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 harp which sounds to good to be true is probably a lyre
System-users.svg 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.

New Student's Reference Work Project
Work: New Student's Reference Work

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:, 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.

Pope Francis's Address to a Joint Session of Congress[edit]

The Pope Francis's Address to a Joint Session of Congress is in the Public Domain because it is a work of the Federal Government. See[1]. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 03:36, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: That the address is published in CR does not make it a work of the US Government. Please find a regarded (legal) opinion that supports that publishing within the Congressional Record overrides the copyright rights of an individual to their work. I have already provided a link to you that the Pope claims copyright of his work. When you have that then please take this as an undelete discussion to WS:CV. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, but I find your claim that the Congressional Record isn't a work of the Federal Government frankly (no pun intended!) ridiculous on its face. The speech was also published by WaPo.[2] If Pope Francis didn't want his speech to enter the Public Domain in the United States, he should have given it anywhere else. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 06:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
However, your claim that a speech given by the Pope is a work of the US Government is specious. The Pope is not a part of the US Government (conspiracy theories aside). The fact that the Washington Post published the text does not release it into the Public Domain either. You need to come up with something better than that. i.e. either show that Francis has released the speech into the Public Domain or the Vatican has released the speech or that US Copyright Law causes the speech to be released. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:50, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
@Kendrick7: How you feel, or how I feel are not particularly pertinent, this should a fact-based discussion. I will not have the argument on my talk page as any argument should be taking place at WS:CV if you wish to pursue as an undelete request. I will happily further expound on the matter when it is there. I ask BWC to not further the discussion here too. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Meh, I don't really care to argue in favor of some other user's version. Tell you what: I'll create the article exactly as I would have done it in the first place, then should you wish, you can delete it, and then we can take it to WS:CV. By the way, re: "I have already provided a link to you that the Pope claims copyright of his work." I am most certain you've confused me with someone else, but I'm well aware, and supportive of the Church's stand on the matter as that money goes to help the poor. Still, I've never seen the matter applied to Papal speeches; although I suppose in your estimation the Vatican lawsuits against Congress, C-SPAN, YouTube, WaPo, the NYT, and several dozen other media outlets will be filed any day now, right? There but for the grace of billinghurst go we.... -- Kendrick7 (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Kendrick7: Please do not simply recreate deleted content. You are aware of the process. Just due to the US Government having printed/published something does not grant them copyright. There are numerous examples of works being reproduced with permission, or being released under a licence that allows reproduction but not one that allows for us to reproduce the work. You need to be more cognizant and respectful of copyright. If you wish for that work to be hosted, then please go through the process to get the author's permission for the work to be hosted under one of our allowable licences. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Re the link to copyright claim, I posted that at User talk: sDrewth 01:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Eh, well, that's not me. Oh well, while I think you're an asset to this project overall, your continued overscrupulousness on this matter is a disappointment. Were I faced with a choice between either (a) There's a vast conspiracy among the United States Congress, the U.S Printing office, C-SPAN, the NYT, WaPo, the Boston Globe, and a few dozen other media outlets to deliberately undermine the fortunes of the Roman Catholic Church, or (b) I'm completely wrong about how copyright works in regards to speeches in real life, I'd pick (b). Somehow, you instead pick (a), and, despite all evidence to the contrary, want some legal justification to show that your (ongoing) crackpot theory isn't wrong (which, since it's a crackpot theory, can never be found). Why you are an admin on this project, and not living in the park and telling passersby that the CIA is trying to control your thoughts remains a mystery for the ages. But what can I do? You're the boss. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 02:27, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
You misrepresent my opinion, I am neither with a) nor b) and that you try to make it a case of FOR YOU or AGAINST YOU is surely a fun argument, but not pertinent, and does not explore the spectrum between those two positions. There is no fair use allowance at enWS, and that is explained at Wikisource:Copyright policy and WS:WWI; works here are at a higher requirement and it is the component of commercial use that you see to be ignoring. As I said, you are welcome to take this to the community via WS:CV, but it needs a more reasoned and evidence-based position than you have managed so far (IMNSHO). — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm happy to argue that the Congressional Record is a work of the Federal Government. Of course, you didn't delete this particular chapter of it as a copy-vio. But if you are willing to concede that copy-vio is your real concern rather than playing games, we can certainly move on to the WS:CV stage. You have plenty of sycophants who will tell you that you are right, and then I will lose. That's on you.
Yet, in the Pope's own words: "Today I would like not only to address you, but through you the entire people of the United States." How is that not an explicit recognition of the role the Congressional Record plays in our democracy? Be reasonable -- Kendrick7 (talk) 01:32, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Will you stop playing the person, it is not a good argument. Let me say that there are next to no sycophants here. People here hold each other to account, and me especially.

