User talk:Billinghurst/2021

Active discussions
Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created on 01 January 2021, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion.

Wikisource-bot cat choresEdit

Touch the categories

billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   Donebillinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

TO DO: WD checks of PD-old cats and templatesEdit

  • Category:Author-PD...
  • Category:PD...
  • Template:Author-PD...
  • Template:PD...

Looks like some names and merges need to occur — billinghurst sDrewth 02:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

  This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment.   Donebillinghurst sDrewth 13:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

div colEdit

I'm planning on getting a photo of {{div col}} failing gracefully, yet still failing on the kindle 5. Where should I put it? Scriptorium? A sub-area of that? Forget it here and just put it somewhere at wm? Amazon product page (only)?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 01:51, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian:: Help talk:Preparing for export perhaps, it's where I am collecting problems with exported files. In the case of {{div col}}, it's most likely that the Kindle rendering engine just doesn't support it. I don't think many ebook engines do support it, and in the common case of indexes and glossaries, there's no HTML construct that I'm aware of that lets you have a top-to-bottom, left-to-right column that reflows across pages. This ends up with having A and M together on the first page, not Aa and Ab. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 02:04, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: yeah -- this was difficult for me since I have been previously conditioned to avoid tables in html where tabular information is not present. So, especially stuff I take seriously.... So, thanks for the where....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:18, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe that we encourage columns Help:Beginner's guide to proofreadingbillinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Author:Thomas Macgregor GreerEdit

review and fix according to comment — billinghurst sDrewth 05:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 20:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-02Edit

15:42, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

File:International Law and Custom in Ancient India.djvuEdit

This work is by Author:Pramathanath Bandyopadhyay (b. 1894), whose death year is not known. So I had uploaded it locally. Now you have exported it to Commons, with a wrong author (with the same name). Therefore, the file is now liable to be deleted at Commons, whenever a deletion proposal comes up. So I am requesting you to kindly revert this file export. Hrishikes (talk) 02:29, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: You had it labelled with {{Do not move to Commons|expiry=2020}}. You also didn't have it pointing to that author, you had it pointing to the disambiguation author page and didn't fix the links. So if I see 1960 death with 2020 expiry I think that it is a reasonable assumption to migrated to Commons AND assign it to the person dying in 1960.

There is no requirement to revert the file export, just undelete it here, and request a deletion at Commons.

Please don't @ me. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 14 January 2021 (UTC)

Unprotection queryEdit

Why did you unprotect Shaving Made Easy? It is meant to be protected, being a featured text. BethNaught (talk) 19:29, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Because we have typically only protected FT for their time of being FT. It has never been permanent. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
That has never been my understanding. Once a work reaches FT, its mainspace pages are protected. Perhaps we should establish something in writing? --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:10, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
(ec)That policy statement is icky old. Since we have ProofreadPage, it hasn't really been necessary, and is technically difficult to protect all pages. We also found that we were unable to run bots through to make header changes, and it was a general discussion years ago that we would prefer to not have to create administrative bots to undertake header maintenance. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not saying I disagree. It's just clear that two of us were unaware, so something in writing would probably be useful. Having your memory of the reasoning behind it helps. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:23, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yep, guessed so. About when we were migrating from {{header2}} to {{header}}, migrating to year parameter, and doing a whole lot of fixes it was just problematic, which prompted the discussion and the change when we reflected on where we were, the numbers of subpages in some works, ... and the low amount of vandalism we got, and that it just didn't protect the text, and as we had moved our criteria for all FT to be image supported. And so on. And in our inimitable way, of course we just reinterpreted policy and not fuss with that boring text change and wordsmithing. <eyeroll> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey, @BethNaught: This is why unnecessary protection is problematic. Forcing me/us to the requirement to run an administrative bot for what should be a simple task of touching files. The page are caught on thinking they are on old templates and won't update without a forced touch.

WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Squirrel Nutkin]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Benjamin Bunny]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Two Bad Mice]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Mrs. Tiggy-Winkle]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Mr. Jeremy Fisher]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Story of A Fierce Bad Rabbit]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Story of Miss Moppet]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Tom Kitten]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Jemima Puddle-Duck]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Roly-Poly Pudding]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Mrs. Tittlemouse]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Timmy Tiptoes]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Mr. Tod]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[The Tale of Johnny Town-Mouse]] is locked.
WARNING: API error protectedpage: This page has been protected to prevent editing or other actions.
ERROR: Page [[Cecily Parsley's Nursery Rhymes]] is locked.

billinghurst sDrewth 14:41, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-03Edit

16:10, 18 January 2021 (UTC)

your assistance please...Edit

I'm very rusty, it has been years since I started a new document here. And standards may have changed.

I have a __NOINDEX__ on Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene Introduces Articles of Impeachment Against President Joe Biden, until its ready.

What is it missing?

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 11:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: That only applies it that to external search engines, not internal. Possibly a better way to do that is to create it in your user namespace in a sandbox, and move it over when it is complete. Then delete the redirect in your namespace. Can I also suggest that the case of your title looks whacky, are they really capitalising words that are not proper nouns? Detail at mw:Manual:Noindexbillinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
That is how Ms Greene drafted it. Since that sounds like your only concern I am going to remove the __NOINDEX__.
Thanks for the quick reply. Geo Swan (talk) 18:45, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Thomas BecketEdit

Hello. The Canterbury archbishop’s name was Thomas Becket and if any original work by him is ever added here, it will definitely not be signed as Thomas à Becket. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:58, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Please look at all the biographical works we have on the page. Wikipedia's dismissive approach and lack of documentation is interesting but should not affect our alignment with our works. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 23 January 2021 (UTC)
  1. Several old encyclopaedias call him "Thomas à Becket" but e. g. Britannica sticks to his original name "Thomas Becket" too.
  2. As for Wikisource works generally, we have for 159 hits for "Thomas à Becket" and 232 hits for "Thomas Becket".
  3. I am not sure what you mean by Wikipedia’s lack of documentation, the statement about his name is referenced by a reliable source there. Historian Frank Barlow writes that "à Becket … seems to have been a postreformation invention", which means that neither Thomas Becket himself nor any of his contemporaries called him in that way, or at least there is not any evidence of it.
  4. Another source
  5. Modern sources are mostly in accordance with this too, compare Google search for Thomas à Becket" with the search for Thomas Becket, which means that the latter gives our readers a better idea who the page is about.
  6. It is semantically confusing. The Latin preposition "à" means "from", but in reality Thomas Becket was not "from Becket".
  7. Naming the page in this way seems not only more correct, but also makes the use of the disambiguating brackets unnecessary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The Osteology of the ReptilesEdit

