User talk:Mpaa

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

(Archives index, Last archive) Welcome

Hello, Mpaa, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

PSM Volume 17[edit]

Many thanks for your help in cleaning up this and the previous volumes.— Ineuw talk

Trying to understand the purpose ...[edit]

On an author page where I had removed the authority control data, leaving the nude template, you re-added the AC detail. The AC detail is now pulled from Wikidata, so adding it seem superfluous, unless you are trying to override the Wikidata information. And if the WD information is incorrect, then we should be looking to fix it there, rather than locally overwriting it. Am I missing something? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 31 March 2014 (UTC)

I was scanning Cat:"Author pages not connected to Wikidata", so I do not know why it was picked up.
…Because it doesn't have the parameter stored, and it won't. Basically, the form of the template is redundant as it tests for the existence of a parameter, and that test is now redundant as the data resides elsewhere.
No, I think that cat is controlled via Author template, not Authority control.--Mpaa (talk) 08:44, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I am missing which way we want to follow to connect pages to Wikidata and to port VIAF information to Wikidata and we are acting without a pattern or strategy. We still have some thousand unconnected pages. I also see no hurry in removing local information until the whole base is pretty much OK, it is just adding an extra variant. Once we decide to remove local info for connected pages, it is a quick work for a bot. Yesterday I have posed some questions on Scriptorium if you want to join.--Mpaa (talk) 23:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
And we will always have unconnected pages, as there will simply be some people who don't have VIAF data. With WD, it is now should be sufficient to add the template if it is on missing pages, and if there is no data, then flick over to WD and add the data. If there is no VIAF data, then we don't add the template. I am only converting templates where I have ensured that it is at WD and is complete. I have said that repeatedly, and included that detail in the earlier discussion about VIAF data, and local storage being redundant.
In a nutshell all we need locally is {{authority control}} anything else is "make work" here. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:07, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Where are you getting this from? Its completely contrary to the points covered by Phase 2. We should not remove a blasted thing here until there are P:214 (VIAF indentifier) statements indicating an instance of P:143 (imported from) pointing to us -- English Wikisource (Q15156406) appearing on Wikidata. If there is no current AC template or currently a blank AC template - the practice that I've seen on WP is to at least verify and add 1 identifier; VIAF manually and leave it like that until a corresponding statement indicating importation from WP has taken place. A P:214 statement on WD with zero sources is NOT the desired end point in all this!! To be absolved of VIAF tracking we need to be listed under the VIAF identifier entry as a source. The more domains listed under the same identifier on WD the higher the rank. Go look at Wikipedia if you doubt this is way its being done. The only time you should find a blank AC template there is if WD is also indicating importation and attribution to WP as a source under that P:214 statement. If not, the importation cycle is incomplete!!

All that we move, manipulate or edit is lost until the 2 above properties are associated with en.WS in a proper statement box on WD. Your advice is for some stage or phase after that basic "statement" appears (along with any other polled and matched domains-to-identifier-# that may exist) on WD indicating we've been "properly" polled for what we have manually compiled; not Phase 2. The which-domain-is-missing-what and the mismatches detected between them can only be properly addressed that way.

We put ourselves in a hole when the first bot runs were isolated to just adding the enwikisource site links to established items or to create a new item if one did not exist. There was no follow-up runs dealing with our AC data (probably because we still had the "old" non-module template in place at the time And damn if I can figure out who can initiate that run now). IMO, The priority right now should be to manually associate at least the VIAF id with an Author: Then connect all the Author: pages that aren't already connected with a WD item (or create a new one if need be). Then ask for importation of locally stored AC info in the Author: namespace on WD. Finally - reconcile discrepancies between WS & WD discovered post importation. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Really? That is nonsensical. Why would we want to track that VIAF data came from enWS. It is identifier links, it isn't a fact like date of birth, etc. VIAF data is VIAF data and comes from VIAF, anything else is pretty irrelevant. Re WP and authority control. that is simply because that is what they did prior to WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Yes really. If its nonsensical -- take it up with WD. See d:Q309907 for a properly imported VIAF identifier that lists WS along other domains that reported the same. So I'll ask again - Please verify and add (at least) the VIAF identifier that matches your Author: page when applying the Authority Control template to insure the proper importation and tracking of AC info by WD.