If truly believe that the Pope wanted the work released, then go and apply to the Vatican for a release to the public domain, or a licensing that allows re-use. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:14, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Funny how everything Author:Benjamin Netanyahu has ever said to Congress is AOK, since you obviously pay attention. How about you delete those speeches and get back to me? -- Kendrick7 (talk) 22:00, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Done. Thanks for pointing out what was quietly missed. I checked the Israeli gov't site and their copyright statement is much the same as the Pope's, unfortunately. I'm going to double-check the speeches made in the UN General Assembly when I get some more time. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:34, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
Yes, they should have been picked up during patrolling. Feel free to link those works through to on-line versions if they exist. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Life among the Apaches[edit]

Thanks for verifying pages! His writing style and attitudes are typical for his era, which can be a bit tedious. But the book is an American classic, still in print. Can you help with a couple of tech problems?

  • The small cap A.M. and P.M. sometimes render as small cap, sometimes all-cap. I don't know why.
  • I created chapters 1-12 in name space to start looking for helpful wikilinks. Chapters 1-5 show as created on the index, but chapters 6-12 can only be seen using the "next page" in the chapter headers/footers.

What have I done wrong here? If there are typos, I'm not seeing them. --Outlier59 (talk) 02:32, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

@Outlier59: Our (enWS) {{sc}} will only affect lower case text, so where you have upper case, that has no impact (for us that works better as it means that we can wrap larger swathes of text in the template and it doesn't break search engine searches). Don't (overly) sweat it, I will amend these as I work through validation process. I can have a look at the ToC later (when home); I will hazard a (blind) guess that it is not coded for subpages on the ToC. Generally we have to hardcode those links with BASEPAGENAME/SUBPAGENAME. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:07, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
CYGNIS INSIGNIS found the problem with the ToC and fixed it. Parts of the ToC had capitalized "Among" instead of lower-case "among", so the link didn't work. The Library of Congress record uses lower-case. Outlier59 (talk) 13:55, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
Good. The interoperability of case is a bugbear. The modern style appears to be to remove all case except from the lead and proper nouns; yet the older works (our forte) is not. Do not hesitate to create redirects for whichever form you use modern to old, or old to modern. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Wikisource "search" seems to redirect automatically, so that looks OK. But there's some sort of page break error between page 2 and the Dedication page on the main page in namespace. I tried adding NOP to page 2, but that didn't work. Page 2 is wrapping into the Dedication page. Any ideas? (p.s. I'm trying a "ping" for the first time. Let me know if it works or not.) Outlier59 (talk) 01:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
Oh, I applied a solution that seems to work, but noting it here for Billinghurst's sake. My guideline for title creation is to use sentence-case, unless the text itself shows otherwise, so that I stay consistent. I found out later this had been de facto policy for a long time. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 09:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
That works until you get 19th century works like "Australian Legendary Tales"/"Australian legendary tales", so I just say be adept and adapt. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:26, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
How about 'the text, or another appropriate source' for guidance? Your example is a good one. When I redlinked Australian Legendary Tales years ago it was from contemporary reviews of the work from the same publisher, conclusive enough for me then. I think that is what persuaded me to use that style at the other place, more recently, and I never saw it cited another way in any reference or subsequent editions. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 11:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
I now follow the principle that "case is in the eye of the beholder / style guide / ..." and redirects were made available to resolve the issue. Ultimately it is the rendering of the work that should win, and not other hang-ups. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for all the verification work you're doing on this book! I didn't think anyone else would bother verifying it. It really is Classic American literature -- sometimes difficult to relate to these days -- but well worth preserving for us to better understand history. THANK YOU :) ! Outlier59 (talk) 02:15, 31 October 2015 (UTC)