For this work, the text of the license doesn't work well. The author died before the work was published, the date of 1970 is the date the editor died (not the author), but the license text says "author". All the drawings and all but a very little of the text (mainly a handful of annotations) were by the author. The forward is the only part that can truly be said to be written by the editor. Do we have a means of making this clear? There was no renewal, so I do not know who was credited with authorship and copyright at the time of publication, nor do I have a good sense of how that information would be applied in the EU. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:14, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

The licence for the work will always be the last person with a portion of copyright. Some could say that they are all authors, and this issue exists with many works. <shrug> It is easy to put in a qualifying parameter to the template—and even easier now as I re-jigged the templates—if the community can agree on a terminology. Or we can just think of the "author" in a broader sense. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:47, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
OR say author(s). — billinghurst sDrewth 00:49, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I just want to be sure we do what we can to help the reader understand. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
I am not fussed either way, just saying to have a parameter for that text is easy. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:21, 7 January 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Is there a proposal going forward, or are you now not that fussed? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
I'm not that fussed. I don't have a lot of time to devote to wiki these days. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:13, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Author:Clinton Richard DawkinsEdit

Could protecting the page from mainstream editing not be a reasonable method to discourage the creation of this page? This author page is essentially a non-entry as it stands. PseudoSkull (talk) 21:52, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

@PseudoSkull: No. There is always a chance that they will write something licensed with creative commons and it can be added. We don't protect just because, but in line with WS:Protection policy and this template has proved more effective than deleting the pages. There are a handful or so of these types of author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-04Edit

18:31, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

To do: Case law by yearEdit

Utilise Template:Categories by date to create template series for "case law by year", needs {{plain sister}} and link upwards to "category:yyyy works" and "category:case law by year"

billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Botanists with author abbreviationsEdit

Instead of copying these authors over by adding an additional category, wouldn't it be faster to place Category:Botanists with author abbreviations inside the Category:Botanists as authors? All botanists with author abbreviations will be published authors (though not all botanist authors will have author abbreviations). The author abbreviation crowd are an important subset of authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:27, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Both. They are both, really. Like being 'a digital document' and 'validated'. A person can be an author, an author from the United States, an author who published in 1801, 1802, 1809, and 1810, an author who won an award, and an author who lived in some city. None of those subcats excludes being an author. Well, they are all authors here -- but my claim holds for s/author/botanist/g as well.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:17, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Also, Petey's very right about this. Author abbrev. in all biology is a publishing thing, not just botanists. The first person that authors a description of a species, genera, family, etc. has their name follow it whenever anyone publish something new about it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:36, 27 January 2021 (UTC)
Botanists with author abbreviations is a by type classification, and is automatically populated; and it is my intention to have it as a category that canNOT be selected or show through HotCat.

So the question is do you expect to find all our botanists listed in the one category by occupation, or do you expect to have to find them in multiple. I don't believe that we can utilise DPL criteria matching across cascading categories. And I am not set on anything at this time. Happy to have your feedback at WS:S where I have been pushing the discussion about occupational categories as I strive to resolve these issues. Ideally and eventually these will all be populated out of WD and we will just be building hierarchy. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:43, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

Re: Congressional Record page hierarchyEdit

The main work, for the purposes of the hierarchy, is Congressional Record/Volume 167/Issue 4; this alone is 97 pages. The next level, “House,” is a division for length and clarity. The next division, “Counting Electoral Votes,” would normally be the lowest-level division, but, as it is quite lengthy, the debates on the objections are separated. The individual speeches are separated because they are the works of different authors, and would be useful to have as separate pages. All of the pages have in-text Wiki-links at the next level above, so previous/next would not be appropriate. A separate system could be created to navigate between, for example, all of the speeches given during debate for one objection. I plan to proofread and transclude the Senate speeches soon, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 03:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC).

Files to move from CommonsEdit

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-05Edit

22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

To do: hard to soft redirectsEdit

Special:prefixindex/Proletarskaya Kul'tura

and continue the conversation that special:prefixindex/Translation:Proletarskaya Kul'tura should be under the root page.

  Done primary task — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

volume issues, Popular Science, etcEdit

I had this same problem with another set of rebounded issues, so I think it is not limited to Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1. Probably the original indexes were on the "lost to the material world" covers.

I have set the "struts" at Q20873000 for Volume 1. And filled out the May issue at Q105323531. My problem is that I want to put a wsource link to this at wdata but none exists. It would go at Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872 and would require the pasting of the index part from the Main page and futzing with the previous and next of the affected navigation.

What I did with another journal was to recreate the index on a blank page in the Page namespace so it could be transcluded with the rest of the issue. I could do the same here, as it will be used twice.

For 2009 work, it is pretty nice.

Also, a different (but somewhat related) item. Have you seen the 1960s original Star Trek as it was renovated for bluray? It started life on film so cleaning was easier. The groovy 60s colors were incredible on the new millennia screen. I mention it now because of this great thing they did. While viewing it you can flip between a cgi updated version (mostly it was the ship that they doctored) or the renovated original. Its that option to switch between original and modernized that makes me mention it now; an attempt by me to share a mindset.

Thanks for your time.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are talking about. Personally I don't do any creations of volumes of journals at Wikidata. I see little value in it. I have zero issue making references to works at WD, and I think volume level references are just more likely to confuse things than help things. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:38, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Sorry. As author of the redirect I thought you might take issue.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
I am still none the wiser, please be specific. {PS. Don't make anyone have to dig through someone's contributions to work things out.] — billinghurst sDrewth 22:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872 I haven't done anything yet. To get to that page so you can see your name in its history, you will have to scroll up to find the redirect link. Changing those redirects is next on my list. I think (but do not yet know) that with the toc there, the single issue can be exported to epub, mobi or txt. Without it there, it is the whole volume only for ereaders.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
If you are asking whether pages like the redirects at Popular Science Monthly/Volume 1/May 1872 can be converted into per issue ToC, then sure. I am guessing that they had been left as redlinks back then. Don't expect me to remember. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Contributing translator -> header templateEdit

(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)

  Done section_translatorbillinghurst sDrewth 12:12, 14 February 2021 (UTC)

Review templates due to name conflictEdit

Tech News: 2021-06Edit

17:42, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-07Edit

17:56, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Deletion - try again?Edit

