User talk:Hesperian/Archive 9

The following text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.

It was time to archive. Billinghurst, the update you asked for is at User:Hesperian/Without text. Hesperian 00:26, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

the endlessly interestingness of stuff

I see what you wanted now, pardon me for not looking closer. I was reminded of the Brown paper because of this one. Howard, the author, says "Engagements of superior importance at present prevent, and may long continue to prevent, my putting these inquiries much further." This engagement, more important than discovering molecules, was to taking leaf out of Linne's book and create a nebulous nomenclature! CYGNIS INSIGNIS

upper() in your scripts

Hi. Fisrt of all, thanks for the scripts. I regret it took me a while before finding them out :-)

I might be wrong as I am not a Javascript expert, so I apologise if the following is not correct. I was not able to run the 'upper()' script twice in the same page. I fixed the problem adding "var upper = ' '". Probably is something related to the execution of toUpperCase() and initialisation of variables. In the last instruction you also use 'linked.length'. Shoudn't it be 'upper.length'?

One more thing. How can I call shortcuts? I tried any combination of keys but none worked (I use windows Vista). --Mpaa (talk) 23:40, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Hi Mpaa. I have a very busy weekend; I'll have a look at upper() later, maybe Monday.

Regarding your question about shortcuts, it isn't about what operating system you use, it is about what browser. For firefox, you invoke shortcut-a with Alt-Shift-A. Information on other browsers can be found at w:Access key#Access in different browsers.

But there is also a problem with my code that causes some shortcuts to work and some not. The problem is that the Mediawiki software has already taken many shortcuts, and if you try to take one that Mediawiki has already claimed, it is usually Mediawiki that wins. I think I've figured out the solution to that—I need to move my tool registration into an onload hook. Thanks for reminding me about this. I'll sort it out when I have time, and let you know. Hesperian 01:19, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot about this.

• Defining a global variable named "upper" clobbered the function named "upper". You made it local; I renamed it. Either is an acceptable fix.
• Yes, that "linked.length" was wrong, thanks.
• I have the whole thing running in an onLoadHook now, and I believe this will prevent Mediawiki from clobbering my shortcuts. Hesperian 01:53, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Which Captain King?

From Page:A sketch of the physical structure of Australia.djvu/38 off the top of your head do you know which King it is? — billinghurst sDrewth 01:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, that would be Phillip Parker. Hesperian 01:48, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

Need help to properly name a category

Hi. I would like to create a subcategory to Category:Marine life and move all the marine vertebrate articles. I just don’t know what would be the preferred name? Marine vertebrates?, Fish?, or (the least preferable) Ichthyology?. I bring this up because of knowing that eventually, there will be sufficient articles to move from marine life, like Marine mammals, Marine invertebrates, etc. But these can definitely wait. Could you please advise? - Thanks.— Ineuw talk 11:34, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

"Marine vertebrates" is fine, but please don't create "Marine invertebrates"; the invertebrates are a polyphyletic group. I think generally it is best for our biota categories to follow alpha taxonomy. Hesperian 11:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, and about polyphyletic definitely! that’s why I contacted you. :-) — Ineuw talk 12:50, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

lol

An APIing idea

One of the things that I have been contemplating is the ability to get a link checker that does a "lead page to subpage" vs "subpage to lead page" check, though note that the lead page may be a defined/substituted page. This enables a check that for (biographical) works that where we link out, we are also linking back. So that may mean that the page does not exist or it is not linked back, either way something to fix. I am/was told that with the Jquery stuff built in that these types of queries are now more able to be coded and run per work. My response was "Hah!" — billinghurst sDrewth 13:51, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Can you clarify what do you mean by "lead page", "subpage", "defined" and "substituted"?

Clarification aside, I can certainly think of situations where links should be two-way. e.g. a mainspace work listed on an author page should generally link back to that author page. Not vice versa but.

