User talk:Billinghurst

A lot of money is tainted: 'Taint yours, and 'taint mine.

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. Wikisource has a number of active Wikiprojects that could use your help in tackling these large additions to our library. US National Archives Project Work: US National Archives

If I left you a message: please answer on your talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on my talk. If you leave me a message: I will answer on my talk page, then place {{Talkback}} on your talk. Please click here to leave me a new message.

TUSC token 0952014894107913a59076d5378c61b1

I am now proud owner of a TUSC account!

University Education for Women (Sidgwick)

I'll be uploading this to Archive.org within the next couple hours, and will post the link here for you when I get it. (If the power doesn't go out in the meantime) Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:55, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, doing that already, and it is now at http://www.archive.org/details/UniversityEducationForWomenPresidentialAddressDeliveredToTheEducation and it is bubbling away in the derive queue, oh it is done . I excitedly saw your email and was quickly downloading and uploading that, answering mail, grinning to myself, planning the days ahead, and what was going to get deprioritised … — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok... Well, now there are TWO, 'cause I just uploaded it! :) I can delete mine... I wasn't sure if you got the email or not... Glad it's good to go! Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Bountiful :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 11:38, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

Autumn harvest at Wikisource! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:05, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

That was fast! :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:55, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Which is why I like the lectures. I get less bored, and maintain motivation. I also think that for some of these small subject matters, we may get more casual/passing interest whereas for the larger works they are going to be for devotees. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Dbl redirects

Hi,

I was wondering what the story is with a handful of redirs created a week or two ago. They've come up on the last few list refreshes so I'm wondering if they are still works in progress or are OK to delete (plus that's a neat trick - how'd you manage doing that???).

They were circular redirects, so kept pointing to themselves. We suffer an ndash <-> hyphen issue within the DNB, so we resolved to have all pages as hyphens. We create redirects from the ndash dates to the hyphen dates, and on this occasion, I created hyphen to hyphen by mistake. Deleted them on this occasion.

Also, the same batch of broken DNB-related links keep coming up every week (& are even older) - who should I check with on fixing/deleting those? -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:33, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Which other DNB links? Are you meaning ndash links to hyphens? If yes, then it is a hard one. We know that we will complete the end pages with the project, so we either create the redirects as we go, or we have DNB redlinks that will be hard to find to create redirects later. I don't know of a means to be able to find the redlinks from a set of articles, so they can be created at a later time, hence that methodology. If no, then I am not sure of your reference. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:54, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry - Special:BrokenRedirects. They do have ndashes and hyphens but the base link is slightly different. Not a bother either way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, [q. v.] links (become our redirects) from the works, and as expected in a 63 vol./15 year project they come in a variety of styles. If you can think of a different means for in the works redlinks, I am open to suggestions of a better way.

Well I guess I'm missing the point of adding the &ndash containing redirect(s) "now" rather than in masse "later" if its true that the actual work will always have a name where the hyphen is always the rule. My point was(is), for example, that (as best as I can tell) the target exists (or merely needs transclusion) BUT earlier editors did not include the b&d years in the mainspace title(s) at all.

If I follow all this right....

• Brinkley, John, (1763–1835) (DNB00)
• Brinkley, John (1763-1835) (DNB00)

Should both be pointing to

• Brinkley, John (DNB00)

or the latter needs to be moved(renamed) to the former's hyphenated title maybe?? -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

PLUS - sometimes there is a comma after the first name, or before the (DNB00); sometimes there is not. Seems to me too many variables to effectively cover all the possible combinations this way. -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:01, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Complexity. If we work on the philosophy of links later, we would basically have to wait to the end of the work to complete all wikilinks, and we would have to work through all the biographies looking for redlinks. [Big complex discussion deleted, I so need a whiteboard!].

