Open main menu

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

consider disambig Palestine Mandate

Structured Data - blogs posted in Wikimedia Space

There are two separate blog entries for Structured Data on Commons posted to Wikimedia Space that are of interest:

  • Working with Structured Data on Commons: A Status Report, by Lucas Werkmeister, discusses some ways that editors can work with structured data. Topics include tools that have been written or modified for structured data, in addition to future plans for tools and querying services.
  • Structured Data on Commons - A Blog Series, written by me, is a five-part posting that covers the basics of the software and features that were built to make structured data happen. The series is meant to be friendly to those who may have some knowledge of Commons, but may not know much about the structured data project.
I hope these are informative and useful, comments and questions are welcome. All the blogs offer a comment feature, and you can log in with your Wikimedia account using oAuth. I look forward to seeing some posts over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Keegan (WMF): I did put a note at m:user talk:Lucas Werkmeister#Re blog and structured data ...IAUPLOAD a while ago with some thoughts/questions, though Lucas mustn't be looking at that page (or hiding from me o_O) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The American Printer: A Manual of Typography

Hello. Regarding your message: Do you want me to create an author page for MacKellar, or do you want me to create a portal for his manual, or do you want to upload the scans etc so that a versions page can be created? If you want the scans to be uploaded, I would need some assistance as uploading scans and creating index pages is beyond what I am capable of at this time. James500 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@James500: My discussion was about what we put into the main namespace, and consequentially, what we we don't; primarily we are focusing on presenting editions of works.

No, I am not asking for uploading of a scan unless you are going to work upon it. If you wish to create an author page and list the work, then go for it, and whilst we may list that a work went to twelve editions, we typically wouldn't link each edition unless there is a specific purpose to do so. If you wish to mention all the editions, and something akin to an encyclopaedic article then the work level has been done in portal: namespace. If you are wanting to create a project for people to work on the 12 editions, then that belongs in Wikisource: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reworked the page and moved it to Portal:The American Printer: A Manual of Typography. Please let me know if this is okay. James500 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Methuen Catalogue (and Author pages)

Thanks for the updates to Author pages. I am wondering if I lack the skills to do the consistently high quality level of biographical research you produce. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is both a learnt skill, and access to resources. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Error

Hi Billinghurst. I've noticed an error here, but I have no idea how to fix it. Can you help? Trijnstel (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone deleted the work at Commons, then someone deleted part of the work here, and didn't properly clean up. I have followed through. You're the best. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Your deletion of A General Biography of Bengal Celebrities and Bengal Celebrities was unambiguously out of process. There clearly was meaningful content for both of those pages. CSD G1 is for test edits, vandalism, gibberish and the like. It is not for "best not to transclude at this time". In addition to that, there clearly is a work to link to in both cases. The fact it is in the process of being proofread is not the same thing as "no work to link to".

I am completely fed up of being plagued and pestered with endless objections, criticism and obstruction by you, especially when it appears that you are the only person who objects, and your objections appear to be questionable. I think this has reached a point where it appears that all forward progress on content is imminently about to become impossible. James500 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@James500: The community has had repeated conversations about the simple transclusion and abandonment of a few pages of work. WS:PD is full of those conversations and how it just looks ugly, and misrepresents what we have available. The community adopted the practice of listing of pages with {{small scan link}} and projects to assist with the transcript process, and linking to works for visibility. We also allowed portal pages to build similar content pages, see help:Namespaces.

Build a body of pages and significant pages, and then we can transclude, not a few trophy pages. And before you "at" me, I spent significant time running a bot through dozens of Index: pages for you as you wanted to work on them. Nada. It seems that you are more concentrating on building root pages with no content, and the community doesn't need that facadism, it is pretty valueless, and we don't need more incomplete, abandoned works.