From memory, a script that I wrote last year was interfered with by the fact that the link table always contains a link from Title/Subpage back to Title, even when such a link is not explicitly present on Title/Subpage, and even when Title doesn't exist. See for example Special:WhatLinksHere/A Study in Scarlet/Part 1. This would render it impossible to find subpages that don't contain a link to their parent.

Hesperian 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes

Hey Hesperian,

I know the parameter "notes" definitely suggests that there should be, well, just that there, But why are we excerpting from Wikipedia? Wikipedia for example cannot reference itself or excerpt from another wikipedia article; why do we make an exception?

Even though that I feel is most important in this matter, in which some editors support removal, yet others revert, we have a link directly to the article in the notes field. Do we really need it there, is it in our scope? - Theornamentalist (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm not really following your argument. In particular, I don't see how the fact that Wikipedia doesn't references or excerpt itself is even vaguely relevant here. My position is that the page is improved by a brief note explaining the context and significance of the work. Hesperian 00:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is at least somewhat relevant, I mean, if they don't use it themselves, why would we; of course we have no obligation to do anything they do, but still. Also, in excerpting, we are taking their dynamic information and making it stagnant. What if the excerpt is wrong? Poorly written? Maybe it should point to a revision, if nothing else. If the wp article has sources, surely we could use the actual source as opposed to wikipedia. Not that these opinions necessarily have a strong backing or any weight, but that's my compromise on the matter! - Theornamentalist (talk) 10:57, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

It is an element of context. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Watcha reckon?

I had to disambiguate The Lion and the Mouse, and when I got to the page it was a compilation, so have split it and created The Lion and the Mouse (Aesop) and headed with {{translations}}. Looking it reinforces why we should keep works as subparts of works so we can keep a run going within a work. Do you think that we should be slowly tidying up those works to recreate the work? Similarly, while we had (have) a compilation page(s) and there is some value in having them together, do you see that we should be looking to do that, and if so, main namespace or another place? I could see that we could use the portal namespace to do it as a suitable subpage to a title. It is a bit of work, but there could some value in thinking through the framework, especially as the bible stuff falls into the same sort of space, and surely there will be other works; an alternative would be a means to do some sort of means to use a double wiki extension adaption so we can match them like interwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:10, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, lots to respond to here...

I guess I would have used {{versions}} there rather than {{translations}}, because I'm inclined to think that a goodly proportion of the available English-language versions of The Lion and the Mouse would be retellings, rather than new translations from the ancient Greek.

Yes, I think we should be tidying up the compilation works and moving these to subpages.

Not sure I understand your portal question, but I think mainspace Aesop's Fables should be a versions page, and Portal:Aesop's Fables could point at the versions page, provide a more thorough, annotated comparison of the various versions of the individual (Perry-indexed) fables, discuss provenance, and pull together all the analysis, such as the various diatribes published between Bentley and Boyle arguing over whether or not the fables really were written by Aesop.

Hesperian 13:02, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, then we may need to add that clarity to the templates and the help page. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

• Please find some other work and restore the page split. I have been aware of this series, I have a plan to improve the versions and preserve the pages' concept. The [active] user did it with love—adding something where there was nothing—and it is quite a good idea to have the comparison. I've been ignoring them until the transcripts can be replaced with wiki-pages 5-10 times better, this will require more creation than rearrangement of content. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 00:06, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
  • G'day mate. Unsure what you mean by a lot of this; e.g. "restore the page split", "preserve the pages' concept". Not even sure if you're talking to me or Billinghurst. But I understand the first five words and am happy to oblige. ;-) Hesperian 00:32, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Apologies, I was the addressing the changes described above, but what you said will be valuable when I get around to sorting these pages out. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

My thoughts for Portal namespace would be to use it to build the comparative pages, so the individual components would be their parts of the overarching work, and the components pulled together (transcluded?) in Portal. In that form, it would also allow for commentary. I had looked to see if there was scope for Double Wiki extension, though have been told that it is exclusively for interwiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