Hi, thank you for your fulfillment of my deletion request. However, what I was after was to delete the page including subpages. I mistakenly ran a Match & Split prior to confirming that all pages were present...and I was burned for my haste. (I've since repaired the underlying DJVU file.) Could you recreate and re-delete? -Pete (talk) 23:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I random checked subpages against the text and they seem to be suitably accurate and any fixes would be done in proofreading. Which pages are you seeing as problematic that require deletion?
As stated in the original request, it's every page from about 60 up. Either delete just those, or delete all of them (I can perform the match & split again, so it's really no loss if you delete them all). Thanks. -Pete (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Oh, you hadn't upgraded the image file. When you rematch, you will notice some of the end words have missed. We/you could have moved them FWIW, but deleting is possible too. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
I don't quite follow – you mean some of the words at the page breaks are misplaced? I usually fix that stuff manually, but if you have any clever regex patterns to share, I'd be much obliged. -Pete (talk) 03:55, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
As for moving vs. replacing, my reasoning…and maybe I missed something… is this: moving would require either doing several hundred individual moves, or some clever custom coding; but deleting, for an admin, should be possible just by clicking a checkbox to delete subpages. And a new match/split takes almost no (human) time. Is there an option I overlooked? -Pete (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Moving would be a pretty simple script to write for pywikibot, and we could get a bot to do it without rights changes; just start at the end. and work back, one move per page when it is a static number of pages to migrate. Deletion of subpages is unfortunately not the case of a checkbox, it is a build a list and add to a frontend page, a change of rights, run the deletes. I misjudged how long it would take and did a little flood of RC. Anyway, all done. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:38, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Ah. Sounds like I made a bigger mess than I realized. Thank you for taking the time, and I'll avoid repeating that. -Pete (talk) 04:52, 17 February 2021 (UTC)
Meh, shit happens at times. We have all been there, done that. Having been there more than once, I now have a better understanding of better cleanup. Just sometimes takes time to get the right access for the right fix. Don't overly worry about it, just give us the best info, and a little time to fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:13, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Template:IndianBioEdit

Convert works in special:Prefixindex/Dictionary of Indian Biography/ from {{header}} to {{IndianBio}}.

This edit [29] removed the transclusion. Attention drawn to it by IP adding text to page. Haven't checked to see what it did with other pages, as RL calls. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 16:46, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Beeswaxcandle. Seems that {{SUBPAGENAME}} encodes (inconveniently) the semi-colon to the w:HTML entity Singrauli, Raja of&#59; Rudra Pratap Singh. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 24 February 2021 (UTC)
Tasks
  • Run through all IndianBio subpages, find where semi-colon is in pagename, and add parameter onlysection = (with hard section name) to template.
  • Fix all the feral WD additions (may need to set overwrite)
    1. Fix title to be subpage, not rubbish pagename (better allow main topic match in {{topicmatcher}})
    2. Add description article in The Indian Biographical Dictionary
    3. add author Conjeeveram Hayavadana Rao (Q5006515)
    4. add published in The Indian Biographical Dictionary (Q16009531), then qualify with page(s) (P304), and from template "from -40", "to -40" (if different)

Tech News: 2021-08Edit


00:17, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

My recent docEdit

As you saw as you replied I have uploaded and moved the short interview paper through to needing validation. I have to travel tomorrow and should have but cannot garuntee a wifi connection where i am going. Just hoping you could watch it and if anything comes up in validation I am fine with your judgement if I cannot be online. Cheers Scott Thomson (Faendalimas) talk 02:09, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I have transcluded the article, added to author pages, and linked to the WD item. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Category:Acts of Thai legislature by nameEdit

Hello, these categories should be unified, though I don't know if they should all use a slash or a hyphen. To me, the slash seems more natural, though Category:Authors by alphabetical order uses the hyphen. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 23:05, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Any opinion on this? 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 13:19, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
@1234qwer1234qwer4: Categories have subpages per this, so the slash should only be reserved in its use. Yes those categories need standardising, though they belong in a larger corpus of thought, and I have other categorisation that needs to get fixed first. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:41, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-09Edit


19:08, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

redundancy vs. described by sourceEdit

@Billinghurst: I just completed a scientific text at wikidata where each item had its own page and therefore could be added to the wikimedia collection at the "main subject" via "described by source". Not unlike the author and encyclopedia links that you were instrumental in putting there. If evolution is positive, those links might eventually make it to the wikipedia page.

I was going to do the same with some taxonomy, but this text doesn't have the luxury of the single item per page, and I found myself (almost) recreating a page that had been deleted due to redundancy.

Meanwhile, I find it interesting in a sad way, that wikivoyage made it to the w:en:Moon before wikisource did. And, when ws did finally make it there, it was in a broken, sad way. I am hopeful that wikisource can make it to Jupiter before wikivoyage does, but the "rules" will need to change some.

Wikidata items for categories are just stupid reflections of each other, like lolcats of lolcats -- if I might be allowed an unasked for opinion. It is a shame that, because it could have been a swift solution to the portal problem (see the previous paragraph).

I am here asking that I be allowed to restore a previously deleted redundancy (in the name of taxonomy) and that the redundancy rule be rewritten to exclude those redundancies that have a wikidata association.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:50, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

If you are talking WD policy, then this is the wrong place for that discussion. I think, but cannot be sure that you are having some discussion about aligning like Category: crosswiki; that is WD policy, and they have other means to apply links from topic and lists to those corresponding categories. ,Otherwise, I have no idea about what you are discussing. For us portals usually align with subjects that are encyclopaedia, as typically we have no overlap between portal: and author: nss. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

DeletionEdit

Hello, you deleted an argument related to the closure of a Wikipedia on Meta, because it was "out of scope". It is very inconvenient to have an argument on Meta, as that user page redirects to the one on Wikisource. AnotherEditor144 t - c 07:27, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

@AnotherEditor144: Yes, Wikisource is not the place for discussions about other wikis. The purpose of meta is for those wikimedia-type conversations, so please use that wiki, not here. I am happy to look at any redirects at meta that are causing you issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:20, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@Billlinghurst: Okay, I have an idea.. Because this argument is supposed to live at Meta, did you save it so that I could copy it to Meta? AnotherEditor144 t - c 09:41, 7 March 2021 (UTC)
@AnotherEditor144: page returned to User:AnotherEditor144/Texts/nawiki closure, please ping me when migrated; otherwise I will look to remove by next weekend — billinghurst sDrewth 12:15, 7 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-10Edit

17:51, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

A Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature/Paltock, RobertEdit

Hello Billinghurst, coming across this edit of yours, I thought it might me helpful to inform you in the book, the word "normnbdsgrsutt", and not "Nosmnbdsgrutt". Lotje ツ (talk) 11:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)

