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
Alcohol and calculus don't mix so don't drink and derive.
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.

George Smith by John Collier.jpg

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


Dictionary of National Biography Project
Work: Dictionary of National Biography


TO DO — DNB footer initials[edit]

billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

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 — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

To review[edit]

billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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 12:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

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 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Authors with missing death dates -> Category:Authors without death dates[edit]

explore making this change. They are not missing if they are not dead, so we should cater for both scenarios without confusing things. Only would be missing of the person is alive 130 years after death. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Contributing translator -> header template[edit]

(parking) See if we should plug in a parameter so something like Popular Science Monthly/Volume 3/September 1873/Hypnotism in Animals I can properly represent the translator. Otherwise we can have it as a note as we do for {{illustrator}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Author info[edit]

I was not able to find the death year of Author:Walter Francis, but I think it is findable. Birth data, father's name etc. available at 1 and 2. Father's burial data at 3. Can you help? Hrishikes (talk) 12:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: It will be a tough find. For example looking at 1944 probate records, there are four gentleman of that name. With no reference for place or period of return you are going to be chasing tail and require full diligence in proving claims. You might get lucky if you can find someone to check UK National Archives card index [1]billinghurst sDrewth 13:15, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
FFS You are truly blessed Hrishikes, and I stun myself with my skills and ingenuity. <eyeroll> I will add the data to the talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 19 April 2018 (UTC)
I was already convinced about your skills. Thanks a lot. Amended Wikidata. Hrishikes (talk) 14:40, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Any idea about death year of this author? Hrishikes (talk) 07:25, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done and entered in situ @Hrishikes:. So much easier than fixing wireless network routers and dodgy network cards. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks. Hrishikes (talk) 14:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-18[edit]

16:18, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

Q on copyright, inclusion &c.[edit]

Wondering, because I still don't grasp copyright issues: With regard to this file, I see that 'someone' made the file available under public domain. Was it the uploader or the compiler? There is no link or explanation available anywhere. I am not understanding what is required to have this 'work' uploaded to Commons or WS. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:36, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

<shrug> wrong choice is my guess. I have amended to {{PD-old}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:56, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
OK, I'll belabor. Let me know at what point I should inquire elsewhere.... The poems are indeed 'old', but they are extracted from some other source that is not documented anywhere (see individual Index pages). I was under the impression that copyright protections exist on compilations (with regard to poem order, etc.). When was this particular 'work' compiled, by whom, and did the compiler release the compilation into the public domain? Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:03, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
The LEL works and their appearance always seem to be less than perfect. In the end, they are all published from old sources, so I just gently shake my head, and decide to not upset that apple cart. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Ohkay. Thanks. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:25, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-19[edit]

16:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)

Sorry[edit]

for being a buttinsky. Not my place. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:15, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

There is never a problem to give some a polite poke if you think that they are unnecessarily or indiscriminately pushing a boundary. We are a society, and society needs to keep us within the society norms where an individual may not. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:05, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I thought it more of a misunderstanding... If I thought a boundary was being pushed, I would have gladly left that to you :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:31, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
I wasn't meaning anyone else. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I am befuddled. But I won't belabor. All's well that ends well :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:51, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Template:BLI link[edit]

fix to work with article templates

I am working on that. Is my blackletter styling of the journal title going to be discouraged?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:53, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: {{BLore1 link}}, also, I have requested a sdelete of {{BLI link}}, I am here checking on overall satisfaction, etc.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:49, 12 May 2018 (UTC)
Styles on author pages are not encouraged, as we look to have a standard presentation and one that is able to be done by all. Same with putting styles into any of our header templates. Keeping it simple. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Standard section notation[edit]

This is about the ===header=== notation mentioned on my talk page. All times in my day, but especially early in it, there is a tendency for me to see|read what I want to see|read.

Did you say that this style of h1-6 notation is discouraged?

I have actually and mostly unsuccessfully been trying to include it, as I have read things about getting the TOC from it, etc.

My problem(s) with it include: that there is no guarantee of the nesting once the work or piece of the work is used apart from the main and that it needs to be included in a template for it not to appear previously styled.