If someone wants to help improve the pages, I've made a start by creating Index:The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, ... Vol 2.djvu and Index:The Fables of Æsop (Jacobs).djvu. Some commentary, history and discussion of who translated what is given by Jacobs, Index:The fables of Aesop, as first printed by William Caxton in 1484, ... Vol 1.djvu, and was praised by his contemporaries. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 22:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Another good case study would be the works of Shakespeare; I've just converted Macbeth to a disambiguation page encompassing Shakespeare's play, some critical analysis of the play, and an encyclopedia article on the real Scottish king. Macbeth (Shakespeare) is now a versions page. Hesperian 01:52, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

• ditto Romeo and Juliet. Hesperian 02:09, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Loose ends

You've been busy tying up a lot of loose ends that I still had on my plate to do (re: Coates versions pages, etc.), so thank you! You're making my laundry list much smaller :) I hope in the future to be more helpful here—once my more selfish tasks have been completed! Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:15, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Happy to be of assistance. :-) Hesperian 03:27, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you, Hesperian, for converting A Tribute to Dixon Osburn to a disambiguation page! Much appreciated, -- Cirt (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You're welcome. :-) Hesperian 06:23, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Greek, transcription of

A couple of questions I have posed to those who check and fix these things, but I received no answer. Greek characters usually appear to be italicised, this would accord with the rendering of words in other languages, so do you reckon I should do that? Secondly, some users wrap them in {{polytonic}}, do you know what the purpose of this is (or was in 2006)? CYGNIS INSIGNIS 06:38, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Um, I guess so. I see your argument, and share your uncertainty.... As for "polytonic", everything I know and more can be read by your good self at w:Greek diacritics. Hesperian 06:42, 10 July 2011 (UTC)

Feel up to The Odyssey

As I am packing up for the night, RC shows someone is 'helping' on The Odyssey. If you don't get to it, I will try to figure it out. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:12, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Resolved, for the moment. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:02, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

About {{{bad title}}} pages

Sorry about the trouble with these. I'm still trying to get back into the swing of things after a almost 5 year absence. I see what you're doing with these and it looks like a great idea. We may want to see if there's some way to get links to these so they don't show up on the orphaned pages report. I've thought about it, but so far everything I thought of seems very artificial. If you have any ideas, I'd love to hear them. Again, sorry for the trouble. - Illy (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

I would be concerned if they did not appear, as that would mean that they have been linked to. Do we have an easy means to check if there are links to these pages? — billinghurst sDrewth 21:47, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

That's a good point about being on the orphaned pages report. You can manually check if it's linked to by using the "What links here" in the toolbox, but I don't know of any way to automatically do this. - Illy (talk) 15:20, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Until we have an automated means, maybe by someone writing some live jquery of the API of all the linked-to pages with {{bad title}} and that puts a report all on the one page … (SDrewth innocently stares at Hesperian) … it is one of those quandaries. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

I did just manually check. Several are linked to by User:Bookofjude under his user page as a list of headerless articles to be ignored. The only one that appears to actively link to it is The Portrait of a Lady linking to Chapter I. I'll correct this one. - Illy (talk) 15:31, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Fixed. It was a bad link in the header. I think this is exactly the types of problems that these pages can help us with. - Illy (talk) 15:34, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

Multiple PSM article title problem

Hi. I discovered this 3 part PSM article where the author, or the publisher, altered the title after the first article. In my scheme of multiple part article list generation, I rely on identical article names. Is it permitted to truncate the first article title to correspond with the rest? This would only affect the Table of Contents and the main namespace article title, but NOT the original?

Vol 29 - Animal and Plant Lore of Children.
Vol 33 - Animal and Plant Lore.
Vol 37 - Animal and Plant Lore.

