Wikisource:Bot requests/Archives/2013

Warning Please do not post any new comments on this page.
This is a discussion archive first created in 2013, although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date.
See current discussion or the archives index.

Unassigned requestsEdit

Replace deprecated templateEdit

{{Twoem}} is deprecated as it uses deprecated HTML 4.01 tags. Please replace all uses in the Page: namespace (this list) with {{bar|2}}. The vast majority of uses of Twoem are mine. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:15, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Running. I would suggest that you replace the old template with the code as suggested. Makes the problem go away both ways. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:50, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 09:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves in Index:Oxford Book of English Verse 1250-1918.djvuEdit

Original version had several missing pages now substituted with blank place-holders. The source file & pagelist have been modified to fix those issues. Please do the following via bot:

  • Move existing DjVu positions 548 to 1193 up by +16 [new range D564 to D1209]

Many thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2013 (UTC)

548 to 1193 up by +16 [new range D564 to D1209]   Done Page and (the few) Main.--Mpaa (talk) 09:38, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Step 2
  • Move existing DjVu positions 426 to 547 up by +14 [new range D440 to D561]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 356 to 425 up by +12 [new range D368 to D437]
  Done --Mpaa (talk) 21:42, 25 January 2013 (UTC)
Step 3
  • Move existing DjVu positions 278 to 355 up by +10 [new range D288 to D365]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 210 to 277 up by +8 [new range D218 to D285]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 92 to 209 up by +6 [new range D98 to D215]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 62 to 91 up by +4 [new range D66 to D95]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 24 to 61 up by +2 [new range D26 to D63]
  Done Page and Main.--Mpaa (talk) 10:35, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Many thanks again & sorry for the sloppy approach on this one. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:47, 25 January 2013 (UTC)


Stratemeyer SyndicateEdit

The authors on the subpages of the following works need to be changed to match that on the main page. After completion of this, the dated soft redirect from Author:Stratemeyer Syndicate to Portal:Stratemeyer Syndicate will be able to be resolved. TIA Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:37, 28 January 2013 (UTC)

I can take this but not right away. If someone else wants to start, pls go ahead.--Mpaa (talk) 09:20, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
All the works are done in the main ns. I missed index ns, so am doing those manually, which is what the strike throughs above represent. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:54, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Donea few more--Mpaa (talk) 21:34, 28 January 2013 (UTC)
Manually tidied up the pertinent WhatLinksHere that should be tidied, the remainder can become red links IMO. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves in Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 40.djvuEdit

Original source file had dozens of problematic pages in addition to 2 duplicates. Now that the source file has been replaced & the pagelist has been adjusted to reflect the correct page progression, Please do the following via bot:

  • Move existing DjVu positions 104 to 455 down by -2 [new range D102 to D453]


All mainspace articles transcluded from within the old Page: range will need their pages tag-lines adjusted as well. Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:08, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done Page and Main ns.--Mpaa (talk) 18:01, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Bulk delete of orphaned pagesEdit

I deleted Index:Baron, David - The History of the Ten Lost Tribes as a duplicate of the djvu file the other day, but forgot that the Page: namespace needed dealing with as well. Please delete pages with this pattern: Page:Baron, David - The History of the Ten Lost Tribes-019.png. The numbers in the range are 019 to 081. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Existing
and these 60pp should disappear when done. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 09:45, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves in Index:History of the Anti corn law league.pdfEdit

Original source file was replaced with a version that contains a workable text-layer. The pages are offset by 1 as a result. Please do the following via bot:

  • Move existing PDF positions 2 to 26 down by -1 [new range D1 to D25]

Afaict, no mainspace articles are transcluded from within the above Page: range. Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 19:36, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves to new Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.djvuEdit

Original PDF source file is being superseded by a better quality DjVu version. The existing pages created under the old index, Index:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.pdf need to be moved to their matching positions under the new DjVu sourced Index: No change in the numbering itself is taking place. Based on the following template....

