This user is an administrator and checkuser.
This user has a bot.
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search


Je suis Charlie inversée.jpg
A noun and a verb were dating but they broke up because the noun was too possessive.
System-users.svg This user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)
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


TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

Support request with team editing experiment project[edit]

Dear tech ambassadors, instead of spamming the Village Pump of each Wikipedia about my tiny project proposal for researching team editing (see here: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Grants:IdeaLab/Research_team_editing), I have decided to leave to your own discretion if the matter is relevant enough to inform a wider audience already. I would appreciate if you could appraise if the Wikipedia community you are more familiar with could have interest in testing group editing "on their own grounds" and with their own guidance. In a nutshell: it consists in editing pages as a group instead of as an individual. This social experiment might involve redefining some aspects of the workflow we are all used to, with the hope of creating a more friendly and collaborative environment since editing under a group umbrella creates less social exposure than traditional "individual editing". I send you this message also as a proof that the Inspire Campaign is already gearing up. As said I would appreciate of *you* just a comment on the talk page/endorsement of my project noting your general perception about the idea. Nothing else. Your contribution helps to shape the future! (which I hope it will be very bright, with colors, and Wikipedia everywhere) Regards from User:Micru on meta.

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania[edit]

Note to self and anyone else interested.

Category:Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania should it be a portal too? If yes, we really need a means to autopopulate (minor) portals so we do not have do lots of work in that space.

If it is not, we need to look to adapt {{authority control}} so it can be utilised with arbitrary access to WD so AC can be filled on such a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:26, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Move template data to WD[edit]

Category:Pages using authority control with parameters has pages with {{authority control}} data that should be housed on the WD page of the item. Look to set to utilise PLbot to move the data to WD, save some queries on its use and set up tracking. Need to be a good lad and set up fully-fledged maintenance pages. Oh for more time! — billinghurst sDrewth 06:31, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=F4EsAAAAYAAJ import[edit]

import work so we can migrate text French Constitution of 1848

To review[edit]

task[edit]

Run bot through Index:Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography (1900, volume 1).djvu and others in series IIIIIIIVVVIVII to extract text layers. — billinghurst sDrewth

header WP links and the use of main subject at WD[edit]

have a check to see that where we have (encyclopaedic) pages in main namespace that link wikipedia = through header, that these items at wikidata may or may not have "main subject" wikilink. Can or should we be pulling that link via WD to manage deleted and moved items, and also be prepared for any item that has a future wp link. — billinghurst sDrewth

Structuring of Ram Khamhaeng Inscription page[edit]

Hi. I'm kind of wondering how Index:JSS 006 1b Bradley OldestKnownWritingInSiamese.pdf should be structured in the mainspace. It's a single lengthy journal article (which occupies the entire issue), so it's not really broken into chapters (though it does have distinct section headings). Should the article have its own page, or be a subpage of the journal? (Existing pages seem rather inconsistent.) And should the article itself be divided into subpages? I think the translation itself should have its own subpage so that it can be linked to directly, but what should the subpage titles be? The entire article is titled "The Oldest Known Writing in Siamese: The Inscription of Phra Ram Khamhæng of Sukhothai, 1293 A.D." and the heading of the translation itself is just "Translation", so the current title of the page The Oldest Known Writing in Siamese/The Inscription of Phra Ram Khamhæng of Sukhothai, 1293 A.D. doesn't seem correct. Should it be moved to one of the following?

I'm not planning to work on any of the journal's other articles, though. --Paul 012 (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