Thanks in advance for your guidance.— Ineuw talk 17:16, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Hesperian 23:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. — Ineuw talk 00:27, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

I would also do a redirect from the longer title, just for completeness. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Will do so.— Ineuw talk 14:55, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Hesperian. You have new messages at Digipoke's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Before FTC nom ... image siting

I am looking to be cheeky soon and to nominate both of the Picturesque ... PotMs as a double-banger FTC, well at least for consideration. I would like to get an outside opinion on the location of the images. If you have a look at Picturesque New Guinea/Chapter 2 you will see the images are transcluded in situ, however, you will see that the images fall grossly outside the reference points; BY CHAPTERS in some cases. To me the location of the images is an artefact of the printing, not the author, and would think that we could consider re-siting the images and captions with their respective pages would give due credit to the author's intention. I don't want to go and do that and then get grief at FTC for doing it. So here I am. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:40, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

"Without text" check time?

It has been a while since we have run a check, would you be so kind, when you have the time, to run the standard check to identify pages that have been tagged "Without text". Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:40, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Done Hesperian 00:43, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Houston, we have a problem. Only ~140pp does not seem correct for 4 months. Checked history dates of three files and they all showed 9 Jun 2011. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:37, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Ugh, okay, sorry. My usual scripts are not where I am right now. I grabbed a script out of an archive and it looked right so I ran it and the output looked right so I posted it. Hang on....

I was only getting PDF pages, not DjVu pages... done. Ha ha, cop that!! Hesperian 01:51, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Same

Any idea what to do with these?

• Same v. Same (68 U.S. 579) Parallel
• Same v. Same (73 U.S. 518)
• Same v. Same (76 U.S. 805)

Metadata errors, apparently. Hesperian 12:52, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Sure - I'd use the parallel reporter "cheat" to hunt down the scan --> get the right casename --> etc. (got the first one before you reverted btw) but for some reason >sarcasm< someone decided to whack it on principle or something. -- 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Also, any number of article titles with a trailing Same e.g. Shaw v. Railroad Company Same. Hesperian 12:55, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Could be multiple case numbers all resolved by a single lead opinion under 1 casename... could be Metadata like you said - are trailing casename bits really that common? -- George Orwell III (talk) 13:07, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Seems to be simply metadata. The same can be seen in w:List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 76, for example; same simply means the same as the previous entry in the list. Anyhow, I've got it sorted out now. Two fixed, one to go. Yeah, there are lots, and some extra weird ones like Same Case on Appeal. Hesperian 13:12, 24 July 2011 (UTC)

Index:Extraordinary Government Gazette of Western Australia (No.48 of 1890).djvu missing a page?

Looking at Index:Extraordinary Government Gazette of Western Australia (No.48 of 1890).djvu, I initially thought that we were missing the top of the second page (starting a paragraph and text run), however, now I am wondering whether there is actually a page (or more) missing for this work. Do you know of someone who might be able to check the work for veracity of the scan? Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:12, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Hang on, I'll ask oic. Hesperian 14:10, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

It's in UWA's Reid Library (3rd floor, govt pubs) on the shelf, that's where I got it - unfortunately I'm unable to get in there myself for a few weeks. FTR, they have scanning ability on their photocopiers for free with a flash drive. Orderinchaos (talk) 21:04, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Coates versions, etc.

Thanks for your changes... I'm just gonna hang by till you're done before I potentially mess anything up; then I'll use your corrections as a "template" for future edits. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Come to think of it, if we have the versions link, I really don't need to add the note, do I? Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:02, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

It's pretty simple. If there are multiple versions of essentially the same work, then every version should link back a versions page. If there are multiple distinct works with essentially the same title, then every work (or versions page) should like back to a disambiguation page.

Yeah, I'm inclined to think that if you have a link to a versions page, then you don't really need that note.