In short, we are having to identify the eventual target without knowledge or extensive research for each and every link (unfeasible). We have tried to keep is simple and where possible we end up with just name, though if the work differentiates we presume that we will need to too. So in the above example, the work differentiated a year so we presume that there are multiples, so coded for it, when we trip over cases that didn't need differentiation like above, we fix it and move all to the base, as I have done with the example above. There is no perfect scheme, it simply has to evolve, and to fix when the exceptions are identified. An imperfect world. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Tsk. This is the same problem Ineuw has over on the PSM project. Create a page in flux that is tracked and resolved in a timely manner or just don't create the link; especially if it goes nowhere. One can try to skirt the logic of no bad mainspace articles by creating redirects that don't really go anywhere - making it just as "bad" as transcluding gibberish "prematurely" in my view - or we create the the damn page and make the effort to finish it properly within ~30 days. I'm really finding this notion that anybody outside of our merry little group of 30 or so regulars would even notice or never mind care if there where mainspace DNB or PSM articles in such stages of flux rather silly. -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:50, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

GOIII we are talking about how many problematic pages here? If you can find me a ready way to identify redlinks that only go through to DNB articles from DNB articles, where the dates are involved in the nomenclature, then come forth with the information. Please don't give me a problem without a solution when we are talking something less than 20 links for more than 10000 DNB articles. We are not breaking the bank here. I agree that it is less than ideal, however, it is better than 100s of links redlinks when the articles exist. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Struck a nerve eh? Ok - Solution: Have the project monitor the list on a schedule that amounts to something sooner than once every royal wedding (once a month maybe?) so I don't have to. Prost. -- George Orwell III (talk) 15:08, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Only the one that make comparisons about people stuck on rule-based decision-making, rather than about reasonable and practicable; especially in consideration of when neither tools nor infinite resources exist. I believe that I carry my fair share currently. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:56, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

You do way more than you should be required to by anyone around here imo and I did ask for just a pointer on the broken ones way back at the start of this for just that reason - not to be a bother when you weren't the one affecting things.

As for the other thing; the whole 'if nobody speaks up, that equates to consensus or means it is working fine' bit is wearing a bit thin and rarely provides meaningful stepping stones for actually moving forward. All it really seems to do is insure that the status quo remains (which I admit is not always a bad thing). Besides, this was not anything earth-shattering or controversial; its basic housekeeping. -- George Orwell III (talk) 16:23, 29 October 2011 (UTC)

Volume information for EB1911

Please see Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica#Volume information for EB1911 --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:19, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Alpha collection

What is an "alpha collection"? I assume(?) that it has to do with a collection of volumes that are sorted alphabetically/numerically, etc? Like a multi-vol. dictionary, encyclopedia set, etc. (i.e., "alpha")? Also, to bring the conversation over here, I plan on working some with WS magazine pages (like The Century Magazine), and I want to be sure—before I add/change things ad nauseum—that I'm not making a mess of things that someone else will have to clean up later. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:35, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Yes, alpha was just short for alphabetical. For serials, I think that the work that has been done by Ineuw on PSM has stepped through the sorts of issues that come up. —unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) .

You forgot a signature in your comment here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

I did too, I'll fix. In cases like that, we encourage another party to add {{unsigned}} against it. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

You "did too?" Did I somewhere? Thanks for the {{unsigned}} tip. Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:28, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh... And hey—I resemble that remark... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

"Two?" you mean? Ugh, I'll stop now... Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:32, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks!

Thanks for the welcome, I understand what you are saying. I appreciate for the notice. I will be back shortly --Mohamed Aden Ighe (talk) 01:42, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford book of Italian verse

Hello Billinghurst, I've started to transcribe the notes about the authors in the book (pages 534-565). I've created the first author's page (The Oxford book of Italian verse/San Francesco d'Assisi), but I'm not sure:

• If I create a page for each author, every page would contain too little text
• If I put all authors' notes in a page, it would contain too much text
• In the book authors aren't subdivided (for example by century), so every subdivision we could use would alter the structure of the volume