@Paul 012: A little hard to know from the outside of the work. So how about I discuss principles.
  1. We identify that we are reproducing editions, and while many are one-off editions, all are not; we so need a plan/scheme
  2. We try to remain true to the published work (within reason),
So ... if we do want the journal name, that can be the parent, though I don't think that the volume is that critical; if we do not want journal name that while it is pertinent, in the scheme of things, maybe it is best to just note it on the talk page of the article. We would also do well to note it on the author's page, and we can record that detail when we poke it into wikidata. [Less than perfect, but probably best in isolation].
With regard to subpages and names. It could all just be displayed as one long page, not usual, but has been done plenty of times when real breaks or no logical breaks work well. If you can find logical breaks, then that works okay, just to note that page titles are better when informative. Find the balance knowing that search engines are most likely the way in, though it may be by wikilink. (There is no exact science in some of this, we have to go with the gut, and there will always be a difference of opinion, so we go back to the person most knowledgeable on the work. Soemtimes there is the necessity for compromise.) Thoughts? Questions? — billinghurst sDrewth 03:45, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
Oh you have progress well since I looked at this last. Omitting the root name, let see how this seems as the set out
... (not knowing detail here)
Thoughts? — billinghurst sDrewth 04:05, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
This seems fine to me. But I'm now wondering more about the root name, since you mentioned search engine traffic. This probably means the full title would be preferable as the root name? --Paul 012 (talk) 17:59, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
@Paul 012: Possibly/probably, the horrid balance between length <-> findability <-> understandability. No right/wrong answer. We can omit journal name and no one will scream and if necessary move pages at a later time. If we include journal name, then we have some work to do at that level to make sense of the journal. No one is going to scream either way as long as we use relative links for navigation within the work. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:55, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice. I've now gone ahead and created The Oldest Known Writing in Siamese: The Inscription of Phra Ram Khamhæng of Sukhothai, 1293 A.D.. Hope I got it right. --Paul 012 (talk) 02:48, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

smiley You will see that I have had a bit of a fiddle, which you can unfiddle if you prefer, and added the general meeting link—being true to the published work. One important task for you, and one where you are allowed a little internal shimmy. Please add the work to Template:New texts so that it can display on the front page. Congratulations on completing your first work at English Wikisource. Job well done. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

Huge Thank you for the help with WikiProject/Connecticut Coordinating Center[edit]

My apologies for the seemingly contradictory edits. I am still getting the hang with things (obviously), so it took me a second to figure out what you did. I really want to thank you for helping me with that page, even if it is a bit unorganized right now.MattLongCT (talk) 03:36, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

@MattLongCT: Ack, did I forget to send the note; hmm still sitting open in the browser. Sorry about that juggling things on screens and at home. Not a problem, please feel free to take questions to WS:S the community is here to help. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:55, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
billinghurst (talkcontribs), no big deal! We all are only human (I, too, have a similar set up). I really appreciate the help either way! [I certainly will follow up with WS:S if so needed.]MattLongCT (talk) 04:11, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

FT protection[edit]

Do you have a speedier means to protect all the Mainspace pages of FT selections? I'm fine for shorter works, but there are some lengthy choices this year, including one with about 150 Mainspace pages to be protected. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Can do it mw:Manual:Pywikibot/protect.py, not that I have needed to previously; guessing it would take about 5-10 minutes. AWB can do them serially reasonably easily though repetitively. Would say pywikibot would be the preferred means (after a practice, which can happen at any time). — billinghurst sDrewth 12:08, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
All the instructions for download and installation are written for Windows, which I don't have.
Since this is something I will not be doing more than 12 times in a year (and probably less), could I prevail upon you to protect the two works currently in need of such: Catholic Hymns (1860) (subpages; I've done the main) & Oriental Scenery (I've done the top level and 6 pages in the first subdirectory, but not the ~150 pages in the next subdirectory). --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:40, 29 December 2017 (UTC)
Catholic Hymns is done, though I will need to remember to turn off the protection in February as there is currently no expiry option in pywikibot. With regard to Oriental Scenery, I note that at something like Oriental Scenery/Part 4 that the image is not centered, templating issue. /me grumbles about wretchedly complex templates. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:53, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. The Oriental Scenery isn't scheduled till August, so there is yet time to correct issues if they are found. I set it that late because we (a) have a dearth of nominations, and (b) featured a similar work in August 2017. If we didn't get more noms it could have led to two similar works being featured in the same year (with one being a repeat). --EncycloPetey (talk) 05:21, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

WD images[edit]

If there are multiple images available at WD for a person, how do I direct it to choose a specific image for inclusion in a WS Author page? Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