Hesperian 05:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks! My brain works much better when not alone in a vacuum! Londonjackbooks (talk) 05:11, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Translations and versions

I notice that you are primary maintainer of these. Why do we need two separate templates for this? See my comments on both the talk pages from some time back, especially at Template talk:Versions. I think if we had just one that had a translation=yes parameter we could ensure they stayed consistent easier and eliminate the current name conflict with the unrelated template {{translation}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 17:20, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

<shrug> If you think it would be better as a single template, why not make a mockup and show it around. Hesperian 23:36, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, just wanted to make sure you didn't have big objections to the idea before I took much time with it. Will do.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 04:34, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I expect they won't go together as neatly as you think. Both the code and the calling syntax will end up a mess. e.g. you will have to tackle questions like what to do if the user provides |original= and/or |translated= parameters, but omits |translation=yes. But if that's the case, there's no better way to convince you of that than to let you see for yourself. Hesperian 05:15, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't want to waste my time (or yours). I just wanted to discuss the issue. I raised it over six months ago on both talk pages. It seems consistent with your position (which I entirely agree with) that a Translation is just a special type of Version; so I was hoping to get your buy-in. There are less than 50 occurrences of {{translations}}, there are also several translations that already use {{versions}} that I know of and the template name is confusingly similar to the unrelated template {{translation}}.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:42, 29 July 2011 (UTC)

Index:Irving Berlin Michigan

It is my opinion that the work is not validated due to the music and lack of work on the text. Am I too harsh? — billinghurst sDrewth 08:51, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

No. This site lacks the technical capability to do justice to works like that. From the editor's point of view you could argue that we've done the best we can (though in this case, we haven't even done that) so it should be considered validated. From the reader's point of view the work hasn't even been transcribed in any meaningful way, let alone validated. In situations like this I think we should try to look at things more from the reader's point of view. Personally I would mark all those pages as 'Problematic', pending the ability to transcribe musical notation. Hesperian 02:39, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Best practice given our current technical capabilities would be: text header, text authorship, image of first line, image of second line with lyrics in alt text, image of third line with lyrics as alt text, text copyright notice. Anything short of that, I would consider not meaningfully transcribed. Hesperian 02:43, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

I have just shoved {{page contains sheet music}} as per other pages, downgraded to problematic, marked the page as "To Do" and quietly shuffled away. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

With Versions, how have you manage the author pages?

When you have been putting {{versions}} into play, how have you been handling links? to the works, and ignoring the disambig page? Or including? Need to manage On Conciliation with America by Edmund Burke. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Hmm, I guess there are a few different ways you can go. Tentatively, my preferred option is a full citation of the original (or most important if it was preceded by preprints of limited circulation as in my example below) publication, and a pointer to the versions page for others. e.g.

• Brown, Robert (1826), "Character and description of Kingia" in Phillip Parker King (1826), Narrative of a survey of the intertropical and western coasts of Australia 2 (Appendix B): 534–565.
  • For others publications of this work, see Character and description of Kingia.

Depending on the context, you could change "publications" to "versions", "editions", "printings", etc. What do you think? Hesperian 00:11, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Pages not transcluded

Gday. If you have a look at http://toolserver.org/~mzmcbride/checker/?db=enwikisource_p&title=Index%3AA+Specimen+of+the+Botany+of+New+Holland.djvu you will see that three pages have been missed in transcluding. Thought that I would leave it with you first, though if you are unavailable, I am able to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:32, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

The culprit seems to have been some shady-sounding fellow named Billinghurst.[1] ;-) Hesperian 08:25, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Wouldn't surprise me, he is a cad. Apogolollies. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeking opinion ... Disambiguation vs. Portal vs. ...

As we continue to build biographical data from various sources on site, starting to get some critical points about if/how/where to compile these components. I also noted your recent comments around Charles Darwin that the page itself maybe should not exist as a disambiguation page. So I am here seeking your opinion on where you see some of these things progressing. Where people are not authors and we start to get numerous articles for them, to me it seems that we have a few choices, each with p+ves and n-ves.

• Disambiguation pages based loosely around articles of the same name, a person
• Use of the portal namespace, and either at top level for each person or each name, and either to disambiguate in that space, or to concatenate multiple people per name and use navigation tools. Then within that space to put all names at the root level or look to do them as series of subpages below something like [[Portal:People]] as mumbled about at User talk:AdamBMorgan#Portal:People
• Categories, as per Commons.
• Walk away and just say that there is no point and as long as we put each link at WP we are all okay.

