User talk:Billinghurst/2017

From Wikisource
Latest comment: 6 years ago by EncycloPetey in topic FT protection
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mein Kampf

Please unprotect Mein Kampf. There is a public domain English translation of Author:James Vincent Murphy. See this. United Kingdom is now in 2017. [1] --Abelium (talk) 00:13, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Undeletion requests should be made to WS:PD. Unprotection requests belong at WS:ANbillinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

Moves

Thanks I have all of them in my browser and am doing them now. Feel free to do them if you want but I'm mostly done anyway. —Justin (koavf)TCM 02:42, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Soft redirect for titles referring to persons

Hi, Billinghurst. "Edmund Clarence Stedman" is a title with several versions. Considering the reference (link) to the poem in this letter (see the word "sonnet"), it would seem that a direct link to a versions page (rather than searching for a reference at an author page which—considering the length of some author pages—would be daunting) would be more logical in such cases. See also: What links here. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:33, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It is an interesting conundrum as we have many works about authors, looking for consistency, and in how many places should we be linking them. And then it needs to be considered with all other works that we have about people. I have started a conversation earlier today at WS:S#Disambiguation: merge these? and its subpart as I am stepping through maintenance, your input into that would be great. Re links, they will be fixed, and we can tighten the redirect to a specific anchor on the author page. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll think through this. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:09, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Works

Me again. For changes/updates to titles, do we manually change Wikisource:Works pages? I am not familiar with their nature. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:08, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: At this point of time, yes, manual it is. You could try to speaking to Sanbeg to see what he did way back in 2013 and doing it again, though his activity is not high anymore. I also note that we only have A-C, so maybe there is no point and it was a big task. Special:PrefixIndex/Wikisource:Works

Page views doesn't show much viewing of the A-C, though shows light viewing of the 2016 page. So maybe it is a rethink that is required before putting lots of effort into manual pages.

I would love to move to an automated system, however, our information push to wikidata is poor for works/main namespace, though good for authors. <shrug /> — billinghurst sDrewth 06:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you. Wikidata is also something I do not yet fully understand the workings of. Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:32, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
@Londonjackbooks: Wikisource:Wikidata It is basically a store of the metadata of our pages, and the same for other sites. So there is one page at wikidata that collects information on Coates. At this stage it is provides us interwiki links and image data, so if someone uploads an image about Coates then it will display here. due to how we set things up. If we move a (linked) page here, it updates the link so any site using wikidata to maintain links would get the updated url automatically, etc. Ultimately much of the metadata can be stored there in the one place, and we leverage that source. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:47, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

19:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Validation assistance

Note: I've also posted this request to Akme, who is usually fast, but has not been sround much the past few days.

Would you be able and willing to assist me by validating a work? I've just finished proofreading, and wouldn't normally be so rushed to have it validated, but I started this work in order to feature it this February.

The work is The Clandestine Marriage, and co-author David Garrick (the Laurence Olivier of his age) has his 300th birthday this February. It's also a comedy play on a topic suitable for Valentine's, so it seemed a good choice when I started it, but serious health issues have delayed my proofreading, and now only three weeks remain to have the work validated, nominated, and approved in order to feature it as originally planned.

Would you be able to assist? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:32, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I am not the greatest fan of the long s character, and unfortunately at this moment I don't have the necessary patience to wade my way through such texts. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

works in portal namespace

Why move The West Australian times to portal namespace? It's a work, isn't it? If works now belong in portal namespace not main namespace, then I've missed a memo.... Hesperian 02:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

It is moribund, there is no project, nor evidence of any transcriptions, no scans, and that makes the alternatives to move it, or submit it for deletion. From the portal namespace we can do some more freestyle work to point to components. It also frees up the main namespace to only present the works that we (will) have, not put forward works we do not. It also allows for for presentation of parts of newspapers as we have done for many others. Any transcription, if they ever come, will clearly be in the main namespace, not the Portal: ns. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Import from Commons

Can you please import from Commons this file? It was deleted as per this discussion. Hrishikes (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

@Hrishikes: Done please mark it with {{do not move to commons}} and with an expiry =; and any other maintenance it requires. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Done, and thanks. By the way, about this author. The birth year is not available in the usual authority control sites (Viaf, Lccn etc). So if you have got it from some special source, I think it should be mentioned in the author talk page. Regards, Hrishikes (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
My point was not about Bradley Birt. And there is no element of challenge. :-) Hrishikes (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Oh in the hidden text. Overt is so much better, or new headings or subheadings. FWIW I referenced it at Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:28, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Index:FirstFolioInquiry.djvu

Another file deleted at Commons, the parallel discussions being:-

The issue here was an incompatible license on what appeared to be a 2005 work.

I've marked the pages here for speedy, if they should be blanked as per other suspected copyvios, let me know. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Thanks you ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:18, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

23:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

18:16, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

20:14, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

18:45, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Populate

Are we deprecating the {{populate}} template? [24] --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:36, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Nope. There was a work, and the purpose is to get rid of a listless section. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 31 January 2017 (UTC)

Deletion of Index

Hello, Billinghurst. I have uploaded a File to Commons that has duplicate pages and missing pages. I created the Index here, but wish to delete it (as well as the File at Commons). No proofreading has been done. Is all that is required to delete an un-proofread Index is to perform the single deletion of the Index itself? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:24, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: presumably you are going to find alternate versions, if that is the case and the same book data applies, you can just upload a new file version at Commons, and then purge and regenerate the local index. If that is not the case and they do need deleting, you can just label at commons with {{delete}} and here {{sdelete}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
I requested deletion of the bad file at Commons, and uploaded a new file. Can I not delete the Index here myself without requesting a speedy delete? If not, where do I place a {{sdelete}} tag on an Index in edit mode? Thanks again, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2017 (UTC) P.S. The ping did not work for some reason. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:51, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Just to update you, EncycloPetey is guiding me through this matter. Thanks for your help! Londonjackbooks (talk) 16:03, 1 February 2017 (UTC)

Messed up!

Hello again. I've just realised that someone else has already started on another edition of the book I've been working on!

I started Index:Round the Yule Log.djvu (1881, 1st ed.), and transcluded the story I was working on at Peter Gynt, but then found this later edition republished under another title Index:Christmas Fireside Stories.djvu (1923) which is typeset exactly page-for-page, line-for-line (the only difference is that it actually corrects the one typo I noticed, which makes me want to use the later edition for the mainspace if at all possible).

Would you recommend I move the pages to the new title (only 5 pages: Page:Round the Yule Log.djvu/169 to 174), and delete the new index I made, or should I copy and paste to the new one, or start again on the 1923 edition from scratch? I'd be happy to double check my proofreading against the other edition to make sure it matches word for word.

Sorry for the hassle! --YodinT 13:26, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

@Yodin: Umm .... We work on authoritative editions, and each edition is pertinent and usually different. So we wouldn't normally delete an index of a work. So you can choose whichever you wish to work upon, and the criteria is yours, though there can be guiding factors like English vs American spelling, art work, first edition, etc., It is neither right nor wrong for either edition, and we have scope for managing multiple editions of works, there are multiple examples of this. Each edition gets its own wikidata entry, so that isn't a hurdle. So whichever is your preference is my response. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Smith v. United States (508 U.S. 223)

Hi Billinghurst. I made the changes you suggested. Feel free to edit further. Thanks for the feedback. - Wesboson (talk) 00:56, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for your guidance. --V.narsikar (talk) 14:05, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I am bothering you. Please see this page now, which is finalised after proofreading. Should I proceed this way? After your nodding, I will continue.--V.narsikar (talk) 15:08, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
@V.narsikar: Please excuse the delay in replying. Generally in our community we would utilise Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help, it allows for a broader commentary, and usually something more time-responsive. Personally, I look to simplify formatting, rather than more complex. I have had a hack at the page, though it is only in the context of the page. Sometimes one can only make a good assessment when you finally transclude the work. With that in mind I have found that you can add some complexity to the formatting then if you need to, and somewhat easily. Undoing a lot of complex formatting is a PITA. Another pointer to remember is that while we are starting on a page, we transclude to a work/chapter/... so we need to have that a way of thinking as we attack a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

19:45, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Need some help with sidenotes

I'm having an issue with "left sidenotes" being displayed on the right hand side of the page in the Main namespace. Can you help me out? See these two texts: The Consumer Protection (Amendment) Act, 1991 and The Representation of the People (Amendment) Act, 1991. Ciridae (talk) 12:36, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

