User talk:Billinghurst/2022

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

@Billinghurst: I've completed my first page edit and hope I did it correctly. The book/file seems to be in need of Match and Split; I read the instructions for M&S and was intimidated. The last thing I want to do is screw up on my first project. Guidance or demonstration requested. Thanks, Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 22:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

How we will see unregistered users

Hi!

You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.

When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.

Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.

If you have not seen it before, you can read more on Meta. If you want to make sure you don’t miss technical changes on the Wikimedia wikis, you can subscribe to the weekly technical newsletter.

We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.

Thank you. /Johan (WMF)

18:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

01:23, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

19:55, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Bot tasks with Wikisource (and ideally also Wikidata)?

Hi, over the last year I've been running some Outreachy projects with student using Pywikibot, mainly focused on Wikipedia and Wikidata. See phab:T276329 and phab:T290718. I'm thinking about proposing a new project in the current round (see phab:T299453, and was wondering whether Wikisource might fit in well. Would this potentially be useful / something you'd be interested in co-mentoring?

The ideal kind of project would be the development of a bot to do something systematically here - perhaps linking items to Wikidata, or migrating info from here to Wikidata, but it could be something completely different as well. The main task should be something that would take someone that knows what they're doing 3-4 weeks of work, which would then match a 3-month student project. There would need to be some 'starter' tasks at the beginning to be able to chose between applicants (no CVs allowed).

What do you think? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

21:38, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Author dab vs. work dab

What's the rationale for the deletion of Author:Samuel Johnson? Samuel Johnson is a dab for works while Author:Samuel Johnson is a dab for authors. Surely you can't mean that because there are multiple works titled "William Shakespeare" we should delete Author:William Shakespeare? What am I missing? Xover (talk) 21:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The authors do appear to be on the page, Samuel Johnson. What would make the most sense to me would be to redirect Author:Samuel Johnson to Samuel Johnson#Authors, and provide a proper section header for the section on that page. I would think the same would apply to a page listing multiple works named "William Shakespeare" and multiple authors named "William Shakespeare". BD2412 T 00:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I have restored the page. Using Samuel Johnson as a disambiguation for the authors would require a cross-namespace redirect, which we do not allow. This situation seems analogous to the use of w:John as a disambiguation for things named John and w:John (surname) for people surnamed John. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Just to close the loop, should the list of authors also remain on Samuel Johnson? Even absent a redirect, I would think this would just be a ==See also== Author:Samuel Johnson. BD2412 T 01:48, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
That's the way it's been done elsewhere; e.g. Henry IV. We may want a community discussion, as this is likely to become ever more common. Documenting best practices would help future editors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:31, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I've tweaked the pages to just refer to the other. I don't think it's necessary to duplicate the content, just point at the corresponding dab page. Xover (talk) 06:35, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree with this approach, and would support an effort to formalize it. BD2412 T 07:21, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

