User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to: navigation, search
There are 10 types of people in the world: those who understand binary, and those who don't.
System-users.svg This user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)

(Archives index, Last archive) IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth
Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

Executive Order 6102.jpg

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

United States Executive Orders Project
Work: Portal:Executive Orders of the President of the United States

Note to self (export)[edit]

(pastes from conversation)

  • mw:API:Parsing wikitext
  • //
  • then it uses the ws-noexport class to tidy the html from unneeded stuff; it was easier to use html as output, epub are html in zip file, and it exists many tool to convert html to other format

billinghurst sDrewth 14:50, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


  • When building Tables of contents and Lists of Illustrations, the title components need to be included within the table |+ ... as otherwise they page break after the title before table, d'oh!
  • asked Tpt about the attribution page, and how to edit, and to correct a typo
  • epubreader (reasonable in browser app for FF)

TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Obliterating previous claim(s) to authorities.[edit]

Please consider using {{authority control|$1}} instead of {{authority control}} when replacing a pre-existing set of imports/additions to this template. It does not interfere in anyway with any data "collection" or rendering and the like, but actually helps matters by proving some sense of an "anchor" for robot/gadget/crawl utilization.

Think of this as the last {{{ }}} in a string of {{{ | {{{ | {{{ | }}} | }}} }}} 's but with no " | " in the last one & the resulting behavior it causes. Thanks. -- George Orwell III (talk)

That is an unnecessary level of complication. If it needs it, then code it. Trying to and needing to explain its use in that way seems nonsensical. Let us keep it simple.— billinghurst sDrewth 08:58, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Deleting the pre-existing, human applied info is driving the need for this so-called complication, not I, so please reconsider taking that approach. The amount of "work" needed to accomplish the same effect code-wise & on-the fly is a galactic waste of time and energy. The next incarnation will soon be upon us (see Module:WikidataF ) and "we" are already throwing away huge amounts of localized research just for the sake of what only appears to be 2nd phase progress.

Just tell me where/which script/toolbar you are loading this parameter-less template from and I will modify it for you. Nice and simple. It will most likely be obsolete in a week or two to boot! -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:55, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

What is your issue today? Obliterating, deleting, complication ... can you please move away from the rhetorical to any specific issues and problems that are caused by my editing. From what I am seeing the pages that I leave have more or the same data and links, ie. no loss of functionality. All the data and more is now in Wikidata, and it gets there by a human. Nothing is thrown away. Your statements about localised links doesn't address the issue of link loss when pages are moved, deleted relocated at the other wikis, so that is a specious argument. This is all about making things as simple as possible, and with minimal maintenance. Ideally we should be completely removing the visible aspects of the sister links which can be managed by WD, and data pull. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
You've changed the point to somehow make this "my issue" because of "my words" when you are the one actually removing stuff that you claim won't matter either-way, nor make any difference at-the-end-of-the-day, so I kind of know where continuing any of this is going to go already (nowhere fast). I give up. retract my request(s) Delete away.

One thing I must insist you try the next time you need to expand or move an Author: page however; plz locate the 'Wikisource: #######' entry in the existing AuthCont template bar and copy down the URL linkage & number-string within it before you "actually" move anything. Of course, verify the link actually works while you are at it. Finally, check the same URL link and associated-ID aspects after you make your move(s). Before & after should be exactly the same & clicking on it should take you to the same page too. Nobody had to amend or detect anything to accomplish that. Would that have been simple enough for you?

Try to have a good day there anyway Mr. Lost-Links. :) George Orwell III (talk) 13:08, 30 March 2014 (UTC)

Improve Template:header to handle arbitrary number of categories[edit]

I posted on the talk page here Template_talk:Header#Change_to_Support_More_than_10_Categories and you can see this change to the template in action here Template:Header/sandbox/sample and here Template:Header-wpoa/sandbox/example.

Edits to Template:Header are currently restricted, but I think this change would be a general improvement for any document with more than 10 categories added via the header template. Let me know if you think this change can be accepted.