Ugh. It is way to late for me to start fiddling with whatever f-up has gone on with the styles. @Samwilson: how is your css? GOIII has left us with a spaghetti pile of configurations that I find hard to unpick. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:14, 13 February 2017 (UTC)~
I've managed it somehow. I'm using the "outside L" template for Left sidenotes and it works fine in Mainspace (and Pagespace). Ciridae (talk) 13:22, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
@Ciridae: Okay, I knew that it would, but making that change would have needed explaining. The "outside" templates have all their css code internal, whereas "sidenotes" have had their css moved into our global styles (well that and other places), and as such have morphed into a more complex beast which does my head in! <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 21:56, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

18:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)

09:40, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Vandalism question

Re: recent activity at Author:Abraham Lincoln: The anon user used two related ip addresses; if you were to block the user (I chose not to in this case), would you block both addresses, or is there another way of handling it? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:22, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Wonderful and the wonder of IP addresses. In this situation you can block them either individually or with a range statement 64.254.67.30/31 (two adjacent numbers from an even number upwards). If they come back where the variation is in the last set of numbers then you would block the range 64.254.67.0/24. There is logic and information about IP addresses and ranges (with which I will not bore you unless you ask), so feel able to block a xxx.xxx.xxx.0/24 for a short period, its likely impact on other users will be slim and will manage someone hopping around the range. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:39, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

19:25, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

19:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

I blew it :(

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help#Aligned_table_can.27t_be_spanned_over_pages... for the background.

I managed to ask about something which I am sure based on the response WAS previously raised (and most likely by myself.) The logic of the solution is obvious, and I am considering adding a note to the relevant templates documentation, unless you can think of a better location, for helpful approaches like that suggested.

I think that as I've been working rather hard on one specific item recently, I've blown a fuse, or forgotten certain techniques I used elsewhere. This is not a good sign given that I have something of maverick reputation on English Wikisource.

I'm considering scaling back on my involvement, if I am not able to meet the exacting standards, I'd like to think people here would support. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 01:41, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

I personally find your solutions bigger than the problem. The amount of effort to work how a template like that would work is harder than doing tables, and if one gets something wrong it is just next to impossible to identify where is the problem. You get into trouble as your proofreading can lack thoroughness and go off on tangents to create things like these templates which no one understands or thinks that they should have to fix. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Are there any performance comparisons for {{aligned table}} vs multiple {{ts}} calls? The performance concerns were the only reason I was using aligned table recently anyway. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I also appreciate English Wikisource doesn't have the same resources as million dollar paid projects do, but it would sometimes be nice to see progress towards long-term rectification of some of the shortcomings as opposed to the "bigger problem in the solution" approaches you've specfically called me out on. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:34, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
User:ShakespeareFan00/Sandbox/tables2, In the process of trying to simplify something down properly, I'm using the DOCUMENTED approach here Help:Page_breaks#Tables_across_page_breaks if this is incorrect then the documentation needs someone else to update it, as at this point my wikistress is very high, and I don't want to break even more pages, unintentionallyShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:07, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
To look at the differences in how the system manages the transclusions, you will need to look at a produced page through the show code of your browser, there is a html remarked summary towards the bottom of each page.

I didn't call you out on anything. You asked and I commented on what I saw, and how I don't wish to spend my time here sorting through your issues (philosophical difference on approach). BTDT, it caused a ruckus, I now leave it alone. I do a whole lot of onwiki work across numerous wikis, I don't particularly have the time and patience to resolve issues where I do not agree with the approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I got a little heated. If you didn't call me out on anything then I am (as is typical) over-reacting. I will note that in simplifying down one of the templates I found a LOT of logic errors, which meant it would NEVER have worked quite the way it was intended to, I also found quite a few issues with the pages I thought I'd proofread (sigh). I a agree with you about not having the time to "defuse exploding users", sometimes the best approach is stand well back and wait for the fireworks to stop :( ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 23:06, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Archaic spelling in titles...

In giving something a second look I thought it might be worth noting some things in regard to older titles. - Page:Public General Statutes 1896.djvu/34

However {{SIC}} to me would seem to be more for printer errors, which isn't what's happening here. There did not seem to be an {{archaic}} to mark titles/spellings which whilst correct are not necessarily modern usage.

Would it be reasonable to consider forking {{SIC}} so that an additional note can be added in the popup?

The thought was to write some like {{oldspell}} or something. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:38, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

These are matters that you should submit to the community rather than posed here. — billinghurst sDrewth 19:20, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource:Requested texts and SpBot

Looks like SpBot's inaugural run on Wikisource:Requested texts didn't go so well. Are you familiar enough with the template that summons it to debug it? Prosody (talk) 04:06, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Prosody. I have reverted that and will look at it prior to SpBot's next run. It will probably be my error. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:11, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Done btw and now working — billinghurst sDrewth 22:00, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Public Domain

Hi, how can I find works in the public domain to add to Wikisource? I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 21:58, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

@I herd you liek mudkips: Numbers of sites have works that are able to be imported, you can have a look from Wikisource:Sources, all depends on your interests. You will still need to work out whether they are definitely public domain and able to be uploaded. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. Just checked, and Project Gutenburg was listed. Can I then upload books from there? I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
@I herd you liek mudkips: (hesitantly) Yes. While books can be transferred from Project Gutenberg it is not our preference, as they cannot be further validated, and often they don't have edition information +++. As part of our aim is to broaden the range of works available most of us prefer to import a scanned version and work from there from first principles. If you are looking for something upon which to work which are already here, then look at Category:Index Not-Proofread for 6000+ from which to choose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:42, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. And if you have time, check out my post at Author_talk:Jules_Verne, as I found another source for a work I would like to have on Wikisource. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 22:47, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

23:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

An email sent

An email sent to your email ID through talk page.

Warm Regards

Mahitgar (talk) 11:55, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I have forwarded your email to the provided email address with an explanation of the easier choices and will see what their advice will be. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
@Mahitgar: FYI I have yet to receive a response. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:54, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry I missed your response. Temporarilly problem got sorted out after few phone calls students got used to the situation and managed it; When their next new batch will come up then a support may be required. Besides I reuest is forwarded to User:Titodutta who is working with CIS and is an admin on en:wp too for support in this regards.
Thanks for your prompt support. and warm regards
Mahitgar (talk) 14:06, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Unarmoured ships

Please see the Thomas Brassey page, which shows that Unarmoured Ships was his work, not that of his son, Thomas Allnutt Brassey, who was 12 at the time of publication. (Thomas Brassey, 1st Earl Brassey married Anna Allnutt, and her maiden name appeared as their son's middle name). - The Bounder (talk) 11:25, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. If you make changes like that you can see the importance of utilising the edit summary.
True, but it's a salutory lesson in not just knee-jerk reverting too. - The Bounder (talk) 11:32, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Considerations on the state of Ireland

I have validated this work, except that the overhanging footnote on pp. 18–19 is not fully transcluding. I'm not sure how to fix this; perhaps you could have a second look? Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 19:57, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

@BethNaught: Thanks, Done forced it with html.

(long saga) For what it is worth there is a phabricator ticket in place as mw:Extension:Cite doesn't play well in the transclusions with <includeonly> and some other wiki-created tags, and when we wanted rows from a table even more problematic. I had prodded them again and had used it as an example, so I had left it unresolved. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:45, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Good job there, thanks. I've now finished the validation. BethNaught (talk) 22:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

15:25, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

WD error?

Something happened at WD (I think) to cause WD-linked image error messages on author pages (see Author:Florence Earle Coates). I only contacted you because you were last(?) to edit this page, which may be involved? 12:33, 16 March 2017 (UTC)Londonjackbooks (talk)

@Londonjackbooks: Thanks. The pages that I checked when it I updated the modules didn't have the right combinations of pulled image with trying to edit. Weirdly when I reverted it didn't return to normal. I have had to change the way that the author template works, so I am not sure what is happening there. (I dare not play more at this hour, and in fact would have preferred to not play now! <deskthunk>) @Samwilson: I had to change from getValue to getRawValue. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 13:50, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Friendly advice

Recently when looking over some of your proofreads, e.g. at POTM, I noticed a consistent error you make which I wish to politely point out: namely, that you often render "per cent." as "per cent,". This has happened in multiple works so I wanted to make you aware of it for the future. Thanks, BethNaught (talk) 12:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

On reconsideration I realise that might have sounded rather passive-aggressive. Sorry if so, it wasn't meant in that way. BethNaught (talk) 14:52, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

17:02, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

22:03, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Author:Gaius Valerius Flaccus

Hello Billinghurst, how're you? Two questions: 1) in Author:Gaius Valerius Flaccus, what category should I use for his "deathyear" ("c. 90 AD" doesn't exist)? 2) Is it okay to create pages for authors like that, i.e. of which Wikisource currently has no texts, except for "Works about" them (e.g. Encyclopædia Britannica articles)? Thanks ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:25, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

If they are authors, and they have works present or referenced at enWS, or one of the sisters, then by all means create an author page and add it to wikidata. Re death year, there is no requirement to do anything now, when you link it to WD it will import the death date from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:29, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I see. I've never edited Wikidata, but will look into it. Thanks again. ~ DanielTom (talk) 12:32, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

In regard to some recent issues...