It's easiest to just pick one and add it with the "image=" parameter in the header. Anything else would be subject to the whims of editors at WD. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:53, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Was wondering because Author:Agnes Repplier has one image used at WP (I guess w/ image parameter set), and a different one here at WS (with no image parameter set). Didn't know how that worked... Whether WD sets a default image, and how. Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) EncycloPetey is correct, but there is something odd going on with Wikidata here. I think you are talking about Author:Apsley George Benet Cherry-Garrard? Currently, pulling the image parameter from WD, it is a redlink because the relevant code, {{#invoke:Wikidata|getValue|P18|FETCH_WIKIDATA}}, is fetching both WD images in a list, unlike e.g. Author:Agnes Repplier, where only one is selected. Any ideas? BethNaught (talk) 23:02, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes, I would like to use that image for Cherry-Garrard; and I knew Repplier had two different images used, so I was trying to compare to see how it all worked. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:23, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
There is a ranking system, apparently (see Agnes Repplier WD page). I am not sure how to change Cherry-Garrard's from normal to preferred. Will look into it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Think I figured it out. Thanks all! Let me know if there's anything else I need to know... Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:33, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: The catch with relying on WD ranking is that anyone could change the ranking at any time. That's why, for people with multiple images, I recommend using "image=" instead. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sounds good. Which makes me think, we are then also at the mercy of WD for birth/death date changes made now as well. Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
But oh, then aren't we back to BethNaught's discovery about the redlink issue if someone at WD changes both the images back to normal rank? Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:32, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
The dates at WD tend to be well-managed. I have seen instances where an author has two birth years, but our header can handle that, and displays both options with a slash (e.g. Author:Scott Joplin). But that's because it's possible to display two dates without breaking things. Displaying two images creates an issue, and yes, some other project might decide that a different image should rank higher, or that neither should. So the best practice when dealing with multiple images is probably setting our own choice locally. There are also a few times where I have found the image at WD was of such poor quality that I simply replaced it with a different, similar one of higher quality. But again, there was only one image in place at WD in those situations. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
  • @Londonjackbooks: At WD, please just click the edit link of the image statement, then choose one to be preferred. More information at d:Help:Ranking. I do try to keep away from manually adding an image link here unless it is truly necessary. Note that I regularly check for broken images and maintain, and there is a category on my user page for those.— billinghurst sDrewth 01:15, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Yes. I had figured out how to do that, and did; but EP suggested that since the preference could be changed in the future at WD (with no 'warning' here), to use the image parameter anyway... Ugh. Local vs. global... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:20, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Sure it can be changed, and they can be changed for the better or for worse, and the truth is that it is usually for the better. I go over there and do that myself. Re change at WD affecting us, that can be said for any of the data that we pull from WD, it is a risk that we need to manage. And I attempted to cover that with "truly necessary", if we have to have a certain image, then do it, in general, the image is just a head and or a body, and we prefer the most relevant, better shot where possible. We have automatically added many images just by linking, and as I remove our image links, they are generally improved by pulling WD links, though on some occasions, I will add our image as preferred over the default.

PS. You can add WD edits into your Watchlist through your preferences, if that interests you, though it can add to the intensity if you also have bot edits under scrutiny. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Noted. I suppose there is a lesson in there (for the better...risk...manage) that can be widely applied as well. Thanks for the dose of optimism & realism. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:46, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
While I can produce a level of snark, I am generally all about practicality and risk management. I do keep an eye towards idealism, I try not to let its inachieveability to be a blocker to progress. Not called Captain Practical by some for no reason, and for some it is almost said lovingly. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
"Idealism" was on my mind, but being that "ere I attain it I must die", I chose "optimism" instead—being more practical. There can be no progress without risk & responsibility—or without passing the "trade" on to the next generation or "contributor" smiley Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:23, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-02[edit]

16:19, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Raincheck[edit]

Re this: it's been a while, and I feel that my feet are "more firmly on bedrock". Although life has sometimes got in the way, I'm still here and I feel I've learned more about WS, and my worries on that score are gone. So I wanted to ask you if I am still fit in your opinion to wield a mop here; I wish to run if so. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 21:29, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks for considering this and getting back to me. Typically after someone is nominated they would accept the nomination and indicate their familiarity to WS:Adminship. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:00, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-3[edit]

18:45, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Template:Statute table/titles/footer[edit]

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Statute_table/titles/footer&oldid=7202248

Can you explain what was being attempted here? Currently redirecting it causes a "stripped tag" concern in relation to the pages where it is used.

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Short_Titles_Act_1896/First_Schedule/1831&action=edit&lintid=746570

being an example. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:43, 18 January 2018 (UTC)