~88% of the time, your findings will "match" what is already attributed, if at all, to other domains that were polled previously on WD so you may feel like that is a waste of time (I agree - without a manual "anchor" no bot will detect any given parameter from us). But that is what we [unknowingly] agreed to/allowed to go unchecked early on nevertheless. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:21, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

If you would care to read d:Help:Sources you will see the guidance is specific. There is no need to even reference VIAF to VIAF, each authority link is an evident self-reference, so why in the hell would want to take some secondary or tertiary data from some other source? There is already sufficient queries about the "import from" aspect and the use of WPs as citable material, so please no further citing of other behaviour to outweigh the logic. There is zero need to maintain specific authority control data here once it has been freshly sourced from VIAF and available at WD. We are not a credible source, and there is no requirement for any tracking data when it is able to be self-referenced to the authority. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:15, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I stopped reading after "Items not needing sources MAY have sources and shouldn't be removed. Even if it's common knowledge, itself is a source, or claims have no sources because it has never been disputed, it's good to add a source to it." So just like the other day, I guess we just won't see this the same. I prefer to believe in our own contributors before any others and err on the side of caution from there - one way being the leaving alone of what has already been compiled in place for importation (which is odd because I always considered your obituary research & the like part of the reason to trust our info before others). New editions with simple AuthCont templates is another matter I guess. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:31, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
We are not talking about removing the sources, we are now talking about the (pointless) exercise of waiting for a bot to run through and put in more pointless and worthless statements. The link to the authority is the authority, that is the damned source, not some enWS or enWP article, which are at best examples of its use …. You wanted authoritative so I have spoken to Lydia, and the comments are along lines of additional statements of "imported from enwikisource" would not be useful or needed, and overall less "imported_from" statements would be desirable. Re my contributions, I am adding the WD data from source, so now you trust me, but don't trust me.

So there is no need to wait, to collect our captured data when the data exists in WD. There should be no issues with me trimming back to a bare template where I have ensured (and usually improved) the authority control data for the article, via WD. Now you will let me do it for articles that I have added recently? These articles differ from the other articles that I added previously how? Same research, same research ethic. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:13, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Thank you[edit]

Thank you for your help at Author:Frank James Sensenbrenner, Jr., much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 13:36, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

Your common.js[edit]

Hello Mpaa

I happened to spot your recent edit. Please review this and act (or not) accordingly, but are you sure this line:

        regexToolWithShortcut('lower [u]','upper()', 'l');

—should not in fact read:

        regexToolWithShortcut('lower [u]','lower()', 'l');


Just looked a little strange to me. AuFCL (talk) 11:48, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yepp, thanks--Mpaa (talk) 12:07, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Author:Multiple Editors[edit]

Hi Mpaa, is this author page useful? Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Third Orders lists editors individually and, as you can see from page history, it has never linked to that author page.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 14:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Must have been created by mistake. It can safely be deleted. Thanks for pointing out.--Mpaa (talk) 16:13, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Output of archiving[edit]

Processing [[en:User talk:Mpaa]]
36 Threads found on [[en:User talk:Mpaa]]
Looking for: {{User:Wikisource-bot/config}} in [[en:User talk:Mpaa]]
Processing 36 threads
Archiving 31 thread(s).
Page [[User talk:Mpaa/Archives/2013]] saved
Page [[User talk:Mpaa/Archives/2014]] saved
Page [[User talk:Mpaa]] saved

billinghurst sDrewth 16:02, 1 September 2014 (UTC)