Very welcome. Part of the role of those of us old wikidenizens is to support our new users. I was supported when I joined, and somewhat still these days in other areas. My hope is that you hang around, and can say the same thing to newbies in the years ahead. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth
@Outlier59: You missed strut time! Please look to add Life among the Apaches to the top of the active list in Template:New texts, and bump the bottom from the active list to archive component. Finishing a work is a major achievement and should be celebrated. (as I said STRUT! <g>)

I have been meaning to say, and should have said it earlier, that you have done a great job of your transcription. It has been pretty easy following up on the validation process, and I should be through it in the next few days (hopefully). Congratulations. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:29, 1 November 2015 (UTC)

Um... that's on the Main Page. I think I'll stick with less obvious stuff a bit longer. I still have to "undo" my own edits at times. I'm glad the validation is pretty easy! Maybe you could put Life among the Apaches on the Main Page when you finish validating it? --Outlier59 (talk) 13:20, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
@Outlier59: yes that transcludes to the main page, and we allow logged in users to do so, if we didn't we wouldn't. It is well watched, so we can fix it quickly if anything goes wrong ... let me help ... you want to add the bit
{{new texts/item|Life among the Apaches|John C. Cremony|1868}}
and you will do fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
I added a little image on the title page from the page scan. See if this looks okay - Page:Life_among_the_Apaches.djvu/7. Outlier59 (talk) 14:21, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Name rendering[edit]

I have seen both Herbert Nicholas Todd (For Remembrance...) and Nicholas Herbert Todd (Worldcat) for the same WWI soldier (Private, Queen's Westminsters 1878-1916). Can you confirm which is the correct rendering? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 19:48, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: the latter. I will start putting data in place on the author talk. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:14, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


Thank you. I have another question but with regard to pseudonyms. "Arthur Scott Craven" is the pseudonym for Arthur Harvey-James (not 100% on the hyphenation) (1874?-1917). He was an author/actor/soldier (Captain, Buffs). How should he be listed here? by his pseudonym (my guess, as he published under Craven at least twice.) or his given name? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:51, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Under the real name, redirects from pseudonyms; within the redirects add {{DEFAULTSORT:yyyy, xxx}} and [[Category:Authors-Xx]] so they show on those pages and sort appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Please forgive my dullness, but I don't understand the defaultsort and cat examples. Also, are you able to confirm the hyphenation in the poet's real name? No hurry on any of this; I'm about to call it a night. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:54, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
Here is an extant example: Author:Mark Twain is a redirect to Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens, as you might well have expected; however the redirect page contains extra directives thus:
#REDIRECT [[Author:Samuel Langhorne Clemens]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Twain, Mark}}
{{R from pseudonym}}

AuFCL (talk) 00:08, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
Striking the last template. Superfluous, and unnecessary complexity; an abandoned scheme at enWP from whence it was imported. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:17, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
I was in fact hoping you (or somebody) might clarify that very issue. Might it be too much to ask for some kind of indication of deprecation be applied to any or all of the template, its documentation or even the consequent category Category:Redirects from pseudonyms as appropriate?