A quick question, Do you have the ability to transwiki content to Commons?

Someone mentioned in the relevant Commons discussion, that some form of disclaimer template would be appropriate ( on a work that the rest of the world considers public domain..) about the quasi/non copyright distribution restriction in the UK.

There was already a template here {{PD-nonUK}} that I've boldly reworded earlier ( You are free to revert this editing!).

Having expressed my concerns at Commons and locally, I am not going to comment further, other than to possibly mention the local template in the relevant Commons discussion. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:41, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Pages can be transwiki'd; files cannot, which is why we use the tools. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:19, 23 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you. I said I would not comment further. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:57, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

14:46, 27 March 2017 (UTC)

17:53, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

FYI I have created a project page "Wikisource:WikiProject Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition", it is a copy with modification of WS:EB1911. -- PBS (talk) 09:39, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

18:34, 10 April 2017 (UTC)

Alumni Oxonienses (1715-1886)

Now 5% done, and I want to continue to open up the work. Today the typo "Oxoniensis" leapt out at me. It's on the Index pages of the four volumes, and in Page: space; so also in the transclusions. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

Yep. Old mistakes, fortunately doesn't impose. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Offputting, in its way. A heads up: volume 3, I'm finding, has many more OCR mistake that switch numerals, than the first two. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:57, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the reminder

I'm learning so much, yet forgetting to sign. I need to set up automatic signing. Thank you for the welcome!A ri gi bod (talk) 13:00, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

Request for help re Matthew Henry

Hello, I wonder whether you or anyone else known to you can comment on my request for help at Scriptorium#An Exposition of the Old and New Testament (1828) (Matthew Henry)--PeterR2 (talk) 08:50, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

Answered at WS:Sbillinghurst sDrewth 09:32, 14 April 2017 (UTC)

The 'Table of Contents' field in Index pages and main namespace transclusion

In the past I've used the Table of Contents field in indices for the front matter and tables of contents which are meant to appear in the 'main' page of a work in the main namespace. Using the <pages /> tag with no prev or next parameters pulls this in automatically, and in the proofreading progress ribbon it displays the progress for the entire index rather than just the pages transcluded. You can look at A Leaf in the Storm; A Dog of Flanders and Other Stories for an example. A while ago for The Book of Tea you changed the main namespace page to a more typical transclusion right after you added {{index transcluded}} to the Index page's ToC field, I suppose you had in mind that template's categorization and whatever else it does would be improperly transcluded into main. And just recently you zeroed out the one in Index:Atharva-Veda samhita volume 2.djvu, which is/was transcluded at Atharva-Veda Samhita/Volume 2 (there's an argument to be made about this work's organization, I'll freely admit, both volumes have somewhat interesting front matter that I wanted to capture, but the 'main' main namespace page is already unruly).

Do you think this practice is fundamentally a bad idea or does it just happen to conflict with processes that you're applying but could potentially be made to be compatible? I do really like being able to see the progress of the complete work on the title page, but it's something I can be persuaded on. Happy Easter! Prosody (talk) 06:07, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

Numbers of stories to answer. 1) {{Page}} is throwing errors due to it breaking html protocols, and that flows through to other pages, like the index page, which is what I was addressing, it wasn't evident that it went from the Index to that page; and 2) For "Book of Tea" there was two issues, the red links which some people have been following to create pages, plus the issue of the transcluding tracking template. It is all a kludge where ThomasV was looking to allow a built ToC in that section, which we have now used for notes, or used doubling up with the use of {{Page}} — which was meant to be retired. Probably something that we need the community to review. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:56, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
The main issue sounds decisive, given that IIRC <pages /> doesn't work in the index ToC, thus the use of that template. I'll replace the pages I've made with this technique. Thanks. Prosody (talk) 23:06, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Requesting go-ahead

Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-01#The meaning of hosting

"... the discussion is that we can encourage people to add works to the page, it did not mean that we have to have the works onsite, though that is obviously our preference. To note that author pages here can link to full text works at any sites/domains, with Wikilivres being our prime example, though we have {{ext scan link}} for Google Books and IA as appropriate. ..."

Do you really mean this? If so, I can think of two more sites, although they are in Canada, as is Wikilivres. One is w:Project Gutenberg Canada and the other is the archive site for the efforts of w:Distributed Proofreaders Canada volunteers. I'm asking before adding links as I was almost blocked at Wikipedia for adding external links which were all deleted. Humbug26 (talk) 19:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

That was the community discussion and how we link to Wikilivres. Naturally, it should be used wisely and in sync with community expectations of a library. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:02, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

19:32, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

13:04, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

File:An American Girl in India.djvu-7.png

This is not suitable for Commons. Hesperian's bot added it, from a local file: File:An American Girl in India.djvu, which is not suitable for Commons for copyright issues. Hrishikes (talk) 15:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

It is the publishers mark, not the work, it will be suitable for Commons. @Ineuw:billinghurst sDrewth 15:50, 23 April 2017 (UTC)
Done, and categorized in commons:Category:Logos of publishing houses. — Ineuw talk 19:34, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

16:40, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

one of these categories breaks my watchlist

problematic — billinghurst sDrewth 13:04, 27 April 2017 (UTC)

Report of Action, USS Chester, Vera Cruz April 21-22, 1914

Hopefully, you will find everything in order.

The photographs were taken by Dr. J. Michael Miller (USMC, History Division, Marine Corps University) at The Library of Congress. He and I had met in Veracruz in 2014, at a history symposium presided by the Mexican Navy (SEMAR). This "Report of Action" is a most valuable piece of documentation for the US Occupation of Veracruz in 1914. Please see the extensive work that I have contributed to the article in Spanish https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocupaci%C3%B3n_estadounidense_de_Veracruz_de_1914

Thanks for your help. --Wkboonec (talk) 16:26, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Just to remind you:

You may want to remove or change the "no-source" message for this document. It was casually found by Dr. Miller, as he explained to me, at the end of a file pertaining to the logbooks of USS Chester, at The Library of Congress.

Email interchange with Dr Miller

  • This email interchange between Dr Miller and I, on his finding, may help you identify the source document.

2015-06-25 21:24 GMT-05:00 Mike Miller <letsctide@msn.com>: William, I thought you would like this one, I don't think anyone has seen it before. I will try to get NARA to include this in the scans you want, so you will have a perfect image. This really is an account that historians dream of. I am so happy that Mexican people can read this and understand the battle so much better. I will work this too, and see what clues we have.

Ah, the coffee with taste better in the morning with this important discovery, and another Nats win! I am off to North Carolina tomorrow to help my son and his wife with their new home! A happy weekend!

Best to you William, let us continue the saga! Mike

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 20:58:35 -0500 Subject: USS Chester Logbook -- with "Report of Action" by her captain William A. Moffett, inserted at the end (of April 22nd?). From: wkboonec@gmail.com To: letsctide@msn.com CC: cboonec@yahoo.com

Mike, I was away from my home and the Internet all afternoon. I just got back to find this great surprise waiting for me in my inbox. Extraordinary !

This "Report of Action" is probably the best account on the attack to the Naval Academy that we will ever get. Sweetman wrote a similar account in "The Landing at Veracruz: 1914", from a different point of view, and not as detailed. See attachments, in particular, the sources cited for Chapter TEN.

I will be going over this "Report", again and again, in the next few days. Then, I think I will be transcribing it (in English) and doing the translation to Spanish. It ought to be much appreciated by Mexican historians.

The "Report" mentions a chart, presumably showing the exact position of buildings, monuments, and ships. It would be great if you could also find that chart, hidden in the logbook.

