Template talk:DNB00

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Aligned wikipedia link with {{header}}[edit]

There has been recent changes to the Wikipedia header, to introduce the WP link, so with a little tweaking I have aligned the look of the two to be react the same way. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:51, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I like the function invoked by the empty field, populating the maintenance cat, useful before it is used :-) cygnis insignis 17:16, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some documentation for category application[edit]

All articles are listed at Category:DNB biographies

When certain parameters are left blank or altered, the details are noted

billinghurst sDrewth 00:53, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Second wikipedia check?[edit]

@Jura1: In this edit I am not sure why you have added the extra #if statement for Wikipedia. Care to explain that component and what it is achieving? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:56, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure either. It was added by a Wikisource extension ( https://www.mediawiki.org/wiki/Extension:TemplateData ) --Jura1 (talk) 10:52, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Help needed[edit]

I added "override_contributor" parameter to pair with the "contributor" parameter, as having contributor overridden by "override_author" is not intuitive.

However I have no idea what <templatedata> is so I have left it alone, but I suspect it too needs changing. -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


@Billinghurst: Hudson, Michael (DNB00) appears in Category:DNB No WP, despite having the wikipedia= field filled in. I have seen this for quite some time now, say a year, via a Petscan query, and only just tracked it back here.

I assume there is a rational explanation, rather than the template being haunted. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Charles Matthews: Yes, the rational explanation is that you manually categorised it in 2009. I have removed it. Usually it is me that misses the bleeding obvious, stop stealing my special ability. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, and thanks! Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Bulk-removing Wikipedia parameter where redundant[edit]

Right now, most transclusions of this template (~23k of ~28k total) use an explicit wikipedia parameter. This is less than ideal because Wikipedia articles get moved for various reasons, causing the sister project links to point to disambiguations or incorrect articles. The links produced through Wikidata via {{import enwiki}} don't have this problem, as moving a page automatically updates the item. Right now, there are 245 articles where Wikidata and the manual links point to distinct places; I ran through 20 of them before and found that in all 20 cases, the sitelink on Wikidata went to the right spot while the manual Wikisource link didn't. Therefore, thoughts on the following steps?:

  • Run a bot to blank/delete all of the wikipedia parameters where the Wikidata has exactly one main subject for the article, and it corresponds with the manual parameter (this is ~22k of the total transclusions)
  • Manually but quickly check all the cases where Wikidata has a single main subject with a Wikipedia article, but it's different from the supplied parameter, blanking where appropriate (these are the 245 listed above)
  • Manually go through the remaining uses of wikipedia=: would be mostly cases where there's a Wikipedia link but the Wikidata item doesn't have a sitelink. Most of these are items that need to be merged on Wikidata, or complicated relationships that should remain as manual links.

Vahurzpu (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, hadn't seen this as I had been tracking my actions at WT:WikiProject DNB. Pretty certain that I have finished all DNB00. I still have DNB01 and DNB12 to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Category:DNB no WP is now totally useless.[edit]

We formerly considered Category:DNB No WP to be the most important resource for completing this project, but it is now broken. Now that we are depending on the Wikidata, We should remove the Category:DNB No WP category and the logic that adds the articles to it, and update the project documentation both here and at the Wikipedia sister project.

However, someone more knowledgeable than me will first need to document the correct way to get the equivalent list of DNB articles from from Wikidata.

@Billinghurst:, do you know how to do this? -Arch dude (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Vahurzpu:, do you know how to do this? -Arch dude (talk) 03:37, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Arch dude: See User talk:Vahurzpu#DNB to enWP for billinghurst's explanation of what they're doing. As such, it'll probably go away soon. If you want an approximate replacement for Category:DNB No WP, see d:User:Vahurzpu/Queries#Approximate equivalent of the DNB No WP on Wikisource. Let me know if you need any behavior tweaks. Vahurzpu (talk) 03:59, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Arch dude, @Vahurzpu: updated, functionality should be back. I had been giving commentary on what has been occurring on the project talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:34, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Billinghurst, @Vahurzpu: Thanks! With the functionality restored, we can defer changes to the documentation. What causes the discrepancy between the 5300 category entries and the 4800 entries returned by the Wikidata search? -Arch dude (talk) 16:33, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Without having done a count, some of the articles had not updated, so I had to get Wikisource-bot to touch the files in the cat; then there will be Category:DNB See which won't have articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:32, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]