@Lotje: 12 years ago all I did to that page was wikilink the author, nothing else. If you are interested in the work, you can the scan at Index:Cousins's Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature.djvu and the specific page at Page:Cousins's Short Biographical Dictionary of English Literature.djvu/306billinghurst sDrewth 12:17, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Billinghurst, is that what one would call a secondary reference? nosmnbdsgrutt spelled here, and normnbdsgrsutt (sources and at page 88 of the The life and adventures of Peter Wilkins, a Cornish man (1853) at commons.
And actually,... it even gets better: “ Kobert Patlock, [not Pultock as Leigh Hunt writes it, and Paltock as Southey calls him]], of Clement’s Inn, assigned the MS. of the Life and Adventures of Peter Wilkins, a Cornishman, to Dodsley, Jan. 11, 1749, for twenty guineas, [Southey says ten] twelve copies, and the cuts (or coppers used for the plates) of the first impression.” (source: Aug. 5. 1854, page 113 of "Notes and queries", volume v.10)   Thank you for your time. Lotje ツ (talk) 13:09, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
Just think of the times through history that the local keeper of the record books interpreting an old register, and the interpretation of local inflexion of voice. Then the later re-interpretation through time as someone else reread each set of records of someone who was semi-literate writing phonetically. You can see how different interpretations of spelling can be made. I have seem parish records where the spelling of the family names change with each parish priest, as the person themself wouldn't often know how to spell their own name. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:39, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed Billinghurst that is correct. The only way to find out the original spelling, is to find the first edition. Hence, first editions are more then welcome. Also then, plagiarism was common practice I guess :-) Lotje ツ (talk) 06:05, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

required maintenance March 2021Edit

billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 12:20, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-11Edit

23:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Flickr CommonsEdit

If you want to cooperate on a project, we can both help add context and help date the images that the Library of Congress releases each Friday, 50 new ones are released at Flickr Commons. We are currently in a 1923 tranche. 99.9% of the images are already at Wikimedia Commons, loaded by User:Fae, but the date says "1900" at Wikimedia Commons. They usually need a Wikimedia Commons category, and sometimes the image added to Wikidata, if none are present already. User:Fae used a bot to load them all as "1900" for the date. The people depicted may need a Wikidata entry. See for example S.A. Santa Maria (Q105592488), that way if someone figures out the person, they can fill in the info at Wikidata. Are you interested? The latest tranche is here. Most of the images still need categories at Commons. The first tranche from 13 years ago is here. There are still hundreds of people that were inadequately identified, or never got a Wikidata entry, or have one now thanks to The Peerage and other databases added to Wikidata, but no one added the image. --RAN (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. I currently have more than enough maintenance to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Index:Knole and the Sackvilles (1922 London).djvuEdit

This is given as being by Victoria, but the writer was Vita the daughter. I am just being overly cautious? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Not my area of expertise, but I think that you will find that Vita is a Victoria => Author:Victoria Mary Sackville-West. Family pet names when family members have the same name (guessing). — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Right, so if this work is by the identified author, (who died in 1962), this might need localising as it's not yet PD-UK, which means whilst it is okay locally, it cannot necessarily be on Commons. That said it is PD-US (1922) publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

File:A Passage to India.djvuEdit

This file was deleted from Commons after a year-long discussion where all commenters said "keep". Can the file be salvaged and uploaded locally so that Index:A Passage to India.djvu works again? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done , please check that I have amended the data file appropriately. Commentators were wrong, it is under copyright in UK. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-12Edit

16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jack TurncottEdit

Thanks for fixing Jack Turncott! --RAN (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Didn't fix anything, just updated following research and more data. Death was registered as John K. so perfectly reasonable; presumably just wrong assumption by whomever registered death. Always the issue with death registrations. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Bobbie, General Manager cover moved to "front matter" and index page now messed upEdit

Was there a necessity to do this stuff to my work? The cover and half-title were fine where they were. Also, if they're both to be called the front matter, why have one with a subpage called "front matter" and another that's called "front matter" by other pages? Confusing.

And secondly, something I have more concern with than that, you did something unnecessary to the index page that makes everything look and work worse. Now the individual pages can't be anchored to individually if that was ever necessary, since they're all "—". They have no individuality anymore. I.e. a wikilink like "the copyright page of Bobbie, General Manager" won't work anymore.

Are we going to take away the anchors to the frontispieces of works next, which are literally linked to within the works themselves?

Please link me to a community consensus that warrants any of these changes. Because I haven't even seen a work on all of WS before that called literally everything that's not a numbered page "—". I was going to link you to an example of a page with things like "copyr", "cover", "dedic", etc., but just look anywhere else on Wikisource and you'll find any of them pretty quickly. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Help:Page numbers is the guidance page. Anyway, how often are you expecting to link to a copyright page? How many have you linked to so far? How many references within a work have you seen to them? They are generally unnumbered pages and don't need labels, they are what they are. Many of our works actually have these pages page numbered, and people should be using the page numbering, but instead we still have those ridiculous and ugly abbreviations/labels that mar the basepage and are never the source of a link. And you can always add {{anchor}} to get to a point without it having to look ugly or be a manufactured page number.
The transcluded cover and half page just looked butt ugly in my opinion, what purpose were they forming in leading into the book multiple scrolls down a page. Removing them to a pre-chapter is quite often done if people are choosing to display the cover and half-title, and many don't, and it is quite a recent and, IMO, weird trend, in holding up getting to the book content, especially rubbishy when you are using a mobile device. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I said that the guidance was at, I didn't say it was set in stone. These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish that he went and set on many pages because he likes it. It just useless manufactured labelling, rather than page numbers. More than happy for you to bring it up as it is truly butt ugly and unnecessary, and it has been brought up before, and the advice was number the pages as they are numbered. Do we drill holes in people's heads? Nope. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Alright, well I'll bring it up as a discussion then.
I did want to take the opportunity to say that, though I vehemently disagree with the things I have brought up, I do appreciate the other edits you've made to Bobbie, General Manager and don't contest them at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
We probably want to reconcile the guidance on Help:Index_pages under the pagelist tag where it has guidance label the Cover as Cvr, the Frontispiece as Fpiece, Title as Title etc. to match Help:Page numbers MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: "These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish" , Okay then you want me to replace the runs on every single Index page I contributed to? Much appreciated if you could provide a specific format to use (such as considering all front matter to be numbered as lower case roman) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
I can also take out specifc identification of things like ToC etc... - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Handbook_of_maritime_rights.djvu