What should I do according to you? Soon, Erasmo Barresi (talk) 17:32, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, no easy answer. Personally I like for books to have logical breaks, and sometimes these don't become obvious until a good part of the work is undertaken. Each of three ways that you mentioned have all been used to display books here. I don't fuss about smaller transclusions if the pages are going to be easily and readily referenced, either from an Author: ns page, alternatively from a wiki, so sometimes if the work has many internal (cross-)references. If not going to be referenced that way, then we can do longer pages, and look to have anchors put through the work, and this works well if there is an index. Sometimes I just work off the Table of Contents, and if that seems to work, then I fly with it. As the major contributor, you do get to set the standard for the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:54, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Cricket

Started on the cultural-partners list when I was lamenting the lack of old editions of Wisden here. That said, I can't find them anywhere, so perhaps even the very old editions are still under copyright. But then that got me to the severe lack of cricket books altogether here :-). Lankiveil (talk) 11:44, 8 January 2012 (UTC).

Considering how much has been written about the subject it is a shame. See Category:Cricket. May be the folks at w:WP:CRIC could be revved up a bit. Moondyne (talk) 00:33, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Useful (easier? more likely?) to lead, and grab followers, than the reverse. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

There's a few other promising looking cricket books on archive.org, this one looks particularly interesting. Of note is that the WG Grace book was catalogued under "Americana" (!). Lankiveil (talk) 11:35, 9 January 2012 (UTC).

At archive.org, Americana has a non-specific meaning IMNSHO. You probably noticed that Inductiveload and I changed the scan, the other had duplicate pages. As a pointer, that is a UToronto scan, and in our experience they are the better quality scans, and we would generally use Google when other lookups fail, they were very hit and miss with quality and getting all pages. I am presuming that you are wanting the other set up, that I can do. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:54, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

The model in that Philadelphian book appears to be w:George Bromhead[1] which is still redlinked at enWP. Moondyne (talk) 14:28, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

At Index:A "Bawl" for American Cricket.djvu. Those in the west can play, those in the east are retiring. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:38, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome and the tips

As the header says, thanks for the welcome (on my Talk page) and the tips (on the talk page for Adler's grammar). Thanks also for the quick changes that you have made on our projects. Nikolaos (talk) 13:55, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Most welcome. We try to be a supportive and wish to be a helpful community. Best spot for general help is Wikisource:Scriptorium, though happy to take questions. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:09, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

1922 works subpages

Billinghurst, I'm sorry, I didn't know moving the year would cause problems with these dynamic page lists; I wasn't sure what I was going to do: just clear out this large category by shifting the years to different places, or look for a general way to reduce clutter, if possible, by coordinating the "year =" of the header template in a better way on sub-pages.

Your examples of dynamic lists somehow allowed me to see to the heart of the problem and gave me an idea: do you suppose we could change the header template to automatically place works from 1922, for example, that are subpages, to a new category: "1922 works subpages". Then you could use your dynamic lists by entering in this new category instead of the main "1922 works" one.

I can see a problem though beyond what programming problems might present, if there is a great demand for lists that present works from both main space and subpages, AND these dynamic lists don't have an "OR" function. It might not be possible for example, to do a combined list with categories "Obituaries" and ("1922 works" or "1922 works subpages") in case there is main page (that is, not a subpage) that is an obituary. And I don't know how if by using two separate lists with both 1922 works categories in sequence, you could mesh them together into one well-formatted list.

You seem to have spoken more with the best programmers here, so that is why I am asking you first, in case you know a quick answer to the possible difficulties with my idea. And maybe you have an interest in preserving these categories while reducing clutter as well and can help me try to solve it. ResScholar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, so let me understand. From your review of Category:1922 works there was an issue that it was too full, or overly burdened with the subpage works. So your thought is that we try to separate the subpage works from the root level works.

From my check there is no means to know whether something is a subpage from the API, so we are left with other means. I have been trying to identify better means to display category aspects, so if you can explain what you see as the desired outputs, we can look to what we want. I have also been trying to identify how we can more easily display

• All Obits
• 1922 Obits
• Obits per work, eg. Times
• Other works ...

basically without having to generate manual pages when we have subpages. So your inputs there would be great. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You said you couldn't tell a subpage from the API, but I was able to find some good variables that do through APING my betters in Wikimedia template programming.