Move:
Page:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.pdf/345
to:
Page:Practical Treatise on Milling and Milling Machines.djvu/345

... Please do the following via bot:

  • Move all existing Pages: under the PDF based Index: to the DjVu based Index:

Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:47, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

  Done Deleted *.pdf/xxx and Index:....pdf--Mpaa (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Bulk move request Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvuEdit

Work or index - Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu Pages to be moved - Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/40 -> Page:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu/42 and subsequent pages if in existence to be moved up by two.

Index pagelist also requires updating accordingly, as the two missing pages have been placeholdered. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 22:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulk move request Index:Ruffhead - The Statutes at Large, 1763.djvu(Latin wikisource)Edit

The following also need updating ( la.wikisource.org)

Page range: la:Pagina:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/50 to la:Pagina:Ruffhead_-_The_Statutes_at_Large,_1763.djvu/66 Block move up by 2 pages as with previous request. Other pages have been manually migrated.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 02:04, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

  Not done That request will need to be made at laWS, not this community. Different rules, different rights holders. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:25, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

Change pages level where last editor=xEdit

  1. In this, where last editor is this, and level=3, change to level=2. Or else, just a list of the affected pages.
  2. Add {{rh}} when missing.

Moondyne (talk) 09:32, 18 March 2013 (UTC)

Can I ask why? Also, if I have the levels correct, you want to change "proofread" to "problematic", is that right? I think the changes in the first point will be easy to do. The second point, the running header, will be slightly harder. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 13:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Problematic or not proofread would be fine. The proofreading by that user was crap and I want to reproof all of his yellow proofread pages which are now mixed up with my yellow pages. 2nd part is not so important. Moondyne (talk) 14:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
This query list users per page: http://en.wikisource.org/w/api.php?action=query&generator=links&&gplnamespace=104&titles=Index:The%20Romance%20of%20Isabel,%20Lady%20Burton.djvu&gpllimit=5000&prop=revisions&rvprop=user --Mpaa (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
  Done — first part only. The red, unproofread pages should be more intuitive than an XML list, at least in this case. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:38, 18 March 2013 (UTC)
Great. Thanks. Moondyne (talk) 00:08, 19 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page range delete in Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 77.djvuEdit

A section of around 100 pages in the current Index: are part of another volume and have been marked 'Problematic'. As the first step towards source file replacement, this range needs to be freed up. Please do the following via bot:

Delete:
starting with:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 77.djvu/423
up to & including:
Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 77.djvu/526

Thanks in advance. -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:49, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 08:53, 24 March 2013 (UTC)


Bulk page delete in Encyclopedia of FreemasonryEdit

Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol1).djvu & Index:An Encyclopedia of Freemasonry and Its Kindred Sciences(Revised 1921)(Vol2).djvu. Files have been deleted on Commons and there doesn't appear to be a valid replacement currently available. Please delete all the pages in the Page: namespace for both volumes (list is here), and then delete the two Index: pages. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:11, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 11:58, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page range delete in Index:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvuEdit

Humbly request a minor bulk delete of the two damaged pages Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/18 and Page:Popular Science Monthly Volume 81.djvu/19. The corrected volume is currently being uploaded to IA to be processed and the commons copy will be replaced by tomorrow. Thanks. — Ineuw talk 03:41, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

  Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:28, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, the upload was successful.— Ineuw talk 15:35, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Music and MusiciansEdit

After several years we are finally in a position of starting to transclude to the mainspace. Could a bot please run through Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu pages 13 to 119 and Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu pages 533 to 542 and create at Wikisource:WikiProject DMM/A Dictionary of Music and Musicians A.djvu a list akin to that at User:ThomasBot/dict/A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu. The DL formatting is *[[DL#13:13|A]]. The first number is the beginning page number for the article, the second number is the ending page number and the text is the name of the article, which is based on the section tag name. It is entirely possible that there are mismatches of section tag names and I'll need to fix any found and request a re-run. For the time being the two series (from the two volumes) will need to be separate and I'll sort out the merging of the two series. TIA Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:48, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

  •   Done . Let me know if something is wrong.--Mpaa (talk) 21:33, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, much appreciated. This worked so well, can we carry on to B through G?