-- Mattsenate (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Commented there. We probably have numbers of similar improvements elsewhere that we need to find and resolve in a similar manner. [Us non-coders!] — billinghurst sDrewth 00:57, 19 September 2014 (UTC)
Ping. I added a tiny bit and posted again on the thread here. Does not seem like there is any issue with giving this a whirl, do you think we should request any more feedback? -- Mattsenate (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Month seems long enough for comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:23, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Google Front pages/Watermarking[edit]

A bit of blunt approach, but I couldn't think of a better way of flagging files that might require to be 'evacuated' before certain people at commons decided to go on a 'freedom' purge :(

No objections to reverts of course.

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 00:31, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Google watermarking can just be ignored, if it becomes a major issue, we get someone to write a bot to replace the lead page with a blank one. It doesn't change the licensing of the work. Face the issue when it is an issue, and we can have the bitchfight at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:23, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Actually @Phe:, how hard would it be to write a tool for toollabs that takes a file from Commons, removes and replaces the first page of a djvu/pdf, then puts the file back. Something similar to croptool and rotatebot. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:42, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
That would be a great tool to have but it only addresses the Google disclaimer page part of the "situation". If the recent application of Template:Watermarking is anything to go by, I think Shakes is also worried about the watermark typically found at the bottom of every page. That's an entirely different matter to say the least. -- George Orwell III (talk) 09:53, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Lots of files have watermarks, and it is just a template c:template:Watermark and that is advisory, not a criteria for deletion. I would rather we show how radical that they are becoming, and how much their ways are problematic for the broader community. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:06, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
It was partly because the watermarking is a 'quality' issue , vs a licensing one that I wrote the template, I've also written {{front-sheet}} to flag works that have the front-page issue. I've also reviewed some of my recent Index status changes to make sure that what's in the relevant status categoy (File to Fix) are actually File with STRUCTURAL issues, which is why you should see a lot of Index pages in Recent changes.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:22, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
First, I'm pretty sure we're all clear by now that the best time and place to correct structural issues is before uploading the file in the first place. After that, the amount of labor already invested should help determine the next course of action for a structurally deficient source file.

There is not much to gain by "patching" a file uploaded 4 or 5 years ago that still only has the dozen or two pages originally created (e.g. a bunch of no-texts, the title page & maybe the ToC) out of the hundreds of the total-remaining done. Its frequently easier to find a replacement file (quality and/or edition permitting of course) or just patch the original source file first and re-derive that as the replacement instead. Folks can take on those kinds of tasks at their leisure.

At the same time, if there are hundreds of Pages already proofread of a source file and two or three dozen left to still "work out", it makes perfect sense to expend the effort to patch what we already know to be nearly vetted in full. The same goes for the old PoTM-turns-out-to-be-flawed-187-pages-into-transcription scenario.

The notion that uploading a bunch a stuff only to wind up "parking" them for months if not years will somehow entice new contributors before you can get them yourself in the interim has also proven to be load of made-up malarkey. A freshly derived file will more often than not require "less work" to bring to completion than an older file would because the process itself is constantly improving over that same period of time.

I'm fully in favor of such housekeeping & appreciate knowing of any file issues at a glance but even in the real world - sometimes a new replacement is far easier to maintain than trying to clean up something "old". -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

I will also note that in removing the front sheet, it might be "useful" if the layout could be patched for files we know (due to pagelist checking) have 'missing pages', The layout could be fixed temporarily by inserting a suitable "This page is missing in the source scans" page, something I've done myself on a few files after a suggestion by someone here.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:25, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
See my screed above re: placeholders & patching first but if a tool is developed to easily do some of the more minor placeholder-insertions/duplicate-deletions on the fly, I'm all for it too. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:16, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Hi, keeping watermark/front page is required by CC-BY and CC-BY-SA licence "attribution – You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor" ([1]). emphasis mine. — Phe 18:48, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

Rescanned works don't get to be relicensed by the scanner just by 'sweat of the brow' effort. I woukld agree with approach for their works that they author and they license, but not where they slap a front page to a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:08, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
Ok, we have probably the right in some country at least to remove the front-page, and I have little doubt watermark will need to be removed later. I really found this story idiotic, why the hell some commonist are making our work more difficult? there is nothing preventing to keep this except an internal policy of commons, perhaps it's time to use local repository as commons is less and less usable, it'll require less work rather to try to workaround commons policy. — Phe 00:51, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
Yes, though it means that a Wikisource'd translation will need to be double loaded. :-/ Otherwise I agree about the issue of Commonist-nitpickers and there losing the global picture. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:24, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