As for these displays you want, maybe if we originated a special newspaper header, we could assign multiple categories automatically when the header detects when a certain page is down on either a root directory, a subdirectory or a sub-sub directory. These displays could be gathered and displayed in the category lists.

I looked up dynamic page lists at the Wikimedia website. They don't have an "AND" "OR" function, but a bootleg version does, so maybe in the future it will be available. I tried meshing together two lists, too. It leaves a hairline gap, but it works.

Now that I know it's possible, I think YYYY works subpages is good idea, because without it, it defeats the purpose of having a "= year" entry on the subpages; when users employ that field, it obscures the work in the YYYY category it belongs to. Oo oo, ResScholar (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC) correction -> 02:40, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Go to Category:1922 works subpages to see two works categorized by the new template. It's on hold in case it conflicts with a long range solution of the problems you have brought up. ResScholar (talk) 09:53, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Blank lines in references.

In references that have paragraphs, I have been trying to add blank lines, but when I save it, they don't show up. Paragraphs show a single letter space rather than a whole line space, like on this page. I have also tried <br/>, {{blank line}} and {{nop}} but they don't work either; as well as trying the normal "miss a line" technique but it still won't work. Is there any way to overcome this or do we just leave it like that? but then the whole reference will just be one huge paragraph, instead of smaller paragraphs. Thanks. --Angelprincess72 (talk) 12:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

either 2x <br/> or a <p>. mw:Extension:Cite is a bit of a hack with a number of aspects. :-( — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, Billinghurst. I stuck with using <p>, because its quick and simple, and now the references look so much more better. Thanks again :)--Angelprincess72 (talk) 18:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Custom CSS for a project

Any way to include custom CSS for my project to style a great number of various tables? I want to use the same background color for all of them but I might change the color in the future and it would be rather bad to have to do it on 100 pages or more. Please advise.

Sergius g (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Generally we look to replicate what is in a work, rather than to impose our own colour scheme, see Wikisource:Style guide. There are already default table classes within mediawiki wikis, and you can read more about those at w:Help:Tables, though usually something like class="prettytable" is sufficient. If you did want to look to have a level of uniformity for a work, then you can create a template that can be plug into your table, eg. in a page called &x91;[Template:TableFormatWorkXYZ]] you could have something like style="your style formatting...", or sub-components of style like colour schemes. As stated earlier we generally haven't tended to do much in that regard as we replicate the look of the work. If you need some guidance, do some basic formatting for tables, and then we can fine-tune in situ rather just talk. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:04, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Sergius g, following this post, I had a look at what you are doing. May I ask if there is any special reason why you are handling footnotes with anchors/returns instead of using the <ref></ref> and <references> tags? --Mpaa (talk) 10:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Exclamatory Mark

Billinghurst, or anyone else, what does the red exclamation point mean at the beginning of a Users:Name such as this one:
 ! User talk:Billinghurst‎; 19:40 . . (+391) —Brother Officer^Talk 01:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

An unpatrolled mark. Help:Patrolling — billinghurst sDrewth 05:37, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I have marked pages as patrolled but I never really knew what the red exclamation mark was for. Thank you for educating myself and the rest of the world in the work you do. I did read the link above but it seems that your one statement here covers it all. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 05:50, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