B vol. 1 pp. 119 to 301; vol. 4 pp. 543 to 590

C vol. 1 pp. 301 to 438; vol. 4 pp. 590 to 619

D vol. 1 pp. 438 to 490; vol. 4 pp. 620 to 641

E vol. 1 pp. 490 to 512; vol. 4 pp. 641 to 646

F vol. 1 pp. 512 to 583; vol. 4 pp. 647 to 659

G vol. 1 pp. 583 to 654; vol. 4 pp. 659 to 677 Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I had a spot check. Found one missing section tag here: GUGLIELMI, Pietro. There might be more maybe.--Mpaa (talk) 16:26, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again. The mainspace pages are now set up for A through G. The "missing" section tags in vol 4 are deliberate as the content has been added to the vol 1 article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

When ValidatedEdit

I made a suggestion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#When_Validated for a categorization by month and year that a work is validated. Adam suggested that this would require a bot, to search for and add works to the categories. Is there anyone who would/could be interested in this ongoing task? Jeepday (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2013 (UTC)

Hi. One solution is to use a query, setting start and end date (change the bold fields in cmstart=2013-02-01T00%3A00%3A00Z&cmend=2013-02-28T00%3A00%3A00Z). And then categorize manually. See below.--Mpaa (talk) 15:34, 2 April 2013 (UTC)
See e.g. for Index validated in February:
Or you can use the API Sandbox as interface and select the output format you prefer:
  • Withdraw request, a lot of work, with limited community support. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 14:58, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
    Actually, I might be able to do this. I can't do complicated bot stuff but it occurred to me recently that this might be possible with AutoWikiBrowser. It helps that most of the the validations appear to fall in December 2012 (I don't know why but 594 out of 993 have this date, as at time of writing). I think a template might work best; I've noticed categories sometimes get removed from index pages when they are edited. I still need to think about how to do that. However, this won't cover future validations, this would have to be done semi-regularly to keep everything up to date (and could be done manually in some months). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:42, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
I do not know how you got December, but I noticed that too using the query above and removing the time interval or e.g
<DynamicPageList>
category             = Index Validated
addfirstcategorydate = true
order                = descending
</DynamicPageList>
To me, it looks strange, as I checked at random and the history does not match with the indicated December timestamp.
Maybe someone more knowledgeable in queries might explain why?
A possible brute force approach is to run a bot to scan the revisions of the validated indexes and check when progress changed to "validated". I can't promise when but I might give it a try.--Mpaa (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2013 (UTC)
There was an edit to MediaWiki:Proofreadpage index template, the page that controls all Index pages, at about the same time (2012-12-16 00:21Z). That might have affected the categorisation. I know Dynamic Page List, and probably the API, records the last time a page was added to a category, not the first time. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
If someone is interested, here is the list. Dates indicate when Progress has been set to "Done". I made some spot checks and should be OK.--Mpaa (talk) 20:15, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
That's great! My idea for implementation was to add a template like {{index validated date}}, still experimental at the moment, to each index in the table of contents section (just so it is in the index page somewhere, not left the end where it might get lost if the page is edited, and in a location that shouldn't interfere with anything else). I can add the template in blocks for each month with an automated search and replace, although even then it wouldn't be quick. I have made a live test on Index:Frontiers.djvu (which is apparently our first ever complete index). The top icon is just to easily and quickly identify indexes with or without this template; it can be removed if it is a problem. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 21:42, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
Great job ! Jeepday (talk) 10:07, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
Once you're done with experimenting and what is wanted is settled and agreed, we could see how to handle the changes in a more automated way.--Mpaa (talk) 12:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)
I've made an initial run through a few months, all sorted into subcategories of Category:Indexes validated by date. I'm just going to wait for a bit to see if this is working, correct and that I haven't broken anything. If there are no complaints, I'll finish the task soon. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 00:54, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Great start Adam, umm User:Robbie the Robot might want to drop a note here before doing to much more. Just to keep with the formalities. Jeepday (talk) 11:31, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
Will do. (To be honest, I thought that wasn't necessary if it was listed on the page. However, as lots of people will see these edits, I suppose some information is appropriate). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 09:34, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
  Done See Category:Indexes validated by date (I've also made a portal, Portal:Proofreading milestones, for the key validations). - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:08, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Volume information for CE1913Edit

As was done with Wikisource:Bot requests/Archives/2012#Volume information for EB1911 2 can a bot add volume information added to the header or the article pages of CE1913.