One of the toolwriters who runs a croptool has said that he may be able to build a tool, and I have given some examples with which he can play. I asked for djvu and pdf. It might work really well in conjunction with the toollabs:bubbillinghurst sDrewth 10:11, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Julins Palmer[edit]

Actually it's no typo: see e.g. [2]. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:38, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

It is still the published word, so might be worth changing the message to be forthright. I have already created the redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:19, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-39[edit]

09:04, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-40[edit]

09:44, 29 September 2014 (UTC)


Hi, I'm curious about commons:Special:Diff/132346934. Which of the provisions does this satisfy? It's not a photograph or an artistic work, so I presume it was commercially published? I'm not familiar with UK copyright law -- seeking to build my understanding. -Pete (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

It is a work that is covered by crown copyright which is now expired for the work ...
A work is Crown copyright if it was:
  • created or published at any date before 1 June 1957 by or under the direction or control of the Crown

Therefore it applies to many records held in The National Archives, such as letters and reports by Crown servants, census returns, records of service in the armed forces, records created by the law courts, transportation records, war diaries and Cabinet minutes.

Copyright and its related works section 7,

... and that is the only licence available for that work. If you can find something more applicable, then go for it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-41[edit]

06:10, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Question concerning headers[edit]

Hallo Billinghurst, is there a difference in the syntax of the following two types of headers?

Type 1: {{RunningHeader|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

Type 2: {{rh|84|{{smaller|PORTRAITS OF PLACES.}}|{{x-smaller|[III.}}}}

I ask because you changed the header on page 84 of Henry James' "Portraits of Places" from type 2 to type 1.

Kind regards from Germany, --ABrocke (talk) 18:08, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

No difference systematically, the second is a redirect to the first, and is part of my standard maintenance scripts. The former is just explanatory jargon for newbies. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-42[edit]

08:53, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

new texts[edit]

Any reason you cut 'New texts' down to six texts from seven?[51] Hesperian 01:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

Attempted balance on the front page. I had earlier bumped it up from 6 to 7, and it often been that way on the count, and seems dependent on the length of the featured text. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
Oh, we have a front page now? Nice. :-) Hesperian 02:00, 16 October 2014 (UTC)

You…insufferable…peacemaker, you![edit]

Regarding this GOIII has a point, the code in Base.js is rather tortured and kind of odd. However at the same time it is somewhat unreasonable to expect a new user to "know" which is the more fundamental syntax: ## or <section… Isn't there a case for both coexisting at an equal level, rather than the current either/or dichotomy?

Oh, two strikes:

  1. Assuming a sane world;
  2. Assuming the whole situation did not arise through a bodgy unreviewed patch.

AuFCL (talk) 02:31, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

I was not commenting on the code, I was commenting on the history of why it came about (baby bath water). If we looked at it now, we would just have a section <section name="bert">bert bert bert bert</section> as we no longer look to do the complicated exclusion components ... (yaddada). But what the heck, we can criticise all day, I am just really thankful for the tool that was built, and love every time we make it easier/better/... ThomasV built it on his lonesome, and it was a great improvement on what we had, and for which he had no support, and often no code releases into the Extension by WMF, so instead some things were pushed through by javascript so they could happen. Long tortuous history. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yup. Picking up on that, and completely agree (sadly partly on both sides.) And my (I really should have appended 'apparently') "unreviewed" comment remains in force. Be nice if that can be addressed—maybe even to the satisfaction of all parties concerned (as if.)

I hope you are aware you were not meant to take the 'insufferable' as meant too unkindly, umm, you just figure it out. AuFCL (talk) 03:17, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Perfection is nice, though rarely the reality. Volunteerism should always be appreciated (see previous statement)

I was mortified (of course), for at least a whole picosecond. Not the worst thing that I have been called around WMF wikis, even in the past few days, and I knew that there was jest within. Such is the joys of of a profile. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

The process to attain perfection's easy to describe; somewhat harder to utilise in practice:
  1. Start by setting all dials and controls to infinity.
  2. Go for it!
  3. If anything breaks, back off a quarter turn, make good and resume at step 2.
  4. Verify result (may have to resume at step 3.) Declare success!

