User talk:Pigsonthewing
 Archives |
| 1 |
Community norm for production of subpages in periodicals[edit]
Hi. The community has expressed its production of journal articles and the setup of subpages. If you think that we can be doing it better then please have that conversation with the community and we can review what we have and reach a consensus. Just ignoring all the norms that are in place is problematic as it leads to a chaotic approach; makes patrolling harder and makes the application of metadata harder again. I know that you love your maverick mantle and having things done your way, however, it does cause disharmony, and it does cause confusion. So please go and have that conversation so better and modern ideas of what is possible can arise, we can and should review an approach adopted in late 2000s, however, change should be done through consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:06, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Please avoid making personal ad-hominem, attacks.
- As I said in my edit summary I reverted your edits for "Consistency with the rest of the volume (and with Nature (journal))" (I think it was The Comet that I took as my model; it certainly uses the same format I did). I'm not clear why you changed only two of the several articles in the volume concerned, but is it not the case that the Wikisource community has decided that, as a "norm", volumes should be internally consistent? Does lack of such consistency not cause confusion?
- Meanwhile, please feel free to point me at the discussion where the community consensus to which you refer occurred, or is documented. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:29, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I did two and addressed it to you. I thought that was a better approach than just botting the whole work. FWUW Nature is not a good example of a work to follow. PSM and many many other periodicals are here and done in the means I described. Anyway, I will take it to the community (again). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- So Nature is done differently to PSM? So much for "all the norms that are in place". Still waiting for the requested link to discussion or documentation. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:03, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
- Okay. I did two and addressed it to you. I thought that was a better approach than just botting the whole work. FWUW Nature is not a good example of a work to follow. PSM and many many other periodicals are here and done in the means I described. Anyway, I will take it to the community (again). — billinghurst sDrewth 22:23, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
I see that you moved the author page, but the page still calls her Mary Jackson Henry, contrary to the note on her book "Various modern sources misattribute this work to "Henry, Mary Jackson"". Do you know who Mary Jackson Henry was ? -- Beardo (talk) 12:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Fixed; Mary Jackson Henry was a United States author; see [1], which is one of many sources to conflate the two women. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, I have tagged this page for speedy delete as it seems to duplicate The Pictorial Flora; or British Botany Delineated/001-132 with an incorrect page name. -- Beardo (talk) 13:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
- Good call; thank you. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:34, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I erred in validating PG 99 - The King of Terrors. It was missing "The King of Terrors.", which I added. However, I overlooked that is is also missing the page number, and the heading "New Farmer's Scrap Book". Please add it and let me know if I need to re-validate the page. Thanks. Maile66 (talk) 00:04, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Maile66: Done, and thank you for validating. All seems to be good, now. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)