This has been done by hand for some entries (eg the first in the encyclopaedia Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Aachen) but has not been done for entries such as Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Good Friday

In addition it would be nice to have the contributor field filled out as it is for the "Aachen" entry but has not been done for the "Good Friday" example. But I appreciate that this is more complicated and perhaps the two processes should be done independently of each other.

-- PBS (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Is there a volume list? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Regarding the contributor, is there at least a list of contributors per article (asking for too much maybe), or how they are usually indicated in text? E.g. A.A. MACERLEAN = Andrew Alphonsus MacErlean, so one can try to make some match at least?--Mpaa (talk) 11:56, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
In the meantime I started with pages with contributors.--Mpaa (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
Done for pages with contributors, when linked to /Volume N. There is a bunch of pages not linked anywhere. The rest is on hold, pending the decision to set up info on contributors or continue and take the two steps in two different runs.--Mpaa (talk) 22:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

NB that the initial Catholic Encyclopedia posting is a right mess. A number of quite arbitrary decisions were made, some of them dating back to the New Advent digitisation. The volume listings we have here are essentially worthless. They are quite untrustworthy, and if I need to know a volume number, I would always consult http://oce.catholic.com/ where you can see the pages and their order. I have worked through volume 1 here, and volume 2 up to Benedict Biscop, only. Other than that, there is no reason to believe that the article titles are sensible or correct or standard, or that "previous" and "next" are correct links.

If there is interest now in doing it right, the page WS:CEU and its talk are available. Creating the author pages is semi-routine from The Catholic Encyclopedia and its Makers. Dates of death can present a problem. The article listings in that work are quirky and often not quite complete. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:37, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

OK, I'll will not proceed further then. Note that there could be the chance to add contributors on articles, based on their signature at the end of an article. If someone is interested, just leave a note. --Mpaa (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

That sounds to be of interest. The signatures do require checking: some are in bad shape. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

I'll post at WS:CEU talk page what I have in mind.--Mpaa (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

A Dictionary of Music and Musicians (new requests)Edit

With the need to change from the DL format there are a few tasks that I need bot assistance with.

1. Change all internal links of the format [[A Dictionary of Music and Musicians/B#Beethoven, Ludwig van|{{sc|Beethoven}}]] to [[../Beethoven, Ludwig van|{{sc|Beethoven}}]]. These will be found in Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu and Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu.

done--Mpaa (talk) 22:58, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

2. Create subpage articles for all articles in Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 1.djvu pp. 13 to 780 and Index:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians vol 4.djvu pp. 533 to 700. Please use {{DMM}} for the header. The subpage name for each article will be the name in the section tags. The content for the Contributor = field will be found in the Author: link at the end of each article. Previous = & Next = will be from the section tags of the previous and next article in sequence in the volume. Articles from volume 4 should have "Published in the Appendix" in the Notes = field. Make the Wikipedia = field the subpagename and the DMM project will go through them and amend or remove links as appropriate.