Oh, and strikeout does not really work under <syntaxhighlight>. Best it will permit is to highlight the offending line. AuFCL (talk) 01:32, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

It worked good enough for my grade of work, but thanks for a better solution. I was off adding them to WS:PD while you were typing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:42, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks to both. Author:Arthur Keedwell Harvey-James created, along with redirect. I will put my research on the Talk page at some point. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:14, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-45[edit]

16:42, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


Hi. Has something changed in handling {{hws}}? I notice this is now in footer [e.g.].— Mpaa (talk) 19:31, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

Nothing has changed with the template since I last "touched it" well over a year ago. Maybe something is off in @Pathoschild:'s TemplateScript 's application of the template(s)?

Nothing leaps out at me but there have been a few changes made to it today alone never mind over the past few days. -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:29, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

None of the recent TemplateScript changes should cause that, and the proofreading tools will only move content into the footer if it's wrapped with <noinclude>. —Pathoschild 23:40, 02 November 2015 (UTC)
Before anyone else starts puzzling over this, I noticed that Billinghurst placed the hws-text (without a template) in the footer when I was validating a work he did. This has the same effect on the display of a saved page and in main of course, with less effort, but has this unanticipated consequence. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC) [copyedit 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)]
What is the problem here? What is the unanticipated consequence? Are the pages displaying properly in Page:? Are the pages displaying properly in main ns? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:38, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
[I got an edit conflict with Billinghurst, but here's what I wrote...]

Did anyone notice this happening before about 10 am Oct 29? The earlier edits Billinghurst did to Life among the Apaches did not move the hws to the footer. The first hws move to the footer that I see in Apaches was Oct 29 There were a couple of deletion log entries for -- I think -- this talk page about 10 hrs before that edit -- or maybe Cygnis's talk page. Billinghurst wasn't logged on at the time, apparently. Not sure if the deletion log has anything to do with this, I'm just mentioning it.

Most of this is Greek to me, but I know Billinghurst wasn't moving the hws to the footer in Apaches before Oct 29. When I saw it was moved, I just assumed it was something that didn't matter, like expanding "hws" to "hyphenated word start" (which I like to see, because it's clearer for novice editors, but I'm still lazy and use "hws").

I can move the hws in Apaches back from the footer to the body in Apaches if it's important. Let me know. Outlier59 (talk) 01:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

(to the milling crowd) "hyphenated word start" is a junk/bloat template, though one of value for newbies. It does give guidance and make things easier to explain when we work it with "hyphenated word end" — that said both are overblown with three #ifeq: and an <includeonly>. We have to tell users how to handle terminating hyphenated words, and it is easier to explain to newbies to use the template pair to achieve the look, especially back at the time of the creation of the template pair in 2008 — when our header/footer component of Proofread Page was trashy. That said, the former template does come with unnecessary burden, and is not a requirement, ie. transcluding a complex template into the main namespace for zero benefit (when display work is done by "hwe"), so sometimes when I am validating I move it out of the way, and I personally never use it when I transcribe a page — as C.I. says, I just put the hyphenated word to the footer.

@Outlier59: You have done absolutely nothing incorrect, and have transcribed beautifully and used the templates properly. If I had had any concerns or suggestions, I would always come to you directly. My expansion of templates is cosmetic, use of the abbreviated templates is fine. My clean up script expands them as I validate. This harks back to c.2010 to a conversation that new users don't have to guess on obscure abbreviations. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:17, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, why did you ignore before or when you made your edits? Outlier59 (talk) 02:51, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
There is a script for hws / hwe that a formatted template at the first or last word. The template documentation says they must be used as a pair, it is useful for finding when someone has forgotten to apply one or the other. I don't see this template as junk, the name (if expanded) allows a new or used user to grasp that something is going. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 03:19, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
1) I said junk template, as it throws away its input ... not that it is junk. I said that they were useful for beginners, and I kept it. That does not stop it being bloat, or superfluous. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:53, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Nevertheless, you're assuming the current solution to hyphenated words split across Page: breaks will be a permanent one while also assuming the properties of the PR extension and/or transclusion itself are never going to change at the same time. Thanks an unnecessary gamble in my book. And any perceived savings in "resources" is a false one since the templates are only in play in the Page: namespace by design regardless of being placed inside or outside of the non-included footer.