The "Report" mentions the "Monument of Hidalgo" - perhaps this is an error: there is no such monument that I know of; my guess is that it meant the "Monument of Benito Juárez". See "Plano Francés" in attachment.

You say something about "deleted marks" in the standard logbook entries. I had not noticed them.

By the way, I have found the "Auto correct" feature of Microsoft Office Picture Manager to be quite useful, in making images much clearer. I am sending back the same six images, as they appear after the "Aurto correct". You will appreciate the difference.

Thanks for this extraordinary finding.

P.S. Another suprise: The Nats won 7-0, completing another series sweep!

2015-06-25 15:00 GMT-05:00 Mike Miller <letsctide@msn.com>: William, Yankees Astros will be good game, both strong contenders! Hope the Nats sweep Braves today, no more chop in Nationals Park.

Much flurry of activity about the Archives and the Logs, I will stand by to do what ever you need done. It may take awhile, but I hope they make the good copies.

Anyway, I found this last week, and it explains why the USS Chester's Log had deleted marks, and found this inserted in the back of the log, where no one could see it. Have you seen this anywhere? I wanted to work this a little more before i sent it, but thought this might answers some of the questions you have....

Enjoy the baseball! Mike

Date: Thu, 25 Jun 2015 11:16:21 -0500 Subject: Re: Possible way to minimize on your "double, double toil and trouble" From: wkboonec@gmail.com To: letsctide@msn.com

Yes, Mike; it will be nice if and when the logbook of the USS Prairie reappears.

I am also awaiting for the logbook of the Spanish "Carlos V".

End of email transcription

Thanks for your consideration and understanding. Cordially --Wkboonec (talk) 17:32, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

19:49, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Category:Contributors to American Medical Biographies erroneous entries

Quick note. First, thanks for creating this. However, I noticed that some people who are not contributors ended up in the pile. ie. Author:Henry Ford Askew. Thanks, Haz talk 13:16, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

02:24, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Dostoyevsky and other things

Hi Billinghurst and Beleg Tâl, I notice that the text I uploaded, Dostoyevsky - Letters and Reminiscences, has been deleted from Wikisource. Was quite looking forward to working on that next and hadn't appreciated that the translator's date of death would be a hurdle. Makes sense now I come to think of it but would you be able to direct me to the Wikisource policy on this so I can know for future reference? Also, I am going to run some introduction to Wikisource sessions at the university this month and next so am looking to boil down Wikisource guidance into 1-2 page handouts. Thinking of handouts for (1) How to upload from Internet Archive using the IA-upload tool (2) How to upload from pdf/djvu direct (3) How to set up an Index page. (4) How to proofread a page (including the main markup terms in a Wikisource toolbox (using the right tool for the job). If you have any guidance about how to simplify the process for beginners or know if these resources already exist then do let me know. My first session is on Friday 19th May so I'll be working on this all week. Best wishes, Stinglehammer (talk) 13:45, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

@Stinglehammer: here are some resources for you:
Hope that helps. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:58, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
@Stinglehammer: The world's copyright laws is legal crazy paving. So as indicated by BT above we focus on US copyright law for works here; with the reminder that files are preferred to be at Commons, though where a file cannot meet the dual requirements, then they come here. Obviously we have missed the guidance that you have required. I would have thought that we had had it covered with our welcome message, obviously not. Feedback to the community about what you see would be helpful will always be welcomed at WS:S. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:14, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

21:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

15:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Unknown birth & death data

Can u have a look at Author:Jessie Duncan Westbrook? Category is showing as living authors. Birth and death years should be unknown, but I don't know how to enter this in Wikidata. Hrishikes (talk) 12:24, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Even better, I have put in dates of life. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. But the parameters of unknown are required for Author:Magan Lal. Hrishikes (talk) 02:02, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
If you don't know them then you can add dates flourishing. If you wish to apply a c. period of death, then do it locally. I find it problematic when someone simply doesn't know starts adding their lack of knowledge as data to Wikidata, it is better to leave it empty. — billinghurst sDrewth

22:02, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

12:18, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

New Index pages

I just discovered that Special:NewPages does not allow for a search of the Index: or :Index talk: namespaces. Is this easily added? --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:28, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: It does, change your dropdown at the top of the page to "all". I am not certain whether that is a stored preference for a later visit, so if it is not, then for that we can submit a phabricator ticket. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
What I mean is that I cannot search with a restriction, so that I am searching only and specifically for new Index / Index talk pages. I have to search "all" and then scroll through however many recent sets of pages there are listed. Other namespaces can be searched exclusively, but not Index and its associated talk. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:50, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, for some reason the option is showing up now, whereas it wasn't before. Hmmmm. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)
If you are looking for watching Index ns, I suggest starting with this RC filter and adjusting for what you want specifically to see. Once you have it, then creating it as a link. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:03, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Edith Harwood

Can you locate any information about the dates of birth/death for Author:Edith Harwood? I've had no luck at all, though I can find references to her, and can find works of hers dated as early as 1901 or as late as 1916. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:48, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

I think that it is the (Cammilla) Edith Harwood (1866-1926, Florence) shown at https://probatesearch.service.gov.uk/Calendar?surname=harwood&yearOfDeath=1926&page=1 Also showing in find-a-grave. So either born overseas and has (next to) no census records, or it is the Edith Mary Harwood born in Northfleet in 1865. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
It would be a remarkable coincidence if it wasn't the Florentine Edith Harwood, since she seems to have been an expert in Renaissance art of Florence. --EncycloPetey (talk) 08:13, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

19:04, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

Long time

Long time. I uploaded the file you recommended: [[156]]. Don't know how to bring it to Wikisource. Any tips? I have not used this site very often and am a beginner. I herd you liek mudkips (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

@I herd you liek mudkips: From Help:Proofread there is a page about Index: pages, that is the direction that you want. As a direct helper, from the commons file there is a Wikisource icon and link that you generated with the {{book}} template that will take you directly to the Index: page for you to create. Plus I would recommend turning on the local gadget (via Special:Preferences) Upon creation of an Index: page enables addition of metadata from the file at Commons. More information at Help:Proofread as that makes life easier as you have the book template in use. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:23, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

15:29, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

d:Wikidata:Requests for deletions#Dictionary entries

Hello. Could you please take a look? There's some Wikisource thing… Ratte (talk) 12:35, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

It seems ru-WS is creating data items for individual entries in a language dictionary. Whatever the outcome, it looks like we need to be sure the resolution of the issue doesn't take down individual entries for DNB, EB1911, etc. by extension --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:48, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
Sure, let us see what is the actual concern by asking why why why until we drill down to something that we can specifically address. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 14 June 2017 (UTC)

15:44, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

08:41, 23 June 2017 (UTC)

15:38, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Deleted TOC and Preface

Can you please explain why the Contents and Preface pages were deleted and their contents moved to the bottom of this main page, so that nobody can find it? — Ineuw talk 08:57, 28 June 2017 (UTC)

You are here asking about edits from over 6 years ago? Really? My commentary from today is that you are seeing a more usual presentation of a work where the table of contents is added in the lead part of a work so that a user can see and navigate, not have to click through a series of subpages to see about a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:28, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Didn't want to override your deletion without asking for a rationale. However, I can't lead readers to nowhere, so I am recreating the missing pages of Contents and Foreword. My reason being that I consider this, and two other works about Mexico to be outstanding, each within their scope. That is why I am revisiting each — to perfect and polish them. I hope you understand. — Ineuw talk 22:59, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
Umm, Ineuw, why would you differ from the vast bulk of our works which align with this methodology? I can understand that maybe that a long preface, or similar, could be separated, however, I think that you will find that predominantly we put a table of contents on the root page. It is unusual for us to put the ToC separately as it is the basis of a navigation of a work. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:11, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: In that case the "vast bulk of the work" is laid out wrong. The editors here may know where the Table of contents is, but how does that help a visitor to the site? Where is the logic? Why would anybody scroll down to look for it? When you read a printed book, what what assumption is made about the location of the Table of contents, middle of the book, end of the book? I can go on and on to point out your false logic, but I think by now you get my point and it's time for us to consider the readers visiting the site, more than ourselves.
Nevertheless, I found a compromise solution. by anchoring the Table of contents in the page namespace and added the following line to the header not field.
| notes = {{c|[[{{ROOTPAGENAME}}#D19-1|Table of contents]]}} — Ineuw talk 20:18, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

15:32, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

English cathedrals & stained glass windows

Hello, Billinghurst. A bit off-WS-topic, but I was wondering if you knew anyone who might be familiar with English cathedrals and stained glass windows... I am trying to pinpoint the specific cathedral and stained glass window depicted in this poem by Mrs. Coates. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 00:18, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

I am unaware of a specific person. I would check English Wikipedia and see who are some of the people behind w:Template:Cathedrals of the Church of England which may also have wikiproject relationships. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Shipping records show Edward and her arriving New York from Southampton in Sep 1914, so I would be trying the southern cathedrals, unless you have a better idea of an itinerary in 1914. Noting that I don't see a passport application for her (travelling on husbands?). — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Nothing on my end between 1914 and 1916 for travel. Have not come across an application yet... always looking for new photos! Thank you for digging! I will try your WP tip when I get the chance. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:48, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

15:07, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

22:59, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Structured Data on Commons Newsletter, July 19, 2017

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons?