If I am being accused of pushing a higher standard, and not having hundreds of abandoned heads of work, then GUILTY. If I am accused of pushing you to produce higher quality that benefits this community, then GUILTY. If you are people are accusing me of having us to comply with our consensus for standards then GUILTY. The standard that we walk past is the standard that we accept. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My immediate concern was that pages should not be speedy deleted unless they actually meet the speedy deletion criteria. I was under the impression that speedy deletion of pages not meeting those criteria was considered a misuse of admin tools. I also had some substantive concerns: The deletion of such pages removes them from relevant categories, making it extremely difficult to find things. The page and index in question had not been abandoned (the pages had only just been created). The body of page namespace material seemed to me to be significant (one of the indexes already had forty proofread pages, not "a few pages"). I was not consulted or offered any opportunity to improve the pages/indexes in question. You did not specify how much material you want there to be for transclusion to happen (how many pages exactly is "a body of pages"? what number?). You keep asserting the existence of consensus without linking to or clearly identifying any policy, guideline or discussion that establishes the existence of that consensus. (I do not think I can reasonably be expected to trawl from finish to start through the archives of WS:PD; some actual examples of deletion discussions would be helpful; an old RfC would be better; a guideline would be better still).
As regards Notes and Queries, you told me that you would upload the OCR text into the page namespace. You have not completed that. You have not uploaded any of the OCR text for nearly two months, for reasons you have not disclosed to me. If I had created the page namespace pages manually myself, the whole thing would probably be done by now, instead of being less than half done. I did some improvements to Notes and Queries (for example, I typed up some of the the pages for which the OCR text was wholly missing). That is not "nada". I have not forgotten about Notes and Queries, and I have always had every intention of correcting all the OCR pages. Just because I paused briefly while doing something else does not mean that I am never going to correct those pages. It means that I was multi-tasking.
As regards the 'root' pages, the intention was always to proofread all of them. Since the number of such publications within scope was relatively small, I felt it was an attainable short term objective (bear in mind that I can make more than twenty thousand manual edits a month (probably a record), and I am not the only editor). I thought it would be more efficient to upload them en bloc and then proofread them en bloc. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
You transcluded two works at the same time which was a few bare pages in each. The works have been in the Index: namespace since July 2015 with little work done on them, so they were at best moribund, at worst abandoned. I deleted with the commentary "there is no work here to link to, best not to transclude at this time".

I have no issue with them being transcluded when there is some content. And I won't be digging out diffs about the conversations, they have happened often enough, and I have no reason to lie about it. There have been numbers of people over the years who come and undertaken facadism. We have others who come and copy and paste shit OCR, etc. We have the Index:/Page: namespaces for the preparation of works aligned with scans, and when we have suitable content from a work that gives value then we can transcribe it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For one of those works, there is forty pages of proofread content to transclude. You say that you are happy to transclude "when there is some content". If forty pages of proofread content is not enough, how much content do you want? How many pages? Or do you want the entire work to be proofread from start to finish? I have no idea because what you have said to me is not clear.

If you do not produce diffs or other links to the conversations, I am afraid I cannot assume that your description of those conversations is accurate. You clearly have very strong personal opinions about "facadism" etc and you have made too many factually inaccurate statements already. If you really want to invoke these conversations when other editors question your actions, the least you should do is collect links to them in an essay like the common outcomes essay on enWP.

If someone tells you that they are completely fed up with hearing objections from you, it is not helpful to immediately respond with even more new objections. The most likely result of that kind of response is that the other person will retire from the project because they fear that your objections are liable to escalate forever. James500 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have pointed you to the existing practice undertaken by the community. I have explained what we do in the various namespaces. At this time you are not generating transcriptions of proofread work, you are building a variety of head pages that have no substance below the root page, sometimes not even valuable head pages aligned with content of the main namespace.