Regarding Wikipedia = , do you mean to use {{SUBPAGENAME}}? I guess not many pages on Wikipedia are named "Surname, Name". Wouldn't it be better to try to reverse the section tag to "Name Surname"?--Mpaa (talk) 08:20, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
You're quite right (of course). Thanks for catching that! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Created a few under A. Can you take a look if it's OK like this?--Mpaa (talk) 12:19, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
They look fine to me. Much appreciated. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2013 (UTC)
Hi again. One more check before proceeding further. Prev/next for Vol 1 should be based on Vol 1 and Vol 1 only or consider also Vol. 4 entries? Current bot is considering only Vol 1, as you can see from red entries here, A, where articles from Appendix are not part f the prev/next sequence.--Mpaa (talk) 18:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
Stick to current with the sequence per volume. The alphabet structure at 1:1 ... is a construct that isn't a part of the work as published and is just intended to make navigation easier. Thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:24, 2 June 2013 (UTC)
A couple of refinements that would be nice, but not essential if not practical. 1) If score tags are present in the article, then set Score = to yes. 2) If ref tags are present in the article, then add {{smallrefs}} after the pages command. 3) Include Type = on all articles, but leave blank (filling this in has to be done by a human). Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:50, 3 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles in Vol. 1 created.--Mpaa (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
Articles in Vol. 4 created.--Mpaa (talk) 19:13, 6 June 2013 (UTC)

3. Create a list of all articles created through #2 above for the letters H & I at Wikisource:Wikiproject DMM/H and Wikisource:Wikiproject DMM/I Many thanks, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:48, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

List of DL, as done before, for H and I now in Wikisource:Wikiproject DMM/H. Let me know if I got you wrongly.--Mpaa (talk) 08:45, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

Bible Bulk MovesEdit

In Index:The Holy Bible, containing the Old & New Testament & the Apocrypha (Volume 3).djvu, we need every page currently existing in the range

  • D/652 to D/1478 moved up by +2 [new range: D/654 to D/1480]

Thanks in advance (... and I don't know why folks can't follow instructions). -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:07, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 16:23, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Bad index usage bulk deletesEdit

It appears the Index: space was used to create Pages in spite of no pdf source actually existing. The file itself would not appear to be hostable anyway since it seems to a 2011 proprietary guidebook. Request all pages under the faux file...

... be bulk deleted. TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:36, 18 June 2013 (UTC)

  Done . I tried Nuke for bulk delete and it worked. Might be useful for similar future requests.--Mpaa (talk) 07:29, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; it didn't dawn on me that the Pages were recent enough creations. Usually Nuke gives me fits and whatnot when the target(s) in question are "older" than 30(?) days. They might have tweaked it since I last tried it so the page-name-pattern option might work better now - I'll try to keep Nuke in mind for next time regardless. Thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 18:51, 19 June 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves in Index:Mystery of the Yellow Room (Grosset Dunlap 1908).djvuEdit

Original version had several missing pages now substituted with the correct scan pages. The source file & pagelist have been modified in addition to the fixes for those missing scanned page issues. Now, please do the following via bot:

  • Move existing DjVu positions 155 to 317 up by +3 [new range D158 to D320]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 53 to 154 up by +1 [new range D54 to D155]
  • Move existing DjVu positions 16 to 52 down by -1 [new range D15 to D51]
  • Create previously missing scan page nos. 38, 39, 142 & 143
  • Adjust mainspace transclusion ranges accordingly.

Many thanks in advance & let me know if add'd help is needed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:21, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 16:56, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Who will clean up my mess?Edit

I previously worked on an ill-fated attempt at a massive music template. The fossilized remains are to be found at User:Eliyak/music and its children - now they just sit there taunting me. I would appreciate if some kindly bot would delete them all. --Eliyak T·C 05:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 23:08, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

Bulk page moves in Index:Armistice Day.djvuEdit

Original version had 2 missing pages now substituted with blank position holders. The source file & pagelist have been modified for the 2 missing scanned page issue. Now, please do the following via bot:

  • Move existing DjVu positions 376 to 480 up by +2 [new range D378 to D482]
  • Create previously missing scan page nos. 354 and 355 at positions /376 and /377

Many thanks in advance & let me know if add'd help is needed. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:31, 9 August 2013 (UTC)

  Done --Mpaa (talk) 13:10, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Bulk correspondence categorization in Popular Science MonthlyEdit

I tried doing manually until realizing that I was only 1/3 done, and should have used an intermediary category. If possible, please:

  • For all of the articles listed in Portal:Popular Science Monthly/Correspondence and Portal:Popular Science Monthly/Discussion and Correspondence.
    Hmm? what is it that you are wanting done to these works?
    Sorry if this was unclear, I meant that for all of the articles listed by those two lists, to categorize with Category:Popular Science Monthly correspondence, and to also decategorize any that I had mistakenly placed in Category:Correspondence.
  • Remove any from Category:Correspondence. Add to Category:Popular Science Monthly correspondence.   Done
  • If trivial to do, add sortkey corresponding to year and month. For example, Popular Science Monthly/Volume 3/May 1873/Correspondence would have sortkey "#1873-05".
    why the hash character? What value is it providing? Grabbing the year isn't overly tricky, juggling the month is not so simplistic, it has to be parsed from the text, recognised, and converted, and hoping that a month doesn't appear elsewhere in the title. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
    The hash is mostly for appearance, as otherwise in the category these would show up as the first number of the year, which isn't very useful (they would all show up as "1" anyway, or would show up as large blocks under "8" and "9" if the "1" were trimmed). This simply explicitly signifies that they are sorted by a number scheme rather than alphabetically. I based this off of how some Wikipedia categories handle it, such as for example w:Category:Births by year.
    I don't know the software limitations, but if it's possible to feed just the articles from the two lists, the month shouldn't appear in any other way than is standard for the publication. Then it's likely just a matter of interpreting each of the twelve months to the respective number, with a leading zero to ensure they are sorted correctly. The "1873-05" part is essentially the ISO date with no day specified. The volume number and other title information beside the year and month can be ignored. djr13 (talk) 14:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, djr13 (talk) 08:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Trying to grep the data, grab the two separate components, then convert the month to a numerical number is non-trivial for little benefit. There is never going to be horrendous ability to find the specific component, and should be reasonably easily be eye-read. I am going to pass on the task. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
Would you be willing to do this without the sortkey step? As in, categorizing the articles in the two lists? (Note, Volume 33 and under are already categorized.) djr13 (talk) 12:01, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
  Done --Mpaa (talk) 21:20, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulk obituaries categorization in Popular Science MonthlyEdit

If possible, please move all pages (not categories though) from Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly to Category:Obituaries in Popular Science Monthly by name, preserving the sortkey. For these same pages, remove from Category:Obituaries. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 17:08, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

  Done }--Mpaa (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

Bulk obituaries categorization in The TimesEdit

Last one for a long while, I promise! :) Please, if possible, move all The Times articles from Category:Obituaries into Category:Obituaries in The Times, preserving sortkey. Thanks, djr13 (talk) 21:49, 11 October 2013 (UTC)

  Donebillinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 12 October 2013 (UTC)

Orphaned Pages upon File and Index renameEdit

It appears it is still not clear to some that renaming a source File: and moving its related Index: page does not mean any existing Page:s created under that Index: are automatically moved as well. As a result we have a few dozen orphaned Page:s in the Page: namespace under the old Index: Request all existing Pages found under the now renamed file -

- be moved under the new File: and Index: scheme ( Index:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 1.djvu ).

Please Note: File:History of Standard Oil Vol 1.djvu was unwisely made into a redirect to the desired file, File:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 1.djvu on Commons. The redirect can make certain views or lists to display unreliable information; Go with the list linked above for the Pages that need to be moved instead.

TIA -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:57, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Update:' The same issue exists with the second volume - it's Pages...
Those Pages, of course, need to be moved under the new File: and Index: scheme for Volume 2, ( Index:The History of the Standard Oil Company Vol 2.djvu ). -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:24, 17 November 2013 (UTC)
  Done --Mpaa (talk) 18:01, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Purge all indicesEdit

Something or other went bad a month or two ago, causing Page namespace links on Index namespace pages not to have the colored backgrounds that indicate page status. Manually purging the index fixes this. If someone could make a bot purge everything in the Index namespace that would be pretty swell I think. Prosody (talk) 04:10, 1 December 2013 (UTC)