And why deviate from the approach basic enough for beginners to easily follow in the first place? Have a preference for introducing confusion? (evidenced by this section). -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:24, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

  • You are presuming that anything done at any time works, and that our local solution is completely functional anyway, especially when it isn't implemented xwiki. Those statements are presumptuous and scaremongering.
  • Have you looked at the number of "hws" are transcluded to the main ns? Then come back and tell me that they are only in play in the Page: ns. Don't confuse visible versus functional and present.
  • Re confusion ... I was asked a question, and a number of people jumped in, causing confusion rather than waiting for an informed answer that would have quickly resolved the matter.
  • I have commented previously about this wasteful template, I just choose not to make it a song and dance. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
Ah you are correct about the minor resource hit processing the null end of the #ifeq statement relying on a particular namespace. I totally forgot this silly implementation is all about avoiding the insertion of the unwanted space at page break instead of simply dealing with showing the hyphen in one namespace not the other. And even that wouldn't be too much of an issue to overcome if inline embedded page links were the default rendering instead of off to the left in a faux "margin".

My point nevertheless is reinforced - no scaremongering whatsoever too - by the various requests either to kill this auto-insertion of an extra space altogether or to introduce new a <hyphen /> tag to handle this or the idea to get the parser/Parsoid to fully support the &shy html code-word - all Phabricator tasks you yourself have participated in or know about. I think its safe to presume this implementation won't last forever in light of just those few open avenues mentioned in resolving this. - George Orwell III (talk) 09:55, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

The reason why I asked is that I have always seen it used at the bottom of a page (as indicated in the template doc), so I thought it was a "standard" for some reason. That said, I am for one consistent approach across the project rather than many flavors of it. Easier to maintain. That's it.— Mpaa (talk) 17:28, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
So maybe—to keep things consistent in Apaches—I could nip in and make a few minor page edits to move the hws from the footer to the body, if the hws happened to slip into the footer. I'll start within a day or two, if I don't hear any objections. I could use the editing practice. :) Outlier59 (talk) 02:04, 4 November 2015 (UTC)

Author pages without image[edit]

Hi, there! I have noticed that disambiguation pages are sorted into Category:Author pages without image, which albeit correct is probably not desirable. Just a suggestion:) Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 03:13, 3 November 2015 (UTC).

I don't think that it is worth fussing. The category can be interpreted as pure authors, author template pages, or author ns pages and they are all the same ideally. There is a means to set categories to null by recoding though I think that it becomes of next to no value. Are you seeing difficulties with the output? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:09, 3 November 2015 (UTC)
I use this (and similar) categories a lot (via dynamic pagelist) to cross-check author space. So the drawback for me is that I need to to add notcategory=author disambiguation pages every time. But you are right, it's not worth the fuss.
A quick question about a (slightly) related issue. There are 37 pages in Category:Author redirects, all manually added. Should this category be added to "Redirect tagging templates" deletion discussion? Cheers, Captain Nemo (talk) 07:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC).
I think that the redirected templates can just be "fixed", and the category will be emptied if the deletion discussion is successful, so it will be deleted without other effort. The addition of defsort and category:Authors-Xx is only for where they need to show where they are required to show a difference from the result. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

subst:em not working on your AWB edits[edit]