The millions of files on Wikimedia Commons are described with a lot of information or (meta)data. With the project Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons, this data is structured more, and is made machine-readable. This will make it easier to view, search (also multilingually), edit, organize and re-use the files on Commons.

In early 2017, the Sloan Foundation funded this project (see documentation). Development takes place in 2017–2020. It involves staff from the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland (WMDE) and many volunteers. To achieve this, Wikibase support is added to Wikimedia Commons. Wikibase is the technology that is also used for Wikidata.

Recent developments: groundwork

  • A new and crucial technical step (federation) now makes it possible to reference data from one Wikibase website in another. Because of this, it will be possible to use Wikidata's items and properties to describe media files on Commons.
  • Another important piece of groundwork is under development: so-called Multi-Content Revisions. This feature allows structured data to be stored alongside wiki text, so that one wiki page can contain several types of content.

Team updates

  • Amanda Bittaker was hired as Program Manager for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons. Amanda will take care of the overall management of the project.
  • Sandra Fauconnier (known as Spinster in her volunteer capacity) is the new Community Liaison. She will support the collaboration between the communities (Commons, Wikidata, GLAM) and the product development teams at the Wikimedia Foundation and Wikimedia Deutschland.
  • We have open positions for a UX designer and a Product Manager!

Talking with communities and allies

  • Long-term feedback from GLAMs. Besides the Wikimedia community, many external cultural and knowledge institutions (GLAMs - Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) are interested in Structured Data on Commons and are willing to provide feedback on the long-term plans for the project. Alex Stinson, GLAM strategist at the Wikimedia Foundation, is currently in contact with Europeana, DPLA, the Smithsonian and the National Archives of the United States. Alex is also looking for other GLAM institutions who might be able to advise on the long term. If you know of an institution or partner that may be appropriate for consultation, do get in touch with Alex.
  • Jonathan Morgan, design researcher, is starting to work on two projects:

What comes next?

  • The Structured Data on Commons team meets in the week after Wikimania to lay the groundwork for the next steps. This includes new backend development and design work, for better and more clear integration of the structured data in pages on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The project's information pages on Wikimedia Commons will receive a long overdue update in the upcoming months. The team will also work on more and better communication channels. Feedback, wishes and tips are welcome at the project's general talk page.

Get involved

Many greetings from SandraF (WMF) (talk), Community Liaison for this project! 13:55, 19 July 2017 (UTC)

AutoWikiBrowser question...

Hi Billinghurst,

As you may remember from the far off past, I'm working on Volume 33 of the US Statutes at Large. The private acts section in Volume II contains almost endless repetitions of a specific block of boilerplate text: "Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, that the Secretary of the Interior be, and he is hereby, authorized and directed to place on the pension roll, subject to the provisions and limitations of the pension laws, the name of " etc., etc. Of course, the actual detail of the target text which ultimately needs to be corrected to the above will contain a potentially massively variable number of errors from Tesseract - and of course because of the pagination of the USStat, some of the sidenotes will usually be blended into the body text, further increasing the automation challenge! I have asked on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:AutoWikiBrowser if this is a use case which might be appropriate for AutoWikiBrowser, but I thought I would ask you if you had any experience of anyone using AWB on WS, and if so whether (if you know anything about it) you thought it would be appropriate for me to try, and, if so, whose consent I would need? I've also left a question for Tarmstro99 on his talk page about whether his bot would be an appropriate alternative means of trudging through this boilerplate, but I think he must be on vacation. Conceptually, I still think that Tesseract should be the right place to do this, but that is way beyond my capacity!!! Thanks CharlesSpencer (talk) 09:49, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Page watcher jumping in. I have used AWB for a number of almost identical tasks on this very project. In my experience, the best thing to do is to go through a few dozen titles and load up a list of the most common transcription errors, and run that for the entire index. Cheers! BD2412 T 13:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
If you have a standard set of text on many pages, I would recommend that we template it. Then we can extract that text with a regex and add the template. Just makes the whol proofreading so much easier. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
Indeed! That would actually be useful across tens of thousands of pages, since the language at issue is not restricted to this volume. I did a test run of typo fixes with AWB, made 962 edits and barely dented the majority of scannos. BD2412 T 16:22, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
I wrote a template (Template:USStatPension) back in 2010 with your valuable assistance, Billinghurst, and that of George Orwell III, but it's almost as time consuming to use as editing it by hand (with the obvious exception of the numbered section tagging, which the template does do very well). I was looking for a more brute force means of ploughing automatically through hundreds of pages... I suppose what I'm saying is that I would be far happier if the manual intervention was retyping the names of the individual pensioners than if it were manually picking bits of mangled sidenote out of the preceding boilerplate. CharlesSpencer (talk) 11:41, 18 July 2017 (UTC)
Okay, I had a little time today to have a look, rather than just answer out of my (...). Standard AWB is not the answer here as it relies on the internal text, or the right anchors to know the internal text; it may work with an AWB module but you would need someone to build such. If you are saying that you can look at the pages, and take out the variable text for the page, then it is almost something that you can do within a spreadsheet in a columnar form,
scan_page Page_no. Name field1 field2 ...
then inject the template components into the regular intervening points between the columns, then get a bot to take components in order line by line or something interpret and apply per scan_page. For something like that we might be better prodding user:Mpaa for a proper bot. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
Fantastic! Thank you for looking into it. I had once considered trying to go offline completely and use mail merge through Word and Excel to solve the problem, so I know exactly what you mean, and that is definitely doable from a data extraction point of view. I suspect that chapters broken across pages will still pose a manual problem, but that would be a tiny element compared to the bulk of the chapters being ploughed through by a bot. Let me check in with user:Mpaa and see if he can help. Thanks again CharlesSpencer (talk) 15:11, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
User:CharlesSpencer, let me know if you need help.— Mpaa (talk) 16:32, 23 July 2017 (UTC)
Thanks Mpaa, as soon as I've got a good dataset assembled in Excel, I'll be in touch. Might be a while, though, I'm afraid! Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 06:14, 25 July 2017 (UTC)

15:57, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

16:43, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Index:Goody Two-Shoes (1881).djvu

Firstly, My apologies for an over-reaction to your comments elsewhere.

Moving on, I found that this was one of the first works I contributed to on English Wikisource and was therefore wanting some feedback on how to bring it up to the best standard possible. In reviewing it carefully I am STILL finding some f vs long-s, I'd missed on at least 2 passes, and so am intending to give it a 3rd.

You had validated a page in this work at some point, so I thought I would ask if you were planning on returning to it at some point? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

21:45, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

Re deleted author page

Hi. The It's a beautiful day story was released under a CC license. It was deleted here because its Spanish counterpart was deleted, but it has since been restored (for several months now). I think it should be restored along with the corresponding author page. I'm sorry if this causes any inconvenience, I don't mean to cause any. --201.215.141.30 02:01, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The work was deleted as non-notable, not due to any other deletion. The place for the discussion about the work is WS:PD. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:19, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 40.djvu/22

This page had a red-linked {{GFRB}} template, which I updated to {{DNB GFRB}}, I hope this was acceptable, as I saw the relevant page in a query I had to find typo templates. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 13:03, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

Page:The Cutter's Practical Guide 1898 Edition Part 1.djvu/28

Thanks for re-reading this. I'd been using {{frac}} for consistency of appearance across the whole work in respect of fractions that didn't have a unicode point.