Requesting a Straight Quote botEdit

For details on this please see Billinghurst's talk page. I write on-line and never have curly quotes but I often find them in the works of other people. Can a bot be made without too much difficulty that will remove all curly quotes and replace those with straight quotes, including an apostrophe in all work done for en.WS? The following is a reply from that talk page and seems to be good. ["I assume that someone can write a bot to replace all of U+201C(“), U+201D(”), and U+201F(‟) with U+0022("). One would presumably leave the double prime U+2033( ″) as is. One could try to do something similar for single quotes, but you would have to decide what to do about apostrophes. MarkLSteadman (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2013 (UTC). ] I Thank you all for any good consideration on this. —Maury (talk) 02:30, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

I assume this request is intended to apply to non-validated pages only? Editors who have taken pains to add proper opening- and closing- quotes will not be impressed if a bot stomps all over their careful efforts.
In any case, if this bot is approved then why are opening- and closing- quotations still provided on the "Ligatures and symbols" drop-down? Surely this is sending mixed messages to editors and should be withdrawn prior to execution of the proposed bot?
My 2¢. MODCHK (talk) 03:16, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
It would be useful to allow consistency in works to have a bot to do the conversions back and forth. E.g. a work 60% straight and 40% curly could request a bot to fix it rather than manually change each page.
FWIW WS:style does state: "Use typewriter quotation marks (straight not curly)."
There are pages with stacked quotation marks where having proper curly quotes helps legibility. My thoughts. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Such a bot would also need to be aware of Index talk pages, where editors indicate the differences to the Style Guide that they are applying to the particular work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 03:44, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Sounds like something that would want to be done by book or group. Turning a bot loose across Wikisource to make these changes could be unpleasant. JeepdaySock (AKA, Jeepday) 10:25, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Agree with Jeepday.--Mpaa (talk) 11:38, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
I am not in favour of a default bot. I very clearly said on my talk page that straight quote is our guidance. It is not an enforceable rule as there are clearly works that have used it, and they should stay as they have been formatted. That said, I have no concerns with us running a bot through on a per work basis in the Page namespace where it can be demonstrated that for the specific work there is value to run such a bot, eg. multiple contributors and we need to fix consistency. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

Withdraw Request for botEdit

Fellows, I had a mere idea and knew not of all its ramifications. Let's just forget the idea and get on with more positive work. I thank you all for the consideration of the idea and posting the problems it would cause. I didn't know it would be so complex in other areas other than working on one book at a time. I posted here only because I was told to post it here. Kindest regards to all, —Maury (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2013 (UTC)