Hi, I don't know why you are replacing {{em}} with {{subst:em}}, as it makes the source look like gobbletygook—but regardless, I just wanted to let you know that your substitution isn't working properly and is just inserting {{subst:em}} into the text, see for example Page:The Bab Ballads.djvu/111. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I will put that into the fix queue immediately, it has got caught up with the diacritics template fixed. [Geeze we have some antiquated templates that need to be cleansed more often.] — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
Heads up sequences like {{gap}}{{gap}}{{subst:em}} (no kidding: turns up in places like Page:Ruddigore.djvu/57) still confuse your script. The fact it is even attempting this is impressive but the result has unbalanced braces (above example yielded {{gap|5em}}}—note too many }s.) I have fixed all cases I have observed but please overhaul the script if still applicable. AuFCL (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Yep, I am leaving the remainder of Ruddigore to last, as they need manual attention and I will change out of bot mode, it wasn't working in AWB. It wasn't the script at all (AWB/small screen/... STOP!) — billinghurst sDrewth 01:08, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Now I am just confused. Have my corrections just made things worse; or should I just hold off looking for a day or so until presumably things settle down? AuFCL (talk) 01:25, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
No, you are perfectly fine. I was more saying that I realised that Ruddigore could have been problematic, and I skipped the remainder and was going to manually review those done already, and those that needed to be done, ie. try to validate the pages in a traditional manner. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:32, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Just in case you are wondering what all those change notations along the lines of float right is broken in this context on Ruddigore pages, I have finally isolated the trigger (any suggestions why this fails solicited: I'm at a bit of a loss!)

Whenever {{float right}} appears within <poem> the floated content displays with correct left-right alignment but one full line below where it is expected. Worse still it will be found to overlapping the following line if that line happens to be a long one.

I have made an exceptionally ugly work-around but of course might be just trying to second-guess a peculiarity of my own browser? (I've made up a small test/demo matrix here) AuFCL (talk) 09:36, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

It is f'd in FF, so if you are using another browser then the answer is it is not just your browser. <poem> looks nice when it is swimming as a swan, but less pleasant when it is feeding. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:26, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Good analogy. I should have stated I am using FF so no new info there. <poem> is not at all my favourite fowl and I avoid introducing it on principle; however lots or people luuurrrve it for some reason. AuFCL (talk) 11:37, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
The poem tag is the first example used in Help:Poetry, and appears to be illustrated as the standard formatting for poetry on that page,—even though block center & gaps ("direct formatting") is offered as an alternative. Many just don't like bothering with all the breaks. Perhaps note should be made on the Help page about any technical down-side to the use of the poem tag, and then perhaps many new Users will opt for direct formatting instead from the outset. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:52, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Same in Chrome. Convenience. The answer lies in the history, and that was the means to indent without collapsing the spaces or getting the <pre> effect. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:56, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
Oops. I goofed regarding Page:Ruddigore.djvu/43. Got distracted on other matters and made the {{em}}/{{gap}} decision the wrong way. Thanks or pass it on to sdrewthBot as you see fit for correcting the situation. AuFCL (talk) 14:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-46[edit]

17:18, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Author:Archibald Campbell[edit]

note to self to find and re-add author research. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Leonard-Hampson Rudd[edit]

I've another translator who doesn't seem to be listed in the LoC Authority records: Author:Leonard-Hampson Rudd. Everything I know is given on the author page, which isn't much. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:16, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done not going to get a birth date, best we can say is c/1816. — billinghurst sDrewth
Thanks. One of my long-term goals here is to get a really broad range of translations of (and works about) ancient Greek drama. Too much great Victorian scholarship in this area is going unused because it's hard to access. Even the Internet Archive and Google Books don't have some of the key works; Some major US libraries don't own copies; and (as you can see) some of the scholars aren't even in the LoC or VIAF database. It's sad in a way, although it does leave me something very meaningful to work on here, especially knowing as well that the time I'm spending will add value to the internet as a whole. So, thanks again (very much) for the help you've provided. --EncycloPetey (talk) 06:52, 15 November 2015 (UTC)


Mind resolving the issue with Author:John Gwenogfryn Evans so that the clean-up on Wikidata can proceed? -- Gymel (talk) 09:36, 15 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done @Gymel: No need to paste a merge, we are happy for competent people to make one a redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 15 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. But emphasis on competent I couldn't even decide which form of name would be the more appropriate... -- Gymel (talk) 13:52, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-47[edit]

19:39, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Another FYI[edit]

Not trying to indict you specifically here ('cause we're all guilty of doing it) here but I came across a recent example of yours that leans heavily towards being a factor as why to 'certain things cached' go buggy all of the sudden while other seemingly similar instances do not. At the worst, the following might be best thought of simply as 'bad practices we should avoid making'.