One disambiguation page per term per wiki, noting that WD will only cope with one. If you want to change the consensus reached years ago, then please start the conversation. And fair dinkum what is this starting a conversation on my page and acting prior to me even having the opportunity to converse. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Is documented at Help:Disambiguation and appears in the archives of WS:S. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. But these are distinct concepts, they just happen to have a similar textual representation (but distinguished through the namespace prefix). Could you explain a bit more where WD runs into trouble with this? Xover (talk) 08:53, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
A term is a term. One term disambiguation. We don't have "Author:Samuel Johnson" as a label for an item at WD, we have "Samuel Johnson" all of our disambiguation pages align with a single item, our namespace is incidental to the terms. So why would we start creating the concept of "Author" as a label solely for a duplicating disambiguation item? I will comment that I believe that this is the one time that I think that we should create cross namespace redirects, however, I lost that argument at the time. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:00, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Disambiguation pages are NEITHER finding aids nor lists, they disambiguate. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:02, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. But WD seems to suggest we should include the namespace prefix, and, in any case, that labels need not be unique. I can follow a local-only argument that one prefers having a single dab page for both kinds of terms (I disagree, I think, but I can follow the argument), but I am failing to understand where Wikidata issues force us to go that route. Xover (talk) 09:11, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. Is it possible this has changed at WD since our guidance was written? WD has developed a lot over the last half a decade+, so initial limitations in both policy and technology may very well have been removed in that time, but I don't follow WD closely so I don't have any history in this particular area. Xover (talk) 09:30, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The namespace component is when you are matching items, we are not going to find an Author: namespace at any other sister wiki, and we have made our determination to separate authors and works, which doesn't happen in other wikis. We are not matching Category: or Portal:. We treat our author namespace equivalent to other wikis main ns. Tell me to where you are going to link "Samuel Johnson" and to where you are going to link 'Author:Samuel Johnson" at WD. And I still have not heard an argument for why we would have multiple disambiguation pages. Are you going to create one in Portal: ns too? What about Translation: ns? The logic and purpose should be universal not around a simple case. As I said if your issue is about something in a namespace, the answer is to make an exception to x-ns redirects, to which we already have exemptions. It still seems that you are treating disambiguation pages as lists. And WD has not changed, no two items can have the same label and description, and there is only one Samuel Johnson (Q900930)billinghurst sDrewth 11:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm. So, if I'm understanding correctly, it seems like the issue is mainly in terms of interwiki links, and stems mainly from the Wikipedias that do not distinguish between different kinds of disambiguation whereas we partly do? d:Help:Label explicitly allows for both identical label+description on two items, and to distinguish labels by including the namespace, so there wouldn't actually be a problem at that level. But the interwiki linking, in practice, depends on there being only a single item that is a instance of (P31) with the value Wikimedia human name disambiguation page (Q22808320) for a given human name. Which means we technically could have separate dab pages here, and link them to Wikidata items with labels "Samuel Johnson" and "Author:Samuel Johnson", but both would be instance of (P31) Wikimedia human name disambiguation page (Q22808320) and projects without the distinction (i.e. Wikipedia) would only be able to interwiki-link to one of them. Does that sound about right?
We could solve the one problem by creating a new property for instance of (P31) (or possibly two new properties, one for each more specific kind of disambiguation); but the other (the interwikis) is an actual mismatch in information models between projects which cannot be solved by any simple technological means. The very simplest possible solution I can think of would be to extend Wikibase/Wikidata to support many-to-one mappings for interwikis (i.e. our two dabs map cleanly to enwp's one through WD), but that's a big ask that's unlikely to be implemented for just this use case and seems likely to have high potential to cause other issues.
In any case, it sounds like we disagree on what the locally-ideal approach would be in any case, but I'm going to chalk this one down as "Tradeoffs forced on us due to Wikidata concept model mismatch." Regardless of whether we here on enWS actually choose to use two dabs for cases like this, Wikidata shouldn't make it impossible for us to do so. The more of our content and structure we "outsource" to Wikidata the more its limitations and local policies will shape what we can and cannot do here. Xover (talk) 13:06, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Would you support the idea of requiring all disambiguation pages to exist solely in the Main namespace? That is, take all Author disambiguation pages and move them into the main namespace? It would be a big change, but it would solve some related problems. For example, Author:William Shakespeare could be used for the best known author of that name, since we would no longer need to reserve it for a disambiguation page. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: surely we can handle primary topics here no differently then on Wikipedia? Wikidata has no problem with that setup because it assigns a number to each usage of the name (including the primary), rather than a disambiguator to the ambiguous ones. I frankly don't see a problem with cross-namespace redirects from Author: space for this purpose, and would be fine having everything in mainspace. BD2412 T 20:52, 25 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion at the time talked about having all disambig pages in the main ns, and having x-ns redirects—no consensus for that. I still flag that some people are still thinking of disambig pages as listing/find pages. That has not been the purpose and why we have not built pages that list all the encyclopaedic entries for a person, and instead they are over in Portal: ns. I still see that the easiest solution for this is allowing x-ns redirects for the purpose of linking to disambiguation pages in main ns. Simple and quick scope change and perfectly reasonable. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:18, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
All we need to accomplish this is a community discussion, and consensus for this rather modest change, yes? No technical change, just a procedural one. BD2412 T 02:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Provided I've understood this correctly then, yes, this is only a policy clarification (all dabs in ns:0) and amendment (x-ns redirects are ok for this). Any technical change would be to get WD to cater to using two dabs, and that's just not realistically on the table just now. Xover (talk) 05:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't wanna, `cause I just don't like mixing author and work dabs. But given the limitations here, I probably would; simply because I don't see that we have any choice.
But I am having trouble thinking through all the implications of this. For example, does it actually make sense to have a separate Author: namespace at all in light of this? We're already mixing works and authors in mainspace on dab pages, so perhaps it'd be better to stuff them all in ns:0 and adopt Wikipedia's "primary topic" approach. At least it'd be consistent. It also raises questions about Portal:, where our distinction with ns:0 is sometimes rather thin and there are already major unsolved issues with distinguishing ns:0 content and Portal: content. Just as a random, and not-particularly-thought-through example: Portal:William Shakespeare (as a topic, including works by and about the man, his works, significant biographers, people inspired by him, etc.), William Shakespeare (for the book by E. K. Chambers, the EB1911 article, etc. etc.), and Author:William Shakespeare (all the people of that name). All of these should interwiki to w:William Shakespeare (disambiguation), so can we really usefully distinguish them into separate namespaces here? Maybe the most we could do is distinguish with a distinct header template for each type pf content?
@Inductiveload: You may be interested in or have something to add to this discussion, since I know you've given at least some of these issues some thought. Xover (talk) 07:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I have initiated a discussion at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Unify disambiguation pages into mainspace with redirects from Author space. Everybody can take it there from here. BD2412 T 08:23, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