As a follow-up, admins have the ability to have people marked as autopatrolled, which basically means that you don't get the red exclamation. It means that you know what you are doing or know when to ask and I believe that you have both had that mark for a while. So please do patrol works as it spreads the load, and helps the learning; and if you see someone who you are repeatedly patrolling across the namespaces and who you believe should be autopatrolled then club an admin and suggest that we do so. If they are only working on a certain work, and doing an okay job, then there are other means to manage that too. Again club an admin for assistance. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:41, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I was given the right to do "mark patrolled" and I have done that on a few occasions. The source of my query, as shown above, is that you, "billinghurst", had a red exclamation mark in front of your name as seen on my watchlist. It surprised me. I *think* I marked that as patrolled. But it was that source that caused me confusion since you are an administrator. I didn't think you would have a red exclamation mark thus the question. I will try to proofread more of those and mark them appropriately—or come running to you with a question. Okay? (I don't get those red patrolled marks as I type a page but I find some following me and they are annoying.) P.S. I wouldn't want to club an administrator on Wikisource, they are too valuable but I wouldn't mind clubbing some on Spanish Wikipedia or Spanish Wikisource. "Theornamentalist" <sp?> ("Chris") is still stuck over there now defending right from wrongs from admistrators (some really are bad guys!) and wasting his excellent creativity. Think back to that recent survey about en.wikipedia where the questions want to know *why so many people are leaving.* That's almost a sad joke. The survey should let people write down what they *think of wiki areas* then the surveys could help progress but no, the questions are "tailored" in a manner that you cannot speak your mind. Open surveys would help every wiki area. En.Wikisource is the best I have seen and learned/contributed to and it's worth my time and efforts. Thanks again, Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 08:17, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

The page was edited, though by Sergius g (talk • contribs) who doesn't have the patrolled right, though the red mark was against this page as that is where they edited. If you look at Special:RecentChanges you will see decidedly more red marks. I know that there are people who have come to validate some of the works that you introduced. Even if you patrolled their edits, that would be fantastic. If you are at the index page of a work, and click the Special:RelatedPages in the left menu that would show you the recently edited pages for the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, since it will help out I will do it. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 16:05, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Billinghurst, this is a follow-up from statements immediately above. Please set User:Gumr51 to autopatrolled. I know who he is, an administrator here knows him, and we three are working on books together in English and Spanish. That way he won't keep having those red exclamatory marks to be marked as patrolled. He has posted a lot of material here, validated, and did books on Spanish Wikisource. Thank you, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:09, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Rename pages

Without knowing that this book had chapter numbers, I created the namespace links with the chapter names in the links, so I was wondering if you could please rename these pages.

• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Ventilation and Warming to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter I
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Health of Houses to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter II
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Petty Management to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter III
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Noise to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter IV
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Variety to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter V
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Taking Food to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter VI
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/What Food? to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter VII
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Bed and Bedding to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter VIII
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Light to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter IX
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Cleanliness of Rooms and Walls to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter X
• Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Personal Cleanliness to Notes on Nursing: What It Is, and What It Is Not/Chapter XI

Thank you.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 10:47, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I would suggest that you just move them into place and leave the redirect in place, though I would ask that you call them Chapter 1, 2, 3 etc. as that is the preferred methodology — billinghurst sDrewth 12:58, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Template non comprendo

I created {{au}} quite casually yesterday, and it now redirects to {{lkau}} which wasn't on my radar. OK, but is there a reason such a thing has to be a subst? Charles Matthews (talk) 08:12, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I didn't do the redirect. The reason why the link would be subst: would be so that it gives a [[Author:[[Author:Firstname Lastname]] format which is readily bot'able, and also some consistency and more readily identifiable to the standard user. I think that I can probably do a little something to make {{au}} automatically subst: as I have learn a little more in the past year. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:27, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't complaining about the status quo, given that the redirect works. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:11, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Delete file

I was wondering if you could delete this file as the DjVu file has been deleted from Commons. Thank you.--Angelprincess72 (talk) 20:28, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Not done at this time. I do not believe that the file has been appropriately deleted, as I don't think that it fits the criteria for speedy deletion and I have my doubts are that the images are copyright from my initial look at the work. I have recovered the file and have started a normal deletion process at Commons:Deletion requests/File:The Lost Prince.djvu — billinghurst sDrewth 00:00, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Even better, a 1915 edition was located which seems a good copy scan and I have put that in place. Problem solved. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:46, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

The Bottom

—billinghurst, what am I supposed to do with a spacing near the bottom of a page that breaks up a paragraph somewhere near or on the bottom of the page that I am editing? The < br > at the very bottom works but isn't there something else I am supposed to use instead of < br >? Thank you, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 04:26, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