Such good news, I really needed to confirm it.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:52, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

@RaboKarbakian: It is not encouraged to be used in the Page: namespace, as generally it does not reflect the formatting of the work. That is not to say never as there may be an occasion, just not usual. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks[edit]

Thank you for cleaning up the mess I left with Sunset (magazine)/Volume 32. Pete (talk) 17:34, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-20[edit]

22:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

POTM[edit]

Hi,

Apologies if I'm being dim, but I wanted to propose a work for POTM, but I can't seem to find a "join" mechanism for the process? I was however pretty sure that just adding my name to the list of members was not the right way of going about things, not only because it appeared rather rude, but also because all I wanted to do was propose one work rather than propose myself as an active participant - I'm afraid I just dip in when I can! In the end I have added Index:In bad company and other stories.djvu to the "List of suggested works not actioned" section of the proposals page. Apologies if this isn't the right way to do it. I think Boldrewood would possibly work for the December short stories collection slot. Although there's quite a lot of Australian science and politics on WS (most of it proofread by you!), I'm not sure there's much fiction, is there? Again, apologies if I haven't followed the correct process. CharlesSpencer (talk) 13:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

WT:POTM is the place for suggestions. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
@CharlesSpencer: If you think it will make a good candidate for December, you can propose it as an "Option B" for December 2018—same page Billinghurst linked to—and remove it from where you listed it at "suggested works not actioned". Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:27, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Mediaeval Leciester Illustration list...[edit]

I've attempted a fix, but it uses a {{nowrap}} to wrap a {{ditto}} that I'm not entirely comfortable with

Page:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu/14 Page:Mediaevalleicest00billrich.djvu/15

Can you review and possibly suggest an alternate? {{TOCstyle}} might be if I can tweak a call to it to have the appropriate leaders.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:39, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Test here User:ShakespeareFan00/Leicester Illustration list test , It looks ugly because of how the leader symbol is being dealt with. (sigh) :(

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:44, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

You know that I don't go near TOCstyle, hence why I prodded. You may wish to see whomever else in the community may be able to assist if that is to be retained. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:33, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

diff of the month[edit]

Right there: https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template%3ABLVolSpeciesheader&type=revision&diff=7440760&oldid=7430767

I have a lot to thank you for but that link is the big one! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:28, 17 May 2018 (UTC) (I took the "Manage" in Manage Template Data button waaay too literally....)

Chapter moves (Eleven years...")[edit]

Many thanks for moving all the chapters from roman to arabic numerals. It was a project I've been putting off for a long time (the lame excuse of this free software fanboy...AWB is one of the very few things that makes me boot up Windows any more, so I rarely do it!) It was only after I was fairly deep into that work that the preference for arabic numerals was pointed out to me.

One quibble, though, maybe worthy of consideration for future moves. I have made a number of links from English Wikipedia and elsewhere to the individual chapters. (["[[Eleven years in the Rocky Mountains and a life on the frontier" chapter site:en.wikipedia.org for instance]) In hindsight, that was a silly thing to do without first resolving the naming thing. However, the lack of redirects now makes it a bit of a project for me to find and fix all of those. I don't mind doing it. (I do mind, a little, that I probably won't find all of them...but such is life.)

In trying to understand what was going on, I found this interesting discussion from 2013. It was an informative read, and @Hesperian: made a valid point I hadn't considered, regarding pages that are moved as part of disambiguation projects. However, I didn't see any points in there in favor of deleting non-disambiguation-related redirects. I also consulted Wikisource:Deletion policy#Miscellaneous, but also came up short on reasons to eschew redirects like this.

Is there something I'm missing? It seems to me that preserving redirects in a case like this has no downside (apart from the "search prefix" thing somebody mentioned, which is probably not that big a deal...is it?) But it has a big upside, in that it keeps our library useful and relevant in ways that are difficult to anticipate. I'd emphasize that one point that I've found never fails to impress academics and librarians, is how liberal Wikipedia is about creating and maintaining redirects. We've all had problems from time to time with deeplinks on corporate, government, and media sites...I like to think that it's one of the things we simply "do better" at Wikimedia.

Is there anything I'm missing here? At this point I'm more interested in the general practice, than in this one particular issue, which I'm happy to address myself. And again, thanks for handling all the page moves! -Pete (talk) 21:39, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Update: I fixed all the links I could find on enwp, enwikt, and enwq, as well as those here on Wikisource. I think that should the specific issue with this work, though there might be a few strays on Commons. -Pete (talk) 00:05, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

@Peteforsyth: Dealing with existing links, and presuming that you used the same linking methodology …

and I fixed the remaining at enWP. 01:41, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for the links, I didn't know about the "insource" code. (Found it documented here, though...nice addition to the old toolbox.) I added "/Chapter" into your code, and it turned up one more stray broken link, which I'll fix. -Pete (talk) 23:55, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

and a created auxiliary when we have the real one? Interesting, as we try not to create what already exists

This template creates a special boxed table of contents within a mainspace page. It is intended for adding tables of contents to works that did not originally feature such a navigation device.