Warning: the above procedure might take significant unexpected resources. Femtosecond turnarounds may be considered to be anomalies. AuFCL (talk) 07:32, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Femtosecond turnarounds? Sounds like an out-there cuckolding experience. I don't think that I will given permission to come out to play. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:41, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Check template:tooltip[edit]

To check if this is working Page:National Life and Character.djvu/89 away from this PC.

Broken for me in Firefox 36.0a1 on Windows 7. Hesperian 05:02, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
It was a note to self (Ff32.0.3 and Chr 38.0.2125), however, Ff 36 ? Face-surprise.svg that is bleeding edge. Living dangerously?!?
I know, but I was feeling helpful. Yep, otherwise known as Firefox Nightly. And yes, living dangerously — it is pretty stable in-and-of-itself, but it constantly breaks extensions, and I rely heavily on extensions. I'm regularly having to go safe mode, wipe my profile, etc. It's all good fun. Hesperian 05:24, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Template:SIC still works and is based on tooltip, so will need to explore the differences in implementation.
Guys? Now? I am having a déjà vu moment here, as I am sure I gave this guidance to somebody (else) quite recently. This is a known and documented issue with tooltip—see second bullet point. AuFCL (talk) 07:22, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have added that to the template. Thx. No point in having a tooltip that doesn't tip, which would be a tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Good try. However for me on standard FF 32.0.3 the apostrophes now appear in the pop-up (that is with the &quot; method applied.) Reverting to unprotected double-quotes breaks the pop-up again as before. On second thoughts I won't give you heartburn as to creative misuses still open to this solution. AuFCL (talk) 10:18, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Happy for you to leave all your notes and thoughts on the template's talk page for whomever is clever enough to have a better working solution. I am so outcome driven. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:37, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Enough playing. I shall give some thought to a better solution; but in my opinion right this instant the last version of {{tooltip}} (i.e. special:permalink/4584926, with associated special:permalink/4895644) constitutes a superior starting point. AuFCL (talk) 11:05, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Applied exercise in cracking nut with excessive force. Don't care if you misunderstand that. YP. AuFCL (talk) 11:44, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Tech News: 2014-43[edit]

13:47, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Some questions[edit]

Hi, happy to see you here. I have some question doing Korea-related work here:

  1. Relocation of the Capital City - There is official case number for this (we usually call the case by number) should I move it? or current name is better?
  2. Copyright Act of South Korea is outdated, any template to mark as such?

— revimsg 16:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

For question 2., you can write that it's out of date in Talk:Copyright Act of South Korea in the notes section of the {{textinfo}} template. --Rochefoucauld (talk) 20:07, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
Re 1. Will the addition of a redirect suffice? Or we can move it and leave a redirect. We are pretty open to both, though do like clear, descriptive titles for the obvious reason of search engine results and we like distinctive titles as specificity is also good. We are generous with redirects as works can have many variations of title.
Re 2. As said in 1, we should move it to something has a year that reflects its descriptive title. If just moving, we would have a redirect at existing page. If you are bringing the new act, then the existing page will become a disambiguation page. As a note, Wikisource pages are not outdated as the represent a publication at the time of the publication. We are not an authoritative repository for the law today, though hopefully we can offer an accurate copy of a document as it was published at its time of publication. The notes section of the work can have something that says that the legislation was active between xxxx and yyyy, then add <edition = yes and put in more descriptive and pertinent notes, which could include off-site links to reference or verify. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:16, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
1. Ok, I found some conventions at Category:Supreme Court of Korea decisions has "Case Number+Summary". I think this is a good idea.
2. I wanted to say "This law is no longer effective, because this law has been revised, revoked, or country has been fallen." or such. — revimsg 03:52, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
Okay to 1). To 2), it should be specific. "This legislation was revoked in XXXX, and superseded by [[new legislation]]. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:19, 21 October 2014 (UTC)