17:42, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

21:15, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Merging multiple documents into one mainspace page?

Hi again! I've started proofreading Index:SATCON2 Executive Summary.pdf - but this is only the first part of a set of reports, all of which I'm uploading to commons:Category:SATCON2. I'm not sure if I should create a mainspace page for each, or if there's a way to have a single page that catches all of the different sections. Any suggestions? Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

19:18, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

19:12, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

22:59, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Exporting deleted translation

Sorry to bring this up again; I didn't make a copy of this when first reviewing in 2020, left the meta-analysis unresolved, and they were deleted again the next year. Would you mind rendering one or both of these and exporting them for me as an epub? Warmly, still hoping for pure wiki deletion one day, Sj (talk) 14:43, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

21:16, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

AWB stuck in a loop

AWB seems to be stuck in a loop here. Xover (talk) 10:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Nah, another issue, I was just working on your contribs, and missed the box to remove duplicates. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:47, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

22:07, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

इसमें लिखे क्या

कुछ भी लिखते हैं डिलीट कर देते हो आखिर लिखना क्या है इसमें या फालतू का विकिपीडिया बना के रखे हो सब 🙄🙄🙄 2409:4063:6D80:8106:0:0:3CC9:3A0C 11:45, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

16:01, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

19:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Your book list

Have you ever considered creating an Wikipedia page adaptation of your book list at archive.org? There is this w:Bibliography of Australian history (created by Rjensen (talkcontribs)) but no w:Bibliography of England. Such a bibliography may attract more editors to get involved to eventually get all (or at least most of the more ambitious ones) of the items in your book list up here on Wikisource (which I suspect to be your ultimate aim).

Also I wonder if there is any way to add a chronological number to your book list similar to what you have for the completed works listed in your user page. Solomon7968 (talk) 14:24, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

21:01, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-15

19:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

AlOx vol 2 patch

To finish it off, I followed your suggestion for dealing with the missing pages from the scan. There is a quick-and-dirty index page for those two pages. @Miraclepine:.