Example would be Thomas Baltzar as per this search. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:30, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The main point I would raise with respect to this is that we seem to have very little interest in giving our reader what they are looking for. When a reader types "Mary Shelley", what is it they want? More than likely they want to explore works by Mary Shelley. We have a page for that — Author:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley — but the reader won't be taken there because "we don't do cross-namespace redirects". Well, maybe we should.

If I were benevolent dictator of this place, I would

1. Rename the Portal: namespace to Subject: or Topic: or About:.
2. Move all works into a Work: namespace.
3. Restrict the root namespace to navigation; the only things allowed in there are redirects (including cross-namespace) and disambiguation pages (broadly construed to include versions pages, translations pages, etc). Mary Shelley would be a cross-namespace redirect to Author:Mary Wollstonecraft Shelley. Frankenstein would be a cross-namespace redirect to Work:Frankenstein. The content of Charles Darwin would be:
   • A link to Author:Charles Robert Darwin for works by Darwin
   • A link to Subject:Charles Darwin for works about Darwin (if such a page existed)
   • Links to works entitled "Charles Darwin" if we had any, but we don't
   • It is a matter for discussion towards consensus whether we would also link to works entitled "Darwin, Charles"; that discussion would revolve around the degree of ambiguity: whether a reader who types "Charles Darwin" into the search box might in fact be seeking a specific article whose title has been misremembered and is in fact "Darwin, Charles".
4. Ban navigation pages outside the root namespace. e.g. the disambiguation page at Author:Joseph Knight would be moved to Joseph Knight, and would thus support the inclusion not only of authors of that name, but also of works and subjects of that name.

Thus our root namespace becomes our front foyer, containing no content itself, but efficiently directing our readers to the resources they are looking for. Rather revolutionary, I know, and therefore unlikely to garner much support. I'd settle for clarity on the fact that disambiguation pages list works/authors/topics with the same name (or similar enough to cause genuine confusion), author pages list works by, portal pages list works about, and the last two of these may be merged into the author page.

Hesperian 01:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Not that it answers my question for the immediate, that is not so scary, and to me actually works both well and logically.

• To the point that we move works, and redirects are created as the cross namespace redirect in lieu of nothing; where we have more in other spaces, then we have an exceptions list and plan for that space.
• Portal/Subject/Topic/... whatever, they all mean the same thing, and aliases do a wonderful thing if we asked really nicely, though still not certain on subpages or not
• Set the GO button to check other namespaces if nothing exists in the root, and proceeds in order to other namespaces. One issue being that do we want to enforce the root page in the main ns if nothing already exists, ie. why create a redirect if we don't have to.

Or is this a case of building a new landing namespace as default, and leaving other bits in place? Hmm, thunking to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

This is a very interesting discussion. It makes it much more like a card catalog arrangement, which is consistent with the ws philosophy. Some of that could be easily implemented without a Dictator. Renaming the Portal namespace to either "Subject" or "Topic", as per card catalogs, makes perfect sense to me and, although it might not be simple to implement, would be worth discussing. The root namespace for navigation and work namespace for works is logical, though likely controversial and would be a lot of work to implement, though I still think it bears discussing. It would seem to require cross-namespace redirects, however; not that they are empirically bad, as one would want Author:Joseph Knight to redirect somewhere, namely to the page Joseph Knight.--Doug.^{(talk • contribs)} 09:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Of triantiwontigongolopes

G'day mate. You uploaded this a while back, but its incomplete and without a text layer. (I noticed that there's a complete but text-only entry at http://www.archive.org/details/abookforkids16251gut). Is there another archive anywhere? I had a recollection of you saying you had an original - or am I imagining that? Moondyne (talk) 14:05, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, that was Doreen that I had an original of. And Mick and Bloke. No, I don't know where we can get a complete scan. :-( Hesperian 00:23, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Bugger, thanks anyway. Moondyne (talk) 01:40, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

linking indices

Thanks mate, I made good use of your wizardry to create A Book of Myths/Index