It seems this sort of practice where a "dependent" page is created prior to the creation of it's "base" or "master" page (e.g. not created as a result of a formal move/merge &action= in this case) may be a factor in a failed (or ridiculously slow) recursive link refresh that is normally invoked whenever certain actions (edits, protection levels, etc.) are made to the "base" page at some point in time later on.

In other more real world terms, we've all seen when any given article/page edit is 'not reflected' in an associated entity within a reasonable amount of time afterwards (if ever) -- particularly when the edit affects things like [re]categorization, Page:/File: moves, changes affecting the PRding status, context changes via redirects and the so on. Typically we can overcome these types of "hangs" easily enough by manual purges or null-edits -- but that's only applicable when we're lucky enough to notice the "hang" individually somehow.

In short: We've all discovered "stuff" last "touched" months ago but still do not reflect that "touch" in the relevant "dependencies" as expected; purging one thing or the other usually "fixes" things in short order. Who knows how many "hangs" go unnoticed, how long they've been that way and what effect that my have elsewhere (if at all). The best way to minimize such know unknowns IMHO is to try to avoid the practices that create such hangs in the first place.

So for the sake of [possibly] averting/reducing such 'lack of refreshing' / 'frozen caching' issues -- geared for dummies, here are some examples we should start considering as bad practices if not proven factors behind documented quirks...

  • Do not manually create a redirect to a target article/page before that target article/page actually exists first.
  • Do not [in]directly add/modify categorization links to articles/pages before those categories are in place first.
  • Do not manually create Page:s until it's host Index: exists first (and I'm guessing a pagelist "touch" should have been applied beforehand as well; ex. <pagelist 1=1 />)
  • Do not manually create an Index: unless it's source File: exists first.
  • Do not manually create what amounts to orphaned Talk: pages if their associated main page is not "accounted" for first.
  • ... I'm sure there are other instances or variations that fall into the same vein that I'm forgetting here; please list them if you can think of any

This phenomenon should not be confused with things like the addition/presence of "red" interlinks found within actual content however. There are class & API(?) mechanisms in place that [supposedly] 'accounts and corrects' for changes similarly affecting such cases. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:52, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

This is solely a case of prior to hitting save while waiting for someone to do a translation from German I fell asleep driving the keyboard. I normally create redirect and pages in close order. If we are having issues with refreshes not happening, then we raise phabricator requests to get them fixed. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:57, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Understood and, as I stated, we all seem to do some sort similar "close order" shortcut so this is not meant to be accusatory -- just illustrative. And my points do come from Phabricator findings and/or theories dealing with the "refresh failure" phenomenon -- the point being there are many possible factors in any number of variations that might be causing rFs ; one factor might be how 'timestamp affects listing' in short.

Think of the listed results when selecting What links here; the list of results are ordered from oldest to latest, right? Most other [default] 'listings' are also given in terms of oldest to latest; right?

So there probably is a significance when it comes to timestamp(s) of a "base" article (or &action=) against any of its possible "dependents" (a File: to it's Index:, an Index: to it's Page:s, an ns-0 to it's ns-1 [or it's redirect]) when things (in the API) like the &action=purge&forcerecursivelinkupdate=1 command or anything &iiprop=metadata query are 'involved' with normal "refreshing". Things can get "hung-up" if something like creation timestamps aren't in the expected order or the fact a manual redirect doesn't transfer the PAGEID (w/ an older creation timestamp) to the new target like a formal move action does.