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Index:Literary Landmarks of Oxford.djvu Also updated - That's the most recent the oldest 500 Index I could find in my contributions, I've updated some of them as I found some issues. I'd appreciate a review, before I update any more, but will be adopting the convention of lower-case roman for front-matter starting at a half-title (if present) or title in the absence of another specfic-pattern, on new Index currently unchecked.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish Sorry, this is out of line. SF00 does an enormous amount of page list work and scan checking of all sorts of tricky indexes, which is tedious, difficult and valuable. They are almost single-handedly responsible for ongoing clearance of Category:Index - File to check. Dismissing it as "rubbish" because you don't like a convention (and like it or not, right or wrong, it is a convention) used for <1% of the pages is unfair and unnecessary in my book. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. I realise you only meant to express your personal opinion on the convention in an emphatic manner, but when you use a term with such a strong negative connotation and connect it with the contributions of one individual contributor it crosses the line. To paraphrase our big sister: direct such comments at the inanimate object, not the person. --Xover (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Do not take it out of context of the discussion of labelling of pagelist. And rubbish is exactly how I see those manufactured page numbering, they are butt ugly and add zero value => rubbish; and even more importantly where there is specific or clearly implied page numbering in a work and that is then replaced with manufactured numbering. It may have been less ambiguous to have said "rubbish page numbering" if that makes you feel better. That style of page numbering has been expressed and expressed in WS:S over the years and I don't resile from having my opinion on my out of the way talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
And re connotations, maybe it is a local language usage, but calling something rubbish in Australia is hardly strong negative connotation. Far more gentle that many have accused me of other things here with little to no response by others. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
That's rubbish. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
Directing your expressed opinion clearly at something inanimate—e.g. the page numbering convention—would indeed make me feel better. But more to the point, it would make those people who would otherwise be the target of the comments feel better. It is also usually possible to express dislike or disagreement with something like this without dismissing it as mere "rubbish", which would go even further towards insulating the person from the thing you dislike or disagree with. If you just call it "rubbish" you are going farther than merely expressing dislike and disagreement, you are also asserting that holding the contrary opinion is invalid, completely without merit, and implying that something must be wrong with those who hold those opinions (stupidity or malice being the obvious inferences). Sometimes that may be warranted, but that's a pretty aggressive position to take, especially if you then want to argue that you're "just expressing my opinion".
Oh, and the reason I don't jump in to defend you when someone is being… less than cordial… is that you're very much a big boy, with the +sysop hanging from your belt, and presumably fairly thick skin from dealing with xwiki LTAs for, what, a decade or so now? That being said, in the episode I'm guessing you're thinking of, it was a very close thing and had it escalated any further I would have interposed myself. That behaviour certainly wasn't ok, and if it persists for too long or even escalates then some kind of intervention will be needed. --Xover (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

ConvertEdit

Dictionary of Indian Biography from {{header}} to {{Dictionary of Indian Biography}}/{{DIB}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-13Edit

17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The War of the Worlds (radio drama)Edit

Conversation moved to "user talk:Nicole Sharp/The War of the Worlds (radio drama)." Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/2600:1700:9A00:20D0:D421:42F0:9B2F:7EC2Edit

Calling attention to this user's vandalism/test edits (at best). Looks like possibly the same person as another IP who edit warred me yesterday. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

  Done month-long block on /64. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-14Edit

19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

YearEdit

I'll send a bot through there later to remove all the years from the chapter header templates, in multiple books I've done in the past. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Okay, just cleaning as I add WD items. Try to spend an hour a day doing maintenance. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

A History of Japanese LiteratureEdit

Will you be fixing all of the headers? Right now they are broken: the title parameter and link is incorrect on most pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Oh thanks, I had done some check of a few pages and all was fine, though I must have fluked single level subpages. AWB has a narrow list window so hard to see the the cascading level of lists, will run through soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. This was one of the first lengthy / complicated works I did, so there are likely to be errors that I would no longer make. I make take a look through it in a week or two when I have some time off work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)
When there is no ROOT page then they don't get tagged as subpages, and they then appear as uncategorised. And I hear you about early transcribed works. What was important then is not so now, and what wasn't them can be now. Experience! — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Portal:Wars of the Three KingdomsEdit

It ties in the two sub portals that are children of the Portal:Wars of the Three Kingdoms

Eventually there will be primary sources for the other wars in the w:Wars of the Three Kingdoms. There already is for the Cromwell's infamous Irish campaign Category:Storming of Drogheda -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@PBS: Yes, though an empty page there now is less than helpful. For the interim it would seem better convert it to a redirect to a heading on another page, like how I set up Portal:Victoria and split it out later when it is worthy. Populate or perish IMO. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Unlike that redirect this is a parent rather than a child, so:
  1. what do you propose?
  2. under which portal would you place the two sub portals that are tied together by this portal?
-- PBS (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I am not the expert and was trying to prompt your thinking, or prompt your population. Maybe stick it under Portal:United Kingdom#Wars of the Three Kingdoms or find a nice heading. Dunno, however, empty portals are just false promises. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

New text guidelinesEdit

What do you think about adding a Documentation page to Template:New texts with some form of the following text, and inserting a link to that documentation page from the phrase "completed texts" in the verbiage that currently is the first line that appears when editing the template?

The minimum criteria for adding a New Text:
(1) The work must be fully Proofread (in the Wikisource sense) with all pages checked against the source, and no unproofread or problematic pages. All images from the work must be inserted and all major formatting must be completed.
(2) The work must be fully and correctly transcluded, so that the entire work is available in a correct and logical sequence.
(3) A suitable license template must be placed on the work's primary Mainspace page.
It is also good practice to create the Author page if it does not yet exist (to avoid a redlink on the Main page), and to add standard categories to the work (so that it can be found through category searches).

There have been several recent questions about this issue. Putting something in writing in obvious locations would make such discussions easier. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: We already have a doc, it is at Template:new texts/item/doc, we do need to be wary of further dilute and complicating would should be a simple process. For the instructions, when adding/editing we have MediaWiki:Editnotice-10-New texts. I will note that I do prefer to keep the template as clean and as simple as possible so additions are easier, so that is part of my construct of anything that can happen.

I think that we can be less emphatic (words like fully, must, ...) for new texts additions. I don't see issues with things like {{missing greek}} and some of the ephemeral diagrams missing (though would expect these to be wrapped in noinclude). I think a checklist of good practice like you have expressed can be included without necessarily being the measures.

I do think that a statement that any member of the community who is uncomfortable an addition for whatever reason can remove that listing and then discuss with it the other contributor or the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I've seen that documentation before, but the documentation shows up only at Template:New texts/item, which is not the page that Users edit or ever see when adding to the list. My concern is (in part) that people don't seem to be finding that documentation, since it is not set up like other documentation for templates. Whatever we do, we definitely need to make the relevant information more visible.
Right now, we have only a single cryptic statement that "This is for newly completed works", which does not show up until someone begins editing Template:New texts, but there is no elaboration or explanation of what that entails. There is a single cryptic line about what belongs on the list, followed by fourteen lines about syntax and parameters. Surely the matter of what belongs on the Template merits more than six words hidden inside the edit window?
I agree about missing Greek (unless it is a significant part of a chapter or work) and ephemeral or loosely associated content or front matter (such as lists of works by the author). But I would argue that if something is not important enough to "complete" the work, then the pages containing that something should not be considered "problematic". I had this discussion with LanguageSeeker over a film, where there was illegible on-screen text. Since that text was not significant, and probably was used with the expectation that the audience would not be able to read it anyway, then the fact that it is missing is not "problematic". --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not arguing with anything that you have said. I am not advocating no change, just expressing some of my PoV and how I measure an outcome. This is also not the place to argue what is or is not problematic and I don't think that we are far apart on what is a proofread text. I found your measures emphatic, and not certain that is what is required for proofread works. The purpose is to get proofread works, announce them and to give the users a bit of a thrill. It is not to make it difficult or scary for anyone. I would rather pull a few than to scare off a few. So maybe start with a list or ins and out, and not fret the language or the process. It may be that we have an avenue of places to put and explain. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Carol JohnsonEdit

