) was such that as I also stated there, the display of a Roman numeral, was display only (ie. the right hand side of a piped link), It didn't and was never intended to change the ACTUAL links (on the left-hand side) of a piped link. English Wikisource has long said that pagenames shouldn't generally use Roman numerals in names.

If there had been a decision to standardise BOTH sides of a piped link to use conventional digits, then that's a discussion that should linked, so there can be no confusions as to what had ACTUALLY understood to have been reached as consensus. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Annotations

Did we ever decide as a community whether Annotations such as this work are allowed? I understood that we wanted clean copy in the main namespace, and annotated copies in a separate namespace, and only once a clean copy existed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:Annotation is pretty clear that this would be unnecessary. A simple note could cover this, or wikilinks to wiktionary. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Previous "simple notes" from me to this contributor have been ignored, or have led to Scriptorium arguments that are still going on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-32

13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

consider disambig Palestine Mandate

File:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf

This is not GODL. See discussion at 1. Moreover, the file should be moved to Commons. Hrishikes (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Was moving the file to Commons. If not GODL, then we need to create a PD-IndiaGov at Commons to host it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Already exists: c:Template:EdictGov-India -- Hrishikes (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have updated the data files so that these can now be exported to Commons, and paired these templates between sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-33

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Tangye

According to w:Tangye, Richard Trevithick Gilbertstone Tangye is the son of Richard Trevithick Tangye; you recently moved the latter page to the former name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I opened up the wrong probate entry. <facepalm> — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-34

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Billinghurst".