If you feel this isn't a major issue, is there a script for "regularising" fractions across an entire work? {{frac}} was used extensively in this one, and I had not been changing it.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 11:56, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

If you want, it is possible. I am unsure about doing it, I have read some concerns on rendering of unicode fractions vs. other methods.— Mpaa (talk) 20:51, 4 August 2017 (UTC)
@Mpaa: why would do some creation of something that may look like something, rather than utilise the actual characters, per Wikisource:Style manual. If we take that path where do we stop? Isn't rendering a browser issue? If you do a copy and paste you get 1⁄3 not ⅓ which is essentially changing the context of the work. That is not a proper transcription. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
I was just concerned about readability, people read what is rendered. Maybe there is no issue at all with support of these characters in browsers/fonts/devices. As far as copy paste, 1/3 or ⅓ it is always 0.3333... to me. Anyhow, no big deal. If one wants to replace, I can attempt something, sticking to this: http://unicodefractions.com/.— Mpaa (talk) 08:02, 5 August 2017 (UTC)
My point was that it is 3 characters, not the one. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

21:45, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

23:28, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Centering images for mobile view

Is using <center> the best/only current method for correct mobile rendering of centered images? Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:27, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

Just wondering why you would say that rather than use the image position component wiki style [[File:Example.jpg|center]], unless needing to style within a table due to surrounding text. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:56, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
[[File:Example.jpg|center]] does not render as centered in mobile view. [217] Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Correction: does not usually render as centered in mobile view. The image in Meynell's Preludes title page is centered (but line spacing is off); the rest of the images within the text are displayed left in mobile view. Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:09, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Gotcha. There is a whole lot going wrong in mobile view with images and tables having centering removed. Best that it goes back to the community and if the community is not liking it then probably then through phabricator as something addressed to those developers of the skins. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:02, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Anything I can do? keeping in mind my limited knowledge of magic? Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:11, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
I think that you can do it perfectly. Describe the two situations, and the problem with the mobile view from a visual perspective, and what you would like the solution to be. No requirement to get into the technical components. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:22, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to go on, but where should I bring it up? Scriptorium? I will try to address it tomorrow morning. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:42, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
Yes. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

18:00, 21 August 2017 (UTC)

Editor Issues?

Hey Billinghurst,

Have you noticed a change in the wiki editor since yesterday? It now feels like typing into a terminal on an old mainframe. It is very hard to read. Any idea what is going on? -- Jasonanaggie (talk) 02:48, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

twittery

Hello, you are @billinghurstwik yes? I'll add you to the twitter team. Can you think of anyone else who should be on it? Sam Wilson 08:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

Correct for my wiki twittiness. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:16, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

22:09, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Is this a correct statement?

"Proofreading involves side-by-side comparison of an image of original text with OCR-generated text." If there is a better way to state it, how would you? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)

That sounds right to me. Apologies if I dropped you in it. Needed someone with passion. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:18, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. Bringing me out of my comfort zone, but for a good cause. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:22, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
You are and have a real point of difference and such admirable qualities. You will be brilliant. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:59, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
<reading off a script> smiley Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
I stuck to the script, or I would have been as a "wretched individual"—stammering through and completely forgetting the point... Hoping it is/was well received, and that I did not merely preach to the choir :) Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Transclusion check

Hi Billinghurst. Does this transclusion look okay (I mean aesthetically)? Just thought I should ask before I add the work to New Texts. Thank you ~ DanielTom (talk) 20:44, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

probably best to put this to the broader community WS:Scriptorium/Helpbillinghurst sDrewth 02:04, 2 September 2017 (UTC)
Okay, will do. ~ DanielTom (talk) 19:12, 2 September 2017 (UTC)

22:15, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Reminder

Remind me again, if I wish to delete a Talk page after a move (assoc. page is now a redirect), what reason do I supply? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:27, 6 September 2017 (UTC)

MediaWiki:Deletereason-dropdown I used orphaned talk page. Probably time we looked at our reasons again, it has been a while since we have checked pertinence. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 7 September 2017 (UTC)
Orphaned talk page makes sense but I over thought it last night, was making dumb errors, and so deferred to you. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 09:17, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Maintenance

[236] as it says translator is H. F. B. Compston which differs from obverse of WS page. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:06, 31 August 2017 (UTC)

19:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)

Elimination of illumination in transcription

Just stumbled across the illustrated version of McCrae's In Flanders Fields (1921). It just seems "wrong" to eliminate the illustrations from the final transcription. Would it be permissible to include them along with the transcribed text? Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:28, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Hmm. I see that concern was addressed here: In Flanders Fields (1921)/illustrated Londonjackbooks (talk) 10:33, 13 September 2017 (UTC)

Changes to EB1911 Table of contributors is breaking transcluded view

Hi Billinghurst, I saw that the recent changes made to several EB1911 contributors pages e.g. Page:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu/25 has broken the transcluded view e.g. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1/Table of contributors. Can you take a look? thanks. DivermanAU (talk) 00:08, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Done tables strung together causing other issues rather than being the open and close being in the header. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:30, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Court case naming/template thoughts

Heya!

I was interested if you had any thoughts on how/where best to set up some pages for a few court cases I'm setting up. In the past I've either had the opinion on the main page when there was just one published document such as for Veronica Ollier v. Sweetwater Union High School District or been able to use the Template:Case when there were multiple such as with Riley v. California) but I'm trying to figure out the best way to organize cases like Alaska Airlines v. Judy Schurke which I'm trying to do now (and have a very similar case after this). In these cases there are two documents already, the "panel opinion" ( such as Index:Alaska_Airlines_v._Judy_Schurke_-_Panel_Opinion.pdf ) and the order that the court will hear it en banc (such as Index:Alaska_Airlines_v._Judy_Schurke_-_EnBanc_Order.pdf). In the future there will be a second Opinion of the Court (this time from the en banc court). The cases template seems to just "assume" that there will be one opinion of the court and I'm not entirely sure how to adjust that... The other question is whether I should 'split' an opinion if there is a dissension on one publication. For example in this case the Panel Opinion also includes a dissent but it's on the same published document. Should I just include it?

I imagine for now at least one main option would just be to have a makeshift ToC on the main page? I may be overthinking it :) . Jamesofur (talk) 02:47, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

15:31, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

DNBdates

I was wondering how you gleaned the information from the DNB for #DNBdates use. Londonjackbooks (talk) 18:11, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Focused search. Special:Search/25 Sept. DNB00 : then looked for something interesting/different. See mw:Help:CirrusSearch for help. I have been known to run more complex searches, though for this it isn't that necessary. I need to go back and look at some of the stats, and to do another week's worth of posts. Any suggestions of value would be useful. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Tried it out for October. Mostly b/d dates of women novelists, poets, singers, actors—some listed as prominent in their day. Most of October is accounted for but for Oct. 3,4,10,11,18,19,21,31. Mostly women came up in initial results, so I went with the 'theme' and added Miss and Mrs. to the search to narrow things down. I made a list as I went along if you are interested. Not necessarily of "value" or "interest", but something. Also found what may be an error: "Jewsbury, Maria Jane" DNB article links to a WP article with a different first name where b/d dates differ (if I recall correctly). Any other way I can help... Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

15:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Road Signs

Index:UKSI19810859.pdf thanks.

Looking at this again, I am actually wondering if it needs to be a table at all, given that if a 1 row per sign format is used, it doesn't need the table. You and other have said in the past that Wikisource need not slavishly follow the print format where it's not necessary to do so. 1 row per sign might also be better for mobile presentation? Your thoughts? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:49, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't have any at this point of time. Life is a little too busy. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:29, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

17:10, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

23:25, 2 October 2017 (UTC)

Page view

As long as you seem to be on, could I trouble you to look at Page:Guy Boothby--A Bid for Fortune.djvu/100? Is the side-by-side view working for you when viewing the page? It's not for me (either as view or edit), despite null edits, refreshes, purges, etc., but other pages from the same work seem to be fine. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:07, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

Fine for me in monobook. Appears that you have a caching issue somewhere. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

14:20, 9 October 2017 (UTC)