We wish for moribund transcriptions to be worked upon in the Index:/Page: namespace, and where there is something significant and suitable to be transcluded, then we transclude. That is not a binary switch, and numbers of factors can come into what and when we start to transclude, though think of some value more than a title page. What reader comes here and view a title page? They are here for the work's subpages. There are here for quality transcriptions, if they just want an image or facsimile page, or rubbish OCR, they would be at archive.org. That isn't our purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see that you are continuing to abuse CSD G1 by continuing to delete pages that manifestly have meaningful content. Let me make this very clear to you: the only legitimate process for seeking the deletion of those pages is WS:PD. Not speedy deletion. What you are doing has become exceptionally disruptive. James500 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am in the process of correcting the pages of Notes and Queries right now. I also corrected page namespace pages of other publications at the time you erroneously accuse me of doing nothing but "building a variety of head pages". Please do not claim that I am "not generating transcriptions of proofread work" at this time, because that is simply not true. James500 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Further, I am not building a variety of head pages "at this time". I have not created any "head pages" since you started deleting them. That is not "at this time". I would like you to altogether refrain from making factually inaccurate claims about me. James500 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) The allegation of "facadism" you made in the edit summary when deleting Herringshaw's National Library of American Biography was an unambiguous personal attack. James500 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My apologies if you thought that I was making a personal attack, it was not my intent. Can I encourage you to create Wikisource:WikiProject Literary journals or something similar to link together all those interesting literary journals. I did something similar for Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries a while back to try and highlight those biographical compilations that were available for transcription, and to talk about common approaches. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance query about categories

I’ve been carefully placing categories in the header, only to realize much too late that for the sake of HotCat that isn’t where they should be. Are you planning to do some sort of mass maintenance operation to shift categories out of the headers at some point, or planning to make HotCat access the header? If so, then I won’t bother going through and fixing all my pages. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I hadn't planned to do so. Whilst I disagreed with the methodology when it was introduced, I don't go against a consensus, and current practice. If you have works that you would like me to run a bot through, I can.
Do I understand you correctly, there was a consensus to place the categories in the header, in spite of the fact that HotCat can't handle it? That would be weird because HotCat is really useful. Levana Taylor (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-40

16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Probable long s replacements

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what you want?

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Index_transcluded/doc&oldid=prev&diff=9627381 ? Ndashes are spaced and mdashes are not (e.g. w:en:WP:DASH) and MediaWiki markup is better than raw HTML (e.g. w:en:Help:HTML in wikitext). I didn't expect either of these statements to be controversial. What is the problem? —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Mate, <code> is markup, not raw html, and we have it in so many places including in our edittools and you want to pop into one place and apply a principle that doesn't exist. (FWIW your link is information, and provides no recommendation that you so promoted.) Oh, and hang me, I had spaces around my emdashes. If you had removed the spaces, then I may have left it, but no, you converted to endash. I didn't know that having it that way was so controversial. Simply unnecessary changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the link. "But most HTML can be included by using equivalent wiki markup or templates; these are generally preferred within articles, as they are sometimes simpler for most editors and less intrusive in the editing window". —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I read the page, and that is an opinion for articles at English Wikipedia. It is not a recommendation for here, and <code is markup, not raw html, it isn't even html.

So you are making changes that suit you and have no context whatever to any actual improvement, and you will fight for the right to do it. The use of {{code}} here is absolutely minimal, and the use of <code> and other similar markup is quite extensive, so please don't pull the false "it is better", most especially in one of the most obscure maintenance templates that is set up by me, and pretty much only used by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Code is an HTML tag: not sure what you mean. Why do you insist on having inaccesible pseud-headers, directly-inserted HTML instead a template, and spaced mdashes? Isn't that just "making changes that suit you and have no context whatever to any actual improvement"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Find a different ditch in which to fight, you are farnarkling in places that simply do not need to be undertaken; you are applying rules that do not apply here. We allow its use and it is in our edittools. That editing change is unneeded and unnecessary editing, so just take a hike. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Filter 38

Hi, the filter seems to allow on-going edits to User Talk: space. I recommend that, for this filter, that gets blocked also. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I am working on a killer, targeted and specific, though with a little wriggle room. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks for your efforts. -Pete (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-41

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

Tech News: 2019-42

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Global templates

Hi!

You are one of the main contributors to templates (and to a lot of other things) in Wikisource.

I wrote a little something about how templates could get better: mw:User:Amire80/Global templates draft spec/TLDR.

There's also a (much) longer version here, if you have the time: mw:User:Amire80/Global templates draft spec.

I'd love to know what do you think about it.

Thanks! :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Return to the user page of "Billinghurst".