I can't seem to find any information at all about this author; all I know is that her name was listed as illustrator in these two books. I request your Author Page Magic. PseudoSkull (talk) 20:53, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Modern book with an illustrator with a common name in a vague area is a pretty hard task you need to start with some distinct and known data for a point in time, and we don't have that. From a preliminary look there is nothing overt. You are going to be looking for a botanical illustrator or nature illustrator who did (other) work for the university of Georgia. Need more data points to do anything, and even then identifying the distinct info to say more is hard. In short, not enough known to even start. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Category:Scans to be extractedEdit

Quick question: what does this category do/has its purpose been served? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 20:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Umm, don't exactly remember which template it would have connected to. It would have where I had files that needed the djvu layers applied if it is that page. More I don't remember. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: On reflecting, I am guessing that it was a manual-addition category where I had uploaded texts and wanted to scrape the text layers with pywikibot's djvutext.py and was queuing them. It can stay, it can go, it doesn't matter. I will kill it though if it is unused; I can do things by other means. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:18, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Index pages: transclusion and validated date fieldsEdit

The "transclusion status" and "validated date" data can now be set via formal fields in the index page, rather than stuffing a template into some other plain-text field. Before I embark of some kind of reckless bot-wielding mission, does it make sense to you as it is? E.g. Index:35 Sonnets by Fernando Pessoa.djvu. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I know that this is not keeping it simple in coding, but it is keeping it simpler for the user.
  • Yes in view is good.
  • Can we do a "Transcluded?" yes/no checkbox where the default is NOT transcluded, then when you trigger that box it then activates the dropdown lists for "Tranclusion status" (remove the temptation/cluelessness for someone creating an index page to overprogress. These later components don't even need to be present/visible on creation, come to think of it)
  • "Validation date" field only appears/activates when the work has "validated" set (it requires that condition)
  • Can we put in placeholder text rather than help buttons? Like in Template:Engine
Thanks for your work. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Anything that needs the form the be "reactive" will have to be done in JS. It can be done. I think it might be better to disable the element rather than hide it, which means it's not "secret", and the other fields don't "bounce" when you change the "validated" status?
Checkbox: not without adjustment to the ProofreadPage extension itself, but you can have a "Yes/No" dropdown. Might be better to keep a single dropdown, change the default to "Not yet transcluded" and split "Transclusion check required" to a separate item? Otherwise the "no" item is confusingly overloaded.
Placeholder text: not without adjustment to the PHP extension, but one might (might) be able to "polyfiller" it with JS.
Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 06:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Whatever you think is both reasonable and practicable. They were thought bubbles to progress, and if some come as later refinements, then I am okay with that. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Can we implant the check transclusion button into the form next to the section? (make it obvious!) It sits on the top as that was as good as I could do at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:33, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
OK, how's that? We had to lose the help on the transclusion field due to OOUI being dodge AF (phab:T280638), though I guess since they're going to scrap/supplant it with Vue at some highly non-specific point, who knows what's going on with the development there. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:36, 20 April 2021 (UTC).
Point number 1) Help buttons/fields are truly F'up on monobook display—I love monobook for our work here. Otherwise all looks good, we are giving people two opportunities and means to check transclusions. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:13, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
This is phab:T280543. I have hacked something in to our local CSS.
Also check out User:inductiveload/scan transcludes.js for another transclude checker. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Neat and neat, thanks. In your checker how will you handle pages labelled category:not transcluded? See Index:A catalogue of notable Middle Templars, with brief biographical notices.djvu for an example (roman numeral i) — billinghurst sDrewth 10:57, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Good point: it handles that now. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:48, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
So, the final piece of the puzzle: what do we do by default? Currently it does nothing, and Category:Transclusion check required (triggered by no) is, as before, a dual purpose cat for "not transcluded" and "needs checking". Would it make sense to dump the ~850 members into a new Category:Index not transcluded and repurpose that one to a new "transcluded but messed up" maintenance category? Are there many members of Category:Transclusion check required that should truly be in the "to check" pile rather than the "nothing doing" pile? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:45, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: (I will try and make sense, it is late and I'm tired) I tried to keep the "not there yet" untranscluded simple, though am comfortable with a progression if it is desired. It is (was to be?) independent of the proofreading status as we have "not proofread" works transcluded.

That category is filled with "Ugh", "Errr", "Sigh", "No time today" and "We need to get to it". My gut feeling, but it could be wrong is that everything that is not marked should be sitting in the base/unsorted. Having them reviewed is not a bad idea. So all works that have had their proofreading status advanced but no check, need checking; however, we also need to cater for non-proofread works that are transcluded (though maybe that is manual assignation, rather than through the form).

How all that fits with your schema, I am too tired to figure out.  :-/ — billinghurst sDrewth 15:04, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

So it sounds like all pages currently marked 'no', should be "seen, but needs checking" and everything not currently marked at all goes in a "not even thought about" bucket? Respectively, Category:Transclusion check required (as now) and Category:Index not transcluded (to be created). That's certainly an easy way forward. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:08, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Sounds like a decent plan. I like simple. Thanks for the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:14, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-16Edit

16:48, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

An old and a new textEdit

Hi. I'm interested in what is practicing on enwikisource in the case of the old texts without sources. When I proofread text, can I change old text into the new? For example, I have a short story without source, and new already with source. Can I insert proofreaded text to the old? Tommy Jantarek (talk) 10:46, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Tommy Jantarek: No, please do not overwrite works. Create your work with your source, and then the community likes to make a decision about what to do with the old version. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Forgive me that I ask again but I want to ascertain. Could you look at Hap, Neutral Tones and Friends Beyond. All poems have no source, no year of edition. The first and second poems have no item on Wikidata and the third poem have an item on WD but empty. All those poems are located on this index. Are you really really sure I should create new texts in this concrete case instead overwriting and moving the old texts? I promise that I ask about it the last time.
By the way I have a second question. Look at, please, this page and following. Did I well understand it are a critical works by Poe and I should mark this chapter ("The Critic") as by Smith and Poe? Tommy J. (talk) 11:47, 15 June 2021 (UTC)

template pd/usEdit

Hi,

just to inform you that I get a message when I look at Template:PD/US. The message is: Expression error: Unrecognized punctuation character "{". Do you get that same message? And do you know what's wrong? Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 11:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