It is a good idea at the book level. A consistency bot, that you set to change specifics through out a book or work. If it was really really good, it would create a list of changes it made so you could easily go back and verify your expected results. There will always be something you forget (at least that I am likely to have not thought all the way through), and that would give you a chance to go back and look and fix manually. Jeepday (talk) 22:35, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
Wholeheartedly agree. Please rest assured, Maury, the spirit of all these objections is not to crush your proposal outright, rather than to demonstrate the task is not as straightforward as it may be initially perceived, especially if applied inappropriately. Perhaps the 'straight-quotes only' policy is a little simplistic as well?
In the interim, surely the overarching policy of "If anybody sees an obvious error; they are free to correct it." (manually, on a case-by-case basis) covers most cases? MODCHK (talk) 03:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
Yep. There is probably value in something on a by work process. Comes to what is in and what is out, and turning on and off the components we wish to check. Will need to identify the components of interest, be it quotations, mdash and other conversions. Hesperian and I identified numbers of the usual a while back, so it would be interesting if there were others. I know that I have a number in my regex fixes, but know that quotation conversions is not among them. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 16 April 2013 (UTC)
If the issue is crafting the regex code, I would be happy to write the regex code. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:06, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I do understand isn't to "crush" the proposal outright. Of what value would that be to anyone? What I didn't know is how much of what I was thinking would cause problems to other areas. Besides, you fellows have this same situation in en.ws works just as I do. The objective was simple but the outcome would be complex somewhat like tossing a pebble into a pool of water and watching the many outward ripple in all directions. But it is good that discussions on anyone's ideas can be had here without arguments. Arguments themselves would cause some people never to suggest anything--or to do things different such as never bothering to proofread or validate the works of others and thereby ignore all curly quotes. At one time not long ago I was validating a LOT of people's works but I always try to spot the smart quotes blended in with a word that shows both types of quotes. After a year or two I got tired of seeing works carrying two types of quotes on one word. Beeswaxcandle told where to look about our rule of quotes. Without discussion, for or against an idea we would be weakened. As it stands, my perception is that I have had explanations from some of the best volunteers on wikisource and I appreciate that most fair consideration from all of you. Unlike others who may have looked here and stated nothing, you fellows jumped in and actually took time for opinion, explanation, and discussion. I prefer the smart quotes over straight quotes but that is not the rule we have. Without our rules we have stress and that I dislike. I myself see no more need for conversation on this unless someone else comes up with something that can assist us all - perhaps such as using something book by book. Kindest regards, —Maury (talk) 00:19, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Just wanted to say that I feel this is sort of like a brainstorming session. What do we want the bot to do? It seems to me that there is general consensus to have a way to automate some tasks, on a book-by-book rather than en.ws wide basis, to maintain a consistent style. What I don't know is what is involved in the writing/use of a bot to do this. My sense is that a task like changing curly double quotes to straight double quotes would be really easy with a few simple regular expression (and there are plenty of examples on the web), and I think that there are already ways to do a bot run on a specific work. I just don't know what is involved in creating such a bot and maintaining it, and how best to configure it. MarkLSteadman (talk) 03:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
I think that we should take the conversation to the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
Every time I see something new written here I am compelled to return and read it out of curiosity. There is always a chance by "brainstorming" that some person has come up with some kind of good idea. From what I have seen on wikisource from about 1996, or whatever, we have people on wikisource that can do just about anything and if not a "bot" then with a "script" or any other form of technology that can be applied. Now, not all of those people with exceptional skills with these ideas have been here -- or at least have not posted here. I feel confident WS has them though. I recall asking InductiveLoad for a way to create a color background because the continuance of white backgrounds after hours of editing hurt my eyes and I had to go to an eye specialist. Yet he was able to create a script for Eye Protection and he did so that I could if I want to change my background to any color. I stay with a medium gray background and black text even now as I type but it will show as white after I save this. LondonJackBooks saw the conversation and also became interested. I know not how many people know of this wonderful eye-saver but it works for me and I think I have produced a fair number of texts over the years. So, an idea is valuable. An idea is as valuable saving one's eyes. Any idea, I believe, can be applied in some format to produce something worth having. For example, if I am working on a book in proof-read mode, just as we now can format due to a script is that not a wonderful idea that started with someone? Yes! It has to start with someone and it can be worked with to better help us all in some way. Back to where I was headed -- if I am in proofread mode and see a lot of smart quotes from the text of a scanned book I could remove those if only with a script. If this book-by-book is not a good enough idea then perhaps someone can jerry-rig something else out of the older idea. A bot, or script, a code of some sort, a template, -- whatever is a necessary word here. It is more necessary that people writing, "Needles to say", and they go forward to say or write it anyhow. I think much of this is a matter of the smart people hearing or reading of this idea and then tinkering until they end up with an "Eureka moment!" This is if they are not already very busy with something far more interesting -- like the lady across the street with the curtains pulled aside at night. I believe, as a typical American will believe, that any desired idea to help people can and will, in time, lead to something better. I do not think in terms of ideas being "impossible" anymore than Edison or the Wright Brothers who worked with bicycles. If it is worth doing for any reason then someone will eventually get something done. We have people that do amazing things with codes and I sincerely believe one of them is able to do something with the basic idea and while we here do not know what that may be it does not stop the intellect and imagination of others who actually enjoy breaking codes and creating codes to handle any task. Once created it can be refined as time passes. In these early years of technology and Internet we all, or at least I have, see advances of all kinds that we have never thought about -- never imagined and beyond what we have imagined -- somewhat like the beginning of this new thing that will become an old thing as it advances with time and refining that my sons works with http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pAC5SeNH8jw —Maury (talk) 04:03, 17 April 2013 (UTC)