Titling of work for move

I would like to convert Sartor Resartus to a versions page since there are two works hosted here by that title. Currently, Sartor Resartus links to a Gutenberg version. We have a scan-backed version as well—Sartor resartus; and, On heroes, hero-worship and the heroic in history—which is proofread but for one problematic page (which I am in the process of resolving), but which is not yet transcluded. I would need to rename Sartor Resartus, but to what? Sartor Resartus (Gutenberg)? I am aware that I will also need to rename all subpages as well after the move. Suggestions? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:36, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: In lieu of you being able to determine more edition data from Gutenberg, that sounds okay. If desired, I can run a bot through to rename those title pages before or after the move. It would be [[Sartor Resartus]] to [[../../|Sartor Resartus]] which would be quick and easy; though I would want to fix up the prev/next too as they are not relative links, and again can be done ahead of a move. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Running a bot through would be great, though it doesn't need to be done until tomorrow. I can get to prev/next tomorrow as well. Thanks! Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Relative links done, and shows the true value of relative links. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 21:01, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Great! Thank you much :) I'll tackle the disambig/transclusion tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 21:50, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

15:31, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Hawthorne's Notebooks

With this change, we lost the Roman numerals in the article titles that distinguished the several articles from each other. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:52, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Yep, I have it in a paste to update, doing a little text juggling. Thanks for the note however. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:53, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
The text editor in AWB is a little small and makes alignment difficult, and the gaps in the numbering and the wish to preview, just made it need to be a follow-up job. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

18:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, October 25, 2017

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
Presentations / Press / Events
Audience at Structured Commons design discussion, Wikimania 2017
Team updates
The Structured Commons team at Wikimania 2017

Two new people have been hired for the Structured Data on Commons team. We are now complete! :-)

  • Ramsey Isler is the new Product Manager of the Multimedia team.
  • Pamela Drouin was hired as User Interface Designer. She works at the Multimedia team as well, and her work will focus on the Structured Commons project.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research

Design research is ongoing.

  • Jonathan Morgan and Niharika Ved have held interviews with various GLAM staff about their batch upload workflows and will finish and report on these in this quarter. (phabricator task T159495)
  • At this moment, there is also an online survey for GLAM staff, Wikimedians in Residence, and GLAM volunteers who upload media collections to Wikimedia Commons. The results will be used to understand how we can improve this experience. (phabricator task T175188)
  • Upcoming: interviews with Wikimedia volunteers who curate media on Commons (including tool developers), talking about activities and workflows. (phabricator task T175185)
Development

In Autumn 2017, the Structured Commons development team works on the following major tasks (see also the quarterly goals for the team):

  • Getting Multi-Content Revisions sufficiently ready, so that the Multimedia and Search Platform teams can start using it to test and prototype things.
  • Determine metrics and metrics baseline for Commons (phabricator task T174519).
  • The multimedia team at WMF is gaining expertise in Wikibase, and unblocking further development for Structured Commons, by completing the MediaInfo extension for Wikibase.
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 14:26, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

Person with duplicate entries at WD

Hello. There are two entries for George Hussey Earle, Sr. at Wikidata:

How does one go about deleting one or "merging" both? One links to the WP article, and one to the WS Author page. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:44, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

@Londonjackbooks: Merge them. There is a merge tool as a gadget at WD for that purpose. A merge go to the lower Qid by default. If you wish for me to do it, then let me know. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, I will give it a shot. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:01, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Hoped that you would. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:20, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Best way to learn. Least I can do. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:59, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
I love Londonjackbooks the adventurer, the bolder. Tools in your hands are used well and with full consideration. (((-: — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
A warm "thanks" to Billinghurst the astute. I needed that smiley Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:10, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

—words (fwiw) that pretty well sum up my opinion of your care and concern for WS maintenance &c. Just an appreciation from one who is here primarily for selfish ends. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't always score a pass on courteous, though it is not through wont of trying. Otherwise, thanks for your words. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:07, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Template:Font-size90%

I thought Template:Font-size90% was supposed to render text at 90%, but lost of recent edits have changed that. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

That template is a sad story in itself for over-formatting, well, for what it says that it will do. It definitely doesn't fall into our 'keep it simple' model of doing one thing, or utilising Template:Font-size. Personally I fall within using those mentioned on Help:Font size templates, and I challenge anyone to see the different between {{fine}} and this extra template. Where it comes within the PSM model, I have pretty much backed away from making suggestions.
With the introduction of template style sheets, these templates/styles clearly need to be tidied up, though I doubt that the will is there. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 02:43, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Your comment is incorrect and I find it passive aggressive and "whiny" to a degree. Please point me to where you saw the template not working, since I use it hundreds of times in every volume of PSM.
What is incorrect? The 90% font-size template is supposed to render text at 90%. However, edits keep changing the percentage. Where in that comment have I been incorrect? Where have I been "whiny"? I stated my understanding, and pointed out that changes have been made. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:25, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: You are well aware that there are major differences between the two font templates mentioned, even though they are the same font-size. Perhaps, appearance is not important to you, but for me it is. — Ineuw talk 16:20, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: When I open up and look at the coding in the template it is evident that the styling is different, that is not evident from the name, that is my commentary about over-styling for what is expected for 90% font. We should be keeping things simple. Having 91% font within a font called 90% is misleading, and I challenge that it is a 1% we should be fussing about. Having other formatting within it is confusing to other editors. These are universal templates and we shouldn't be offering unexpected surprises. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:39, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Wikisource-bot

I've attempted a setup to have my User_talk: page archived by the bot, but I'm unsure (a) whether I have set things up correctly, (b) whether there is more to be set up than I have done, and (c) whether the bot will now proceed on its own time, or someone must operate the bot, and whether my Talk page will now be included in that process without further attention by me. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:54, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

Did this get overlooked in the subsequent edits? I don't really know what I'm doing here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:10, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
Yes, I did miss this. I am just doing the daily bot run, and it seems to have created your years of archives just fine. I will let you check that the result is to your liking. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:08, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
The only problem I've noticed is that the default page header is set to {{talk archive}} (which doesn't exist) instead of {{archive header}}. The bot and documentation may need an update for that, but I've already handled the problem on the new archive pages for my talk page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 10:39, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: The bot is what the bot is, I am running the standard pywikibot installation. The instruction at user:wikisource-bot for that parameter already suggests to use the template you suggested, and the example at "Typical example" already includes it. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:48, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
I guess I was just expecting there to be something there for the default value, rather than a red link to a template that doesn't exist, but now that I look at it, I see that the template is redlinked even in the doco. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2017 (UTC)
It is not a traditional wiki template. Wikisource-bot finds pages using the 'template' and then does its thing, there is no actual local parameter or configuration to override. If you felt strong enough you could create a redirect from the (python) default, I chose not to leaving it up to the user at this time. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Too much time is wasted on the picayune.

Your recent comments and editing activities tell me that you are getting bored because you are commenting on the unimportant, and deleted info which you did not bother to research.

Here I am referring to your edit of Author:Joseph Edward Kirkwood page. At the time of creation, I found an article about him which stated that he died in 1928 at the age of 56, so calculating his birth year was not all that difficult. The math 1928-56 does equal to 1872, both in Hungary and Australia. Why you removed this info is beyond me. But I took the trouble of Googling his name again and found additional confirmation hereIneuw talk 21:06, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: Billinghurst didn't delete the data; he simply removed our local override, thereby allowing the information to come from Wikidata. If you look, you can see that the author's birth and death dates are still displayed correctly in the header, just as they were before the edit. Dates of birth and death for authors are now housed at Wikidata, instead of here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
I stand corrected and retract my criticism about the author dates, but not about the issue of comments regarding the {{ts}} shorthand codes, to which, I will reply to on my talk page.Ineuw talk 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Re Kirkwood. When creating an author page, please try clicking the "Search Wikidata" link. In this case you would have found d:Q21517546 like I did, if you there then look at the history of the article, and come back and tell me that I did nothing with what you started. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:09, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ineuw: If you look at much of my editing there will always be a significant proportion of about tidying and aligning to our agreed styles. Someone has to continue to do the maintenance, and let me tell you that sometimes it is frustratingly tedious. I presume that you have an alternative, so how do you propose that the maintenance is done?

Authors. I have been putting much effort into ensuring that the data on our authors is in Wikidata and then removing local overrides. In fact, you will see that I have been putting much effort into identifying our (minor) authors and documenting that from minor sources. Also I have been creating author pages for missing authors, and tying our existing author pages to Wikidata items. This hails from much discussion in Wikisource:Scriptorium about author pages, not requiring local data if we can store it centrally, especially when referenced, but not removing data until we know that it is in Wikidata. The community decided that images, dates of life, interwikis and authority control data should all come from Wikidata, and it wasn't magicked over the years, it has come from effort, time, coordination and asking favours of outside people (hard work!). Similarly, where we have research on the author page. overt or hidden, then it is moved to the author talk page; if it duplicates Wikipedia link, then it can just be trimmed. [Fact: I check every damn piece of data removed to ensure that the data is available at Wikidata prior to its removal, and preserve the sources that we where recorded and are uniquely held.] So, your snide comment is not factually correct, and it is somewhat insulting.