If we are talking about a paragraph that terminates at the end of a page, we use {{nop}} on a new line. This is just a trick to stop the work being concatenated. If that is not what you are asking, then could you please link to an example. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:08, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. That is what I was wondering about. —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:14, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

without text

Hi, I ran it this morning and tried to post it, but Wikisource is running like a dog for me today — I am getting 504s — and I haven't been able to post the results despite repeated attempts. I've just noticed that at some point this morning something has managed to stick and there is an edit that looks like I've posted an update. However this is not what I intended to post. I haven't checked but I assume it is valid data but incomplete. I'll post actual results when I can. Hesperian 02:56, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Couldn't make it work. Beset with dramas every time I tried to post a large page. So I have altered my script to do one month at a time. October 2011 is now available. Poke me when you want it updated to November. Hesperian

Ausie band and article titles

If you have the time, please look into Wikisource_talk:Protection_policy#Amplify. The problem is over on Wikipedia (and I've been unable to skin that cat!).

name of band is s:amplify (lowercase s colon lowercase amplify) so of course when they go to make shortcuts for it we get [[w:s:amplify]], bringing the User here only to attempt to point our Amplify article back to Wikipedia. -- George Orwell III (talk) 10:15, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Have we tried : — billinghurst sDrewth 10:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Of course.... but the issue is not on Wikisource so that won't fly over on Wikipedia (where the un-piped shortcut would be [[s:amplify]]) to Wikipedia. How in blazes do you explain to an annoymous teenager that s-colon "means" Wikisource and that one has to pipe ALL the shortcuts, no matter what, using Samplify (cause' I sure can't figure out if/how "s:amplify" can be a legit mainspace title over there or not) -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:11, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

K. I don't particularly want to do anything there in case we had a work of that name. I have put a note at enWP and they can heed the not, or end up visiting us. Transcription required to leave. :-) I think that the protect should work, and we may wish to have a talk page there too. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:39, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not seeing why you guys are against this. There is a music production house that goes by the name "s:amplify". It is reasonable to expect readers interested in that topic to go to Wikipedia and type "s:amplify" into the search box. What they want is the Wikipedia article entitled "Samplify". Where they end up is at a nonexistent Wikisource page entitled "Amplify". This doesn't serve the readers' needs, and for technical reasons it is impossible to fix it at Wikipedia. Putting something on our Amplify page here seems like the only available option. We don't have to do so, but it seems courteous and does us no harm. Hesperian 14:44, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

February's featured text

Following a message on my talk page to remind me, I have started to add Picturesque New Guinea to Template:Featured text/February. It has had very little discussion as a candidate but two votes in favour and none against is technically enough. As we haven't had a new featured text in months, this seems the favourite choice for February. However, as I haven't done this before, and you have the most experience (at least, according to the history of the template), can you check if I'm doing this properly? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Main Page/sandbox looks good to me. Nice. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Oh, though there is all the additional bits to do that are noted on Wikisource:Featured text candidates (protection, ...) — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you...

...for your welcome! I hate being the new girl on the block and having to learn the rules all over again... Have a nice one :) ! Shir-El too (talk) 07:44, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Template:EB1911

I think that the real solution to making it cleaner is to follow the suggestion made by user:Bob Burkhardt and get a "section_author" added to the parent template as was suggested in Template talk:EB1911#Changes to make more like DNB.

However an area that can be simplified quite easily is to move the title mess into a sub template. As this is identical to that in the DNB (with the exception of some strings which can be passed in as parameters) It would mean only one template to maintain for both DNB and 1911. This would go a long way to simplifying the look of code in the two templates.

Another thing that can be tackled is the notes section. It seems to be much simpler in the {{DNB00}} why is it so complicated on {{EB1911}}? Is it because the new parameters in {{header}} have not accounted for in {{EB1911}}?