@Dick Bos: That is just the template, as it is and not an issue. As long as you put a year in place when you use it, it will be okay, it is just as it lacks the data that we use when implementing. If you are seeing that error in the main or author namespace, check that you are using the YYYY, and if you are then we are needing a fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
In short the template is trying to undertake calculations, but it is not getting a YYYY to do its sums. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-17Edit

21:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank youEdit

For your great work uploading early Australian history books. --Somnifuguist (talk) 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Somnifuguist: If you know of any good ones that we are missing, then never be afraid to suggest them at Wikisource:Requested texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

convert template:NIE to template:headerEdit

convert template:NIE to template:header

CLOSING. will be part of larger overhaul if occurs — billinghurst sDrewth 02:31, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Author disambiguationsEdit

Author biogEdit

Hi hi! An author kicked up by a WS:RT request: Author:Beatrice Hart Slaight. No obvious trace of her on Google other than the very book in question. No VIAF entry. Presumably American due to publishing location and topic. I have no particular interest other than not leaving a totally uncategorised author floating about, so no real expectation of action on your part, I just don't know of a better "someday" queue to drop this off in. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:30, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! So looks like the "H" in the Preface signature is actually Harrison, and all the people saying "Hart" have mistaken it? Presumably Slaight is the maiden name? Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:12, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Beatrice Harrison => (1879) Beatrice Harrison Slaight => (1899) Beatrice Harrison Hart / Beatrice Hart. You could always try Beatrice Harrison Slaight Hart thought that would be excessive IMNSHO. I suggest (1858-1918) though there is some variability. The 1865 New York census with age of daughter is going to be the most accurate without a specific birth/baptismal record and they are tricky in NY at that time (well from my experience in remote research). — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: There is an open invitation for reasonable attempts research on authors for UKI/USA/Aus/NZ/(India) where I have access to records. Always like to give hospital corners to our authors dates of life, so never feel concerned about asking for that research. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
OK, thanks :-) I went with "Beatrice Harrison Hart" because that's what her obituary used. And I used the dates you suggest at WD. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:59, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Oliver Twist (1838)Edit

The page Oliver Twist (1838) should be Oliver Twist (Boz Issue) because Dickens published two different editions in 1838. Many thanks. Languageseeker (talk) 03:05, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It will do for now. Put some notes onto it. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:17, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
This is one of the reasons Hesperian started to use [[Category:The Title (YYYY, Publisher)]] at commons, and now I do as well. The authors won't always have some cute nickname like this....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-18Edit

15:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

consider disambig Palestine MandateEdit

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:18, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-19Edit

15:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Removal of line-breaks in EB1911 pagesEdit

Hi, we'd prefer you didn't remove line-breaks in EB1911 (e.g. https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Page:EB1911_-_Volume_27.djvu/948&oldid=10869187). It makes proofing much harder and it's also difficult to see what changes have been made to a page. Running the clean-up script also incorrectly alters "outlier" to "outher". Thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 21:02, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Sure, I rarely do on such pages, must have been a habit thing. Thanks for report of the incorrect replacement, those OCR scans that convert h -> li, I keep that replacement pretty tight and I cannot immediately see which little line is doing it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@DivermanAU: My current script doesn't pick up outlier for replacement, and it isn't that page. Can you please point me to the page of concern so I can check against it. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi, It's good your current script doesn't check "outlier". Looks like the script I was given a few years back is out-of-date. I found this page [70] where the script was run and changed "outlier" to "outher", I've since fixed that page (and I usually don't run the cleanup script). Are you able to update my cleanup script (or show instructions how to update it? Thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 06:01, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@DivermanAU: We are using Pathoschild's m:TemplateScript, and I will have implemented in embedded script. It will do regex replacements like you can do from the pop-open replacement tool. If you don't use the pop-open tool, then probably not something you want to do in your common.js file. Tell me what it is that you are wanting to do it, or how you are wanting to do it, and then I can best advise. The existing scripts can be trimmed or broken into components, depending on needs. I have even learnt how to write things specific to a work, which I use a little. I think that Inductiveload put up a separate script as a gadget. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I edited my common.js to only change "tlie"→"the" if there's a space before the "t". That solves the problem. DivermanAU (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
The script Billinghurst refers to is User:Inductiveload/cleanup.js. It has a rather extensive list of typos actually encountered in the wild (and most of the regexes are tested against a wordlist to avoid unintended replacements, with the occasional oversight that slips though) and quite a few other configurable replacements. However, it's still work in progress and there's no good configuration UI. So I'll welcome additional regexes for the lists but I make no claims it won't cause nasal demons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:11, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
(ec) @DivermanAU: Okay. For education part one, you can put a \b which matches a work break, as that will pick any quotation marks, hyphen, em and en dash, etc. Typically I would use the \b as it is more flexible. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:17, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-20Edit

13:49, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Internet ArchiveEdit

Hi, I see you've been removing the {{Iau}} template in many places. Seems reasonable enough, I'm not convinced it's useful to have it all over the place. Thanks for taking the trouble. Two suggestions, though:

  1. Might it be better to replace it with {{IA small link}} rather than deleting it? That template results in a link that, I think, is useful to readers as well as editors, as it helps them find a genuine copy of the thing mentioned. (Unlike the upload link, which is rather useless to readers, especially if the toolserver is down.)
  2. I don't know whether or not this has been discussed, or whether it's something you're doing on your own; either way, though, a brief note at Template Talk:Iau might help people understand what's going on.

-Pete (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: They were rem'd rather than deleted. They were not standard file links, they were overly complicated for what could and should be simple links, so I just wrapped them out of the way. They are extractable, and convertible easily at some point. I just don't have the fiddle time, as busy with a range of multitasks.I have said to Languageseeker that they would be appropriate within the project for getting uploads, however, they were beastly ugly on numbers of author pages, and they had not been discussed as a change, let alone in author pages, main namespace pages, or portal pages, so I neutered. I am hoping that someone is going to grab them from the page versions and take them over to the project. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
And no, the talk page of a template is not the place to discuss a community consensus for a change in approach to namespace pages. You would not use that page to get consensus for its use, so you wouldn't use it get consensus about its removal. I would use that page to discuss its function once it was approved by the community. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough. If I can figure out a good way to build a list, I may run AWB to do what I suggested. Thanks for explaining.
As far as explaining, I'm not sure what got you started talking about consensus, but OK ;) I've added a note myself. -Pete (talk) 16:51, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I can assist at a later stage, just not now. I was needing to fix things author pages, and when one has to struggle because a page is full of gumph is rather irritating, when one just wants to go and do a simple task. I am just caught in fixing some issues with headers and links that is affecting a couple of thousand pages, and pages from where people cannot follow simple direction, they just want to go their own way. Consensus? Why do you think that I talk about consensus? When people don't seek it, and do their own thing, we have these issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
OK. I don't really disagree with anything you're saying, and I'm sorry you're feeling stressed. There isn't much meeting-of-the-minds going on here though, I'll let you be. -Pete (talk) 17:09, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

PD US only scans...Edit

Thanks for the recent catalog management :)

I'd previously noted some other Scan localisations here under the heading "Scan localisation Requests" on WS:CV previously.