Similarly I have been aligning our author page linking to transcribed reference works to the templates based on {{authority/link}} and a bit of {{authority/lkpl}}. I am also hoping to get to systematic on the contributor data for these reference works, though that will take a little longer as it is more complex.

I appreciate you efforts to correct and update, but when I first saw your edit on my watchlist, I only saw the diff, not the actual page until I followed through your edit. I noticed that my Author page contributions have been linked to Wikidata, but I was under under the impression that it is done by a bot and not added manually. From that point on, I looked at various entries in Wikidata, and it dawned upon me the enormity of that project which will take decades to bring it up to date by an army of editors, since it encompasses everything, including templates, etc. . . . and there are only ~300 active editors here. — Ineuw talk 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

To {{table style}}. This community has had a long-held approach to simpler formatting (Wikisource:Style guide) and, especially, not forcing font styles or fixed font sizes on people, instead letting browsers do the work and allow for users' preferences where they have then. With table style and adding of font styles, you are stepping outside of the approach that the community had previously taken, so I started that conversation with you. How else would you like for me to address that? We are a community and reportable to the community for our actions, and our styling. We are each accountable for our edits, and our compliance with the style and holding to the consensus. If you think that we should be forcing styles, and as such change our guidance, then I invite you to have that as a conversation with the community.

Now I may be an annoying tick and push people about aligning to community consensus, or myself asking for community consensus, or even bring matters up for discussion where people may say "just do it". My comment is that for clarity, and sustainability of one approach, not a multitude of conflicting styles, that having that consensus is important. While I may have expressed a differing opinion during such conversations, I know the importance of buying into and accepting the consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

I get your point about community consensus but after seeing various contributions by the editors, the reality is not reflecting that consensus, and I don't think that is a bad thing. There is nothing wrong about displaying the style characteristics of individual works in general.
With works displayed in the main namespace, and changing the available default layouts, there is a problem with the browsers. Serif appears smaller than non-serif, (Times New Roman or Garamond versus Arial), because of the stroke thickness of some crucial characters, even though they are the same font size. Both Chrome/Chromium and Firefox allow only one size setting for both. I can't speak for the font settings of Safari, Opera, Edge, or Internet Explorer. I am considering to make a proposal that a minimum font-size should be specified for the {{Default layout}} template to bring their appearance to the same.
As for the shorthand codes in the {{ts}} template, I agree that there are many unused codes, or used only a couple of times (and I am also guilty of this). If there is a way identify these codes and clean them up, I am willing to help. Overall, I am less concerned with the number of declarations than with the issue of inconsistency in the code names. This is something I am also interested in correcting. — Ineuw talk 16:06, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Of course some people don't follow the consensus, and that is why we as a later party change to the consensus, plus educate and challenge the use away from the consensus. If that isn't done there will be drift, and drift upon drift, ... That said it is why we should also sometimes challenge the previous consensus in a progressive manner when we see that it has become a problem. Re browsers and fonts, sure, and that is why we have a practice of css-relativism, and a common style, but most importantly keep it simple. We should always focus on the intent of the author, not get hung up the compositors' outputs. We see the problems of browser differences, screen outputs, mobile presentations, and every element of complexity that we add has that potential for drift. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:27, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

00:20, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

constitution of the U.S. state of Ohio

You were the last person to edit the Wikisource page for the constitution of the U.S. state of Ohio. The link to the current constitution leads to a blind redirect that moves the user back to the same disambiguation page. The document is easily available with a web search. Please fix the page. unsigned comment by 104.129.194.61 (talk) . (on user page)

removed the link — billinghurst sDrewth 21:17, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Cat:Not transcluded

Will tagging like this, with [[Category:Not transcluded]] in the footer still function? I have been working under the assumption that the Category link must be placed in a section of the page that will be transcluded in order to be detected and fulfill its purpose. Can it be placed in the footer? --22:22, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It needs to be in the body so we can independently check whether a "not transcluded" page has been transcluded into main ns: or not. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:40, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
Noting that the best we can do is petscan:1481103 which is gives a broader shout-out, I haven't identified a more accurate means to represent the intersection. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

19:18, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

15:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

20:30, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

17:51, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Speedy

Could you delete https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Page:History_of_Persia Pleaae Thanks! --Zppix (talk) 20:16, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

Donebillinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 10 December 2017 (UTC)

17:57, 11 December 2017 (UTC)

Localization tools

I've forgotten whether we have tools to assist with localizing files such as requested here, and where I might find them. In a pinch, I could download / upload, but that wouldn't preserve the edit history. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:22, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Commonshelper tools are supposedly able to move files between sites, not just to Commons. Where A Commons admin also has admin rights at another wiki there is a javascript tool which utilises OAuth permissions to allow a copy (how I have previously undertaken such tasks). There is no ability to copy a file with its native upload history; just hacks. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Hmm. I've never managed to make Commonshelper work properly, but from your reply in the Scriptorium/Help, it sounds as though an admin from Commons (like yourself) should be able to do the move more easily than myself, now that the Files are tagged. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:12, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Structured Commons newsletter, December 13, 2017

Welcome to the newsletter for Structured Data on Wikimedia Commons! You can update your subscription to the newsletter. Do inform others who you think will want to be involved in the project!

Community updates
Things to do / input and feedback requests
A multi-licensed image on Wikimedia Commons, with a custom {{EthnologyItemMHNT}} Information template. Do you also know media files on Commons that will be interesting or challenging to model with structured data? Add them to the Interesting Commons files page.
Presentations / Press / Events
Presentation about Structured Commons and Wikidata, at WikimediaCon in Berlin.
  • Sandra presented the plans for Structured Commons during WikidataCon in Berlin, on October 29. The presentation focused on collaboration between the Wikidata and Commons communities. You can see the full video here.
Partners and allies
  • We are still welcoming (more) staff from GLAMs (Galleries, Libraries, Archives and Museums) to become part of our long-term focus group (phabricator task T174134). You will be kept in the loop of the project, and receive regular small surveys and requests for feedback. Get in touch with Sandra if you're interested - your input in helping to shape this project is highly valued!
Research
  • Research findings from interviews and surveys of GLAM project participants are being published to the research page. Check back over the next few weeks as additional details (notes, quotes, charts, blog posts, and slide decks) will be added to or linked from that page.
Development
  • The Structured Commons team has written and submitted a report about the first nine months of work on the project to its funders, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation. The 53-page report, published on November 1, is available on Wikimedia Commons.
  • The team has started working on designs for changes to the upload wizard (T182019).
  • We started preliminary work to prototype changes for file info pages.
  • Work on the MediaInfo extension is ongoing (T176012).
  • The team is continuing its work on baseline metrics on Commons, in order to be able to measure the effectiveness of structured data on Commons. (T174519)
  • Upcoming: in the first half of 2018, the first prototypes and design sketches for file pages, the UploadWizard, and for search will be published for discussion and feedback!
Stay up to date!

Warmly, your community liaison, SandraF (WMF) (talk)

Message sent by MediaWiki message delivery - 16:32, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Let me try to word what I am seeing correctly: When I hover over the redlinked "EARLE" on this page, I see the Earle author link in ALL CAPS; but in edit mode, the author link is formatted correctly, and should lead to a blue link since Earle is a hosted author here. Is there some issue with a template somewhere that renders the link in all caps when it should not? Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:04, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Template:CaseCaption used the UC: (see Help:magic words); I have changed to use {{uc}} which is softer. One forces case change to all the text, the other does text formatting, so not forcing its way into the wikilink. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 18 December 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for looking into it. Londonjackbooks (talk) 15:17, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

15:27, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

You left a message on my talk page talking about broken capitalisation of the letter thorn in links. You were the one who broke it, however. You changed &thorn; to Þ, which broke the capitalization(&thorn; is þ, and &THORN; is Þ, but you changed both entities to Þ). JustinCB (talk) 00:16, 20 December 2017 (UTC)


Fixed(see my talk page). JustinCB (talk) 00:55, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

14:31, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Structuring of Ram Khamhaeng Inscription page

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

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

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)

Support request with team editing experiment project

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. 06:26, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

Move template data to WD

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)

Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania

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)