Any of that help make more sense of things up for you? -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:39, 20 November 2015 (UTC)


Dear B. Recommend you open up proper public consultation upon your crusade to deprecate above before I do. I'll give you a week. Just letting you know as I am sure you really don't want me to get the first word in... AuFCL (talk) 08:37, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Do as you please AuFCL. Too busy, too tired, too many RL things, for an argument at the moment. Love your language, always use hyperbole, and you seem completely unaware or uncaring about it and its use. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:42, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Oh goody. A free pass. Don't say I didn't warn. AuFCL (talk) 11:10, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
@AuFCL: I'm sure that's not your intent, but the above came across to me as rather confrontational (a term like "crusade" is not particularly neutral), bordering on being outright threatening; which is likely to be detrimental to good collaboration and achieving consensus. Possibly you've let some accumulated frustration leak through into your prose? In any case, I would suggest you keep an eye out for such issues when copy-editing your consultation to give it the best chance possible of being a constructive discussion and of establishing some more solid community consensus on which to base editing decisions. Nobody is served by conflict and acrimonious discourse. --Xover (talk) 09:13, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

To state the obvious, I disagree with your decision in all of policy, detail, (lack of) open consultation and potential abuse of trusted status aspects. However I simultaneously acknowledge in all likelihood you will dismiss any argument I advance as hyperbolic. Thus I shall not waste my time either. Make a fool of yourself as if you do that will be my vindication, if not this time then next or the one after. (And if this happens to prompt you to using a bit of brainpower from time-to-time that might be no loss either.)

I do not want to deal with you in any explicit capacity ever again. Stay out of my way and I'll happily reciprocate. And the same applies in proportionate extent Xover—your involvement may have been well-meant but ignores much accumulated history. AuFCL (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

In relation to page numbering style[edit]

Can you PLEASE agree with the other contributor User_talk:ShakespeareFan00#Non-standard_pagelists here on ONE standard style for page-numbering?

Otherwise I am going to get a little frustrated when I am told different things by different contributors. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:21, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

Would you mind providing an explanation?

In the edit previous to your revert, I'd already updated the pagelist in order to resolve one of the concerns expressed by others, you revert made this volume inconsistent with the others. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:19, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

They are all now consistent. What you are doing is wrong, and you should desist. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Well perhaps you could ask the other contributor who asked me to deal with the "non-standard" pagelists to give a further explanation on what the correct style (which can't be contested) is so that we can avoid mis-understandings in the future? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:24, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
And I'd reverted this one Index:A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen, vol 1.djvu back to your last edits based on the reverts on the other vloumes, It is NOT now consistent with the rest of them. Rather than do yet another revert, I will ask a simple question, What numbering style was CORRECT for this work? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:32, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Pagelists- A Simple question. (Comments left for Beeswaxcandle)[edit]

You ask me to have another look at non-standard pagelists, I do this, only to be told by another contributor that I was doing something wrong in updating them per the notes you left on my talk page.

I am now more than a little disappointed,

I will ask a series of simple questions.

1. Which pagelists (specifically those that I directly added) are non-standard? 2. What is the correct numbering style (that can't be contested)?

I'd also appreciate it if you could consult with the other contributor to update the Manual of Style you refer to so that mus-understandings like this can be avoided in the future. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:40, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

OK enough![edit]

I am halting my efforts to cleanup pagelists, until the following occurs:

1. I am provided with a list of which Index's which are considered problematic ( In terms of being inconsistent/non-standard). (I'm more than willing to cleanup anything contentious, provided there's a clear, strategy) 2. There's a consensus about which format to use. 3. The concerns raised earlier in this page concerning specfic reverts to a specfic Index mentioned therein are resolved. It seems my reverts and your talk page message seem to have passed each other by, so it would be appreciated if you could let me know which version of Index concerned is the "correct" version.

Also I'd like to apologise if I seemed a little tetchy in earlier comments. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:05, 21 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-48[edit]

20:26, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Tech News: 2015-49[edit]

16:16, 30 November 2015 (UTC)