So there may be a need to take those pages into account as exceptional transclusions. A mnemonic is that they cover Foster. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:47, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-16

23:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-17

22:56, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-18

19:33, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-19

15:22, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-20

18:58, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-21

00:21, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-22

20:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-23

02:46, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-24

16:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Egypt/2 Ancient Egypt

Hi, I fixed up a couple of issues on 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Egypt/2 Ancient Egypt when you converted it to {{tl:pages}} format. Firstly there was a typo "toection" which caused a section of text to be duplicated. Secondly, you forgot to exclude djvu/79 in the third "pages" statement - this meant Plate II was displayed twice. DivermanAU (talk) 21:58, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-25

20:18, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-26

20:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-27

19:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-28

19:24, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-29

22:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-30

19:27, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Around, sort of

Wave to the world. Have to love happenstance and circumstance, and the curve balls of life. Should be back though in no way to previous extents. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 11:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Good to hear from you, and that you are ok. And here's hoping to see you back to whatever extent pleases the author of your story. :) Xover (talk) 13:15, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-31

21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-32

19:49, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-33

21:08, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-34

00:12, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

  • mv text to header
  • rm "EM"
  • replacement /\<br \/\>/g
  • cleanup script
  • note to editor
  • consider if scripts are required for other NLS works, and either do or document the AWB actions

Categorisation to fix

  • Consider whether we want to migrate to its own header series Done
  • review wikipedia and wikidata linking Done => {{topicmatcher}} implemented
  • Check readiness to export

Wikidata cleanup

Tech News: 2022-35

23:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Three Chicago authors, early 20th century

Emily Rose Burt, Eleanor Champlain, Austin Mann Drake. Can you find the birth and death dates of these authors? (And in the meantime, who is the publisher Percy Roberts?) PseudoSkull (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-36

23:22, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-37

01:49, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

checker!

[106] looks better now. The fix for reference. legoktm (talk) 05:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

You are truly a champion bloke and helper of the wikis Legoktm. Thanks — billinghurst sDrewth 12:19, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-38

MediaWiki message delivery 22:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-39

MediaWiki message delivery 00:30, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-40

MediaWiki message delivery 00:23, 4 October 2022 (UTC)

Semitic Languages (Eichhorn)

Could you take a look at WS:PD#Semitic Languages (Eichhorn)? I'm not entirely sure what's going on there, but I think it probably merits re-opening the discussion and undeleting until settled. Xover (talk) 05:58, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-41

14:08, 10 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-42

MediaWiki message delivery 21:46, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-43

MediaWiki message delivery 21:22, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-44

MediaWiki message delivery 21:15, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The Antelope (23 U.S. 66)

You converted this to using standard reference tags back in 2021, Thank you for doing that.

I've recently further cleaned it up to tackle the reference errors it was seemingly generating (Not helped by the fact that the given source seems to be an inactive link now.)

I'd appreciate a review/validation of this against a combination of good sources:- https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/23/66/, https://law.resource.org/pub/us/case/reporter/US/23/23.US.66.html and https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.49015002890615&view=1up&seq=274).

It's a shame that this isn't necessarily the only 'scrambled' import that seems to exist on English Wikisource. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Not something that I proofread or validate. Doing maintenance on something doesn't indicate an interest in the work, something that I am sure you are aware. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:10, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Quite. I'll move the discussion on the actual maintenance concern to the Scriptorum. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Destiny by Roche

To Delight, a versions page for a particular novel, you added "Destiny, a work by Mazo de la Roche". Where did you find this information? Is there a scan of it? Is it in the public domain? I knew nothing about this, and it isn't listed on Hathi that I can see, or on Mazo de la Roche's Wikipedia article which lists what looks like her complete bibliography.