With a bit of thought, rather than just a sub template for title, it might be possible to come up with a combined template for all of the encyclopaedia type projects: {{Encyclopaedia}} and {{DNB00}} etc become wrappers around it. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:55, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit watchlist

—billinghurst, how do I edit my watchlist? I remember seeing (or imagining?) an area where I could add or subtract names on my watchlist. I *think* it showed "edit raw watchlist" where you add or remove a name. Thank you, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 18:47, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Individual pages are removable from the page (unwatch), or your can edit it from the Watchlist. Up the top of your watchlist are the links to view the list of pages, or to raw list. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I had finally found it in front of my eyes after looking everywhere else. I do thank you though, you always come through with a good answer. Respectfully, Maury ( —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 10:10, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

I work on the philosophy that all things hide on a wiki when you really look for them, so finding things thereafter is good luck not good management. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

That statement and excellent smiley face produced a real smile with me. By "hide" I hope you mean they just turn invisible and remain in one place as opposed to being invisible and moving around. I like to follow what Einstein said, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (note: I mentioned "imagination" above) but on wiki areas I'm not so sure Einstein is right. Wiki areas defy all explanations. "May the Force be with us". —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 12:45, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

You as steward

Hello Billinghurst,

I've voted yes at the election for you as steward. Your "foreign language skills are not the best" (most votes against or neutral refer to this), but learning is not difficult! If you'd like, I can give you French (and Italian) email lessons. For now... good luck!--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:06, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Erasmo. I did German and French at school so I am still okay at reading the Romantic languages, especially due to the shared base with English; and Google translate is helpful. Grammatically undertaking a conversation and getting the right tense is always going to my issue. I find some of the concerns around language a little bit of binary approach as my strengths are clearly in addressing and managing spam, etc. and that will be my concentration as a steward, I am comfortable with others with greater language skills managing permissions. Weirdly nobody rejects a steward on the grounds of the other technical skills which are required, but that is something with which I have to content. Such is life. Thanks for your support. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Right. So why don't you add German and French to your Babels (not only here)?

Manage expectations. My school time was a long time ago, and I tend to understate rather than overstate my abilities.<shrug>

Off topic: can you delete this page, please? After the above discussion I decided to use an only page (/Notes) for all authors.--Erasmo Barresi (talk) 15:09, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Done Probably worth chatting with others about the variety of ways that we have handled compilations. For setting out these sorts of works I have found that two heads can be better than one.

Billinghurst, I hope that you get what you want because you have certainly earned it with all that you've done for the sake of others. I don't believe a person should be held back because s/he is so valuable in what you already have achieved. I read that area of voting and the skills you have and have been using and I think you have earned whatever position you want. Respectfully, —William Maury Morris II ^Talk 20:33, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Gday WMM2. The interesting conundrum: the balance between more time for creating pages of information in a fantastic community, and the protection of WMF ideal from abuse, and the people gymnastics. I suppose that the best that I can say is that I believe that I can help, I will contribute though it will lessen my input here, put it will not put a stop to it, editing helps to maintain balance and keep your feet grounded. Stewardship is a shared responsibility. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Collier's header template

Andrew, I reverted your changes to the {{Collier's}} header template since the change was a rather radical one and didn't handle multiple Wikipedia links. The current method is tried and true and is very flexible, being able to handle two and more links in a uniform manner and also links to other projects. I can't see much reason to change, although granted it is inconsistent with the way {{header}} handles things. The method of handling in the pedia articles has the advantage that the reader can instantly see any difference in article titles which with the old encyclopedias is frequently useful information, and the more accessible and transparent the better. A wikipedia box on in the notes is less transparent on this issue I think. My revert also included the author parameter. For this particular template, I don't think it matters as I don't recall ever seeing a Collier's article with an author, but in general I think the {{header}} template needs a sectionauthor or some such parameter to do this right, and I submit this for your suggestion box. It seems like a fairly frequent need. The visual layout seems reasonable, but implementing it in {{header}} would make it more uniform and easier to implement at lower levels with only a parameter assign being required. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)