If you think those requests are more appropriate to be made at WS:S I have no argument with that being the consensus procedure in future. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 12:22, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Personally I am less likely to look at WS:CV for things that need moving, whereas generally I will look more follow WS:S. Not certain what the community wants. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:02, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Edit window font size in Main namespaceEdit

Has there been a change made that affects the font size in the edit window of the Main namespace? When editing in other namespaces (such as when writing this comment, or editing in the Page namespace) my preferred font size is the same as it has been. But editing in the Main namespace, I get a larger font size. Do you have any insight, or is there a solution already underway (I hope)? --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:04, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: I am not seeing any (noticeable) difference, or know of any configuration between namespaces. Noting that I am still in monobook [(url)&useskin=monobook] and I have a monotype, so my edit windows are pretty and simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:10, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Noticed that some default fonts have changed elsewhere, eg. categories at Commons. Can be controlled through common.css or global.css if required. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-21Edit

17:07, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

"Dictionary of Australasian Biography" template issueEdit

Using the "Dictionary of Australasian Biography" template has made a bit of a mess of The Dictionary of Australasian Biography/M'Combie, Hon. Thomas article, I'm afraid. The first part of the article is not displaying and several other articles are displaying on the page. DivermanAU (talk) 12:25, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

@DivermanAU: Needed onlysection = the system converts an apostrophe to the unicode, and that fails inside <pages>. I thought that I had gone back and got them all. I will run another check. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 26 May 2021 (UTC)
@DivermanAU: Missed some m'xxxx names. While I have your attention, if you have a look at {{topicmatcher}} and user:billinghurst/common.css, you will see that we have a means to identify those biographies that have no Wikidata item, and then where no connection through main subject (P921) to a person item. The categorisation happens automatically, but if you add the css code you get a click link that pulls up topicmatcher. At the moment I have the template inside this {{DAB}} code. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-22Edit

17:05, 31 May 2021 (UTC)

Template talk:PageEdit

Thank you. I had already figured out that {{page}} was talking directly. In the end I implemented something like you suggested in the sandbox. (I also moved the start and end portions of the relevant table inside the "section" tags.)

What had actually "broken" was the discussion post itself, namely that the <syntaxhighlight> was failing to engage, and I could not figure out why it was treating the <pages> as actual markup, rather than the example content it was intended to be. Thank you repairing it. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-23Edit

20:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

data habits and book template at the commonsEdit

Some of my wikidata habits have formed from working with the book template at commons. Some of my solutions to the problems there are causing you problems with me at wikidata.

I would encourage you to try wikidata for re-filling out the book templates and keep your eye on the hidden categories and the other problems. I like to make a nice clean title page for books at commons, with the original dimensions of the scan (in 300ppi). Some of my conflicts are with that. Other things also caused me to give it up and start giving scans their own data, independent of cat or Main link but not independent of the index url.

Perhaps, if you have these problems also, you can author the phab ticket. I like my solutions, so authoring a please fix it just isn't in my vocabulary.

Any title page or cover that you would like, just ask, I really enjoy making them and do not think it is a waste of my time or wiki space to have them.

They have a hidden cat for P6243 in the structured data, also, they use "inception" instead of "publication date" like it is a building or a company or something. I would fix those things, "digital depiction of" just make me kind of queasy -- it is a scan or a microfilm.... The book template uses the art module which might be some of the problem. I will quit just rambling now. Avoiding a template broken problem....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: Template flaws at another wiki are not an excuse for poor/incorrect data entry. Ask them to fix the Commons issues at c:Template talk:Book. I have been working at Commons and at Wikidata and with the book template for years, and have put correct data into those and choose not to import data, and just add the wikidata link, the rest will fix itself in time. Though I do typically complete the book template at the beginning of the process. Scans do not have their own data, that is wrong, please do not create pseudo-solutions. Get the technical problems fixed not redesign the world for the wrong problem. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:51, 18 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-24Edit

20:26, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Template:PD-oldEdit

This template doesn't seem like a good thing because there's always the (rather unfortunate) possibility of a nation extending their copyright expiry time to something greater than 100 years. In case this were ever to happen, wouldn't it be useful for the parameters to be fulfilled?

If not, we might just want to run a bot through all of Wikisource to replace every instance of years < 1921 in Template:PD/US parameters with just Template:PD-old. PseudoSkull (talk) 14:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

All the authors have PD-old where they have a death date prior to 1921. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:51, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-25Edit

15:49, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

DIB conversionEdit

Hello! Page Dictionary of Indian Biography/D'Oldenburg, Serge did not convert very well to new DIB header template. I cannot establish why. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 07:56, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

@Tar-ba-gan: Thanks, fixed. We have to force pages with apostrophes (use onlysection = <subpagename>) as {{SUBPAGENAME}} sees it as &#39;. There may be more through there that need fixing. I will run my bot through. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:40, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Samuel Johnson: the Leslie Stephen lectureEdit

This lecture has been reproduced already here, but it seems I neglected to add that collection of essays to Raleigh’s author page. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:14, 24 June 2021 (UTC)

No issue, they are different editions, so both are acceptable. We could do a versions page, or just have them both on the disambiguation page, I am happy with both on dismbig page until there is a specific WORK level item on WD. I will note that for these types of work that I typically don't utilise Essay 1 ... Essay N for subpage titles and utilise their essay name so they are self-descriptive and not hidden away from search; different from fiction works in that regard. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:01, 25 June 2021 (UTC)

Tech News: 2021-26Edit

16:32, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Question + requestEdit

Hi Billinghurst,

I have a question to you: How about an abuse filter that prevents edits on other user pages? I've got a proposal for a script:

page_namespace = 2 &
!(user_name = page_title) &
!('/' in page_title) &
!(
 "bot" in user_groups |
 "sysop" in user_groups |
 "Patoschild" in user_name
)

It can result in less deletions like this. So would you want to create an abuse filter with the script I've proposed, or is it not necessary? Nieuwsgierige Gebruiker (talk) 12:34, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't think that editing of other people's user pages is particularly a problem here. I implemented the script at meta, and haven't seen a need to replicate its function here, and I am not going to implement a filter for once in 3 months in user ns. Vandals are always going to vandalise, and this was already picked up in our abuse filters, just not set to disallow. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Return to the user page of "Billinghurst/2021".