Also, that's a versions page and not a disambiguation page, so is Destiny a version of Delight? PseudoSkull (talk) 01:24, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

D'oh! about versions <=> disambiguation. Missed that late at night! The work was listed in cyclopaedia that I am getting shipshape for transclusion. I will fix that link. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:58, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I didn't find that in a work, I just saw it listed in a book catalogue where I was fixing numbers of other things whilst I was disambiguating another work. The old fix one thing and ten other things fall out of the fixing. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Do you remember what page that was on? PseudoSkull (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Ugh, either I am having a Destiny and Delight issue; or I cannot remember clearly remember. Just reset anything that is quirky. If it actually exists it will reappear. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:50, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-45

MediaWiki message delivery 00:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Nicene Fathers Authors..

Hi, As you seem to be good at looking at Biographical sources, I was wondering if you could have a look through the Authors for the various volumes, and add details if you can identify any missing ones. I've created some Author pages for authors/contributors in the later Volumes, and would appreciate expansion of details as time permits.

Thanks for your existing efforts in respect of the Author: namespace :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

I wander through pages all of these spaces browsing at various times, though to live in that space alone can just be frustrating. It all depends on my mood of creation. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Joe Biden's invocation of the 25th Amendment

Hi Billinghurst,

Thanks for the help with the Richard Nixon page comment of mine. I have another question: Joe Biden's letters invoking the 25th Amendment and then resuming presidential power seem worthy of inclusion on Wikisource, and the White House website has the original letters available. However, the letters to Speaker Pelosi and Senator Leahy are identical in phrasing aside from the salutation and address. If these letters ought to become part of the archive, should each of the four have their own page, should the letters be combined in some form (ex. invocations are one doc, resumptions another), or something else? I already have them downloaded, and would be more than willing to transcribe in whatever manner you think is best.

Thanks,
Packer1028 (talk) 17:00, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

@Packer1028: Each work is its own work for here and when it is recorded in Wikidata, so individual pages unless they were published as a set, then it would be parent and separate subpages. Where you are wanting to build a collection, then we can look to a Portal: ns page to curate something, or there is the option to have sensible categories. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Thank you for the guidance! I've created all four documents now, but haven't catalogued them in any way aside from putting them into the "Joe Biden Letters" section. If there's anything else I should do, let me know. Regardless, best. Packer1028 (talk) 13:16, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-46

MediaWiki message delivery 21:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

TO DO Nov 2022

billinghurst sDrewth 00:26, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-47

MediaWiki message delivery 23:21, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-48

MediaWiki message delivery 20:03, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

thanks for the overrides

Being that there were not so many chapters and the text was not completed yet, I was using the red links to help me remember -- a terrible reason which I apologize for.

Remember what (you might ask)? I was considering how to flesh out a portal for the company.

So, a question. In your seemingly random and most definitely thorough perusal of the works here, have you seen anything, like law cases or other that might go under what wikidata calls Post Holdings?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:36, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-49

MediaWiki message delivery 00:41, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-50

MediaWiki message delivery 23:34, 12 December 2022 (UTC)

Tech News: 2022-51

MediaWiki message delivery 00:00, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

DNB page with square brackets for missing text

I was looking at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/234 which is the next page of that volume to be validated, and saw that it has square brackets for some missing text which has been interpolated from another unspecified source. The identical page from the 1885 edition is available without missing text at Google Books. The editor who put the square brackets in has not been active since 2014, so since you are the last human editor to have done anything to this page I thought I would ask you whether (a) I can validate it with brackets removed and note my source in the summary; or (b) Can we get the image replaced with a complete one? The image we have is not from the original source at Archive.org listed on the Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu page - I don't see any evidence of how it was replaced or by whom or from what source, but the first Wikisource edits look as though they were from the corrupted Internet Archive image. The current image is the same as the one at Wikimedia Commons. PeterR2 (talk) 12:51, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

@PeterR2: Sure, just put in a clear comment or a link in the edit summary to where you ref'd. These are early scans by archive.org and the like, so they had their issues. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 31 December 2022 (UTC)