Template:Auxiliary Table of Contents

billinghurst sDrewth 01:49, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
I asked about it at the Scriptorium, and with some advice from more experienced Wikisourcers that's the arrangement we came up with. Seemed at the time like the best of various imperfect choices. I felt that the TOC in the original, which (a) didn't include the "introduction" or the "list of illustrations" and (b) was several pages long, since it included lengthy summaries of each chapter, was not so useful for a digital presentation. However, in hindsight, now that it's complete, I'm not sure I feel that way any more; it's hard to imagine a use case in which somebody knows (by number) what chapter they want to go to, without any indication at all of what's contained in that chapter. To me, it seems "good enough," but if you think it's worth redoing it, I will. However, I'm still not sure I can fully imagine a better alternative...the two-works-in-one-volume thing still makes it a little hard for me to imagine what the front page(s) should look like, in the absence of an auxiliary TOC. Could you describe an alternative, or maybe point me toward an example of a similar work that is better organized in its WS transcription?
Possible alternative: a single front page for both works, with a simplified Aux TOC listing only the Introduction, TOC, and List of Illustrations for each work? -Pete (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
Even that alternative might not be ideal, though. I think it's important to have a "front page" for each of the two works within the volume, so they can be linked to directly. For instance, a web page about George Custer should link to the "front" of that work, with a header that permits navigating to Eleven Years.... Since there are not individual, thorough title pages in the original work, I'm not sure what that "front page" would look like, without an auxiliary TOC. Maybe just very simple ones, like this, with a link to the introduction, TOC, and list of illustrations? (Having to click through from title page to introduction, and then to TOC, to get anywhere within the work seems onerous.) -Pete (talk) 23:46, 20 May 2018 (UTC)
That is covered by that text, and the adequacy of the ToC for navigation. On occasions I have been known to embed "auxiliary ToC" into a Page: ns wrapped in an "includeonly"( where it can be elegantly done. I personally don't find that a long ToC on a root page is problematic, it is presented somewhere, so if it is on the scroll, so what, per My Life in Two Hemispheres. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
I think I've found and implemented a relatively elegant answer...could you please take a look through the early pages of each book and let me know what you think? -Pete (talk) 03:18, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment With regard to redirects. It is one of those imperfect situations with imperfect solutions, and in the end came about from often hard lessons (it took years to fix redirects of moved subpages). It is why we had been strong on our guidance, and had been strong on our patrolling (which has weakened in the past while). I try to capture use of roman numeral chapters early, and maybe I should be writing a filter to flag it earlier. [We should next to never require them for fictional works.] I do wish there was a more ready means to find interwiki links, and maybe I should see if someone has written such a toolforge tool. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:21, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Tech News: 2018-21[edit]

17:33, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Strip first page[edit]

Hi. I finally have some time for the bot deleting/whitening the first djvu page. The idea is that a template in placed on the File page to fix and a bot similar to archiveBot finds the pages, downloads the file, fixes it and re-uploads it. The idea is that wikisource-bot runs it. Few questions. - Does it have a bot flag on Commons?
- Would you mind defining the template & params?
- which actions shall we allow (IMHO no point in just whitening, for new works deleting is most interesting)
- once above is sorted out we can do a few tests locally
What do you think?— Mpaa (talk) 20:30, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

  • Permission is required to run the bot, though not a requirement to have a flag c:Commons:Bots. I don't see that this is a problem, and I am happy to put that proposal to the Commons community.
  • I am a "keep it simple stupid person", I am just seeing that we are wanting to replace a page, for me enhancing it to me runs the risk of fouling the image<->text alignment. I also see that doing it this way stops much malicious use of someone repeatedly snipping front pages. So not sure we need parameters.
  • as the function of IAupload being able to remove the front page, I not particularly inclined to get overly fussed about new files
Where the heck are our previous discussions and work on this, I cannot find them through the archives. I cannot even find the list of files that I prepared which needed the front page removed. Clearly I a useless tonight. I cannot even find where we did the tests in our file: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Worked out how to find it. Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-03#Task proposal for Wikisource-botbillinghurst sDrewth 11:02, 25 May 2018 (UTC)
Can find files at Commons pretty easily c:special:search/"this is a digital copy of a book". Less easy here at that search doesn't work. We do have a good start list at User:Wikisource-bot/Lead google page
OK, I forgot about this discussion. I have created {{blank djvu cover}} at Commons.— Mpaa (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

AWB run[edit]

Why are you removing alt text? Please use {{ping}} if you respond here. —Justin (koavf)TCM 17:23, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

@Koavf: When removing images and relying on the best image from WD, the alt text cannot be certain to align with the image. If we need something like that, then we will need to get it from WD by the legend component. Apart from that ... COI. Also note that AWB is just the tool here, it is all manual as I need to check for image presence, so I am reviewing every change, so this was a purposeful choice. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:23, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
Sorry, if I misunderstand you but you're saying that you deliberately removed alt text? Are you doing that en masse and not replacing it? —Justin (koavf)TCM 05:34, 27 May 2018 (UTC)
It is quite unusual for us to use alt text, it was primarily done where we had a group shoot to identify individuals. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:38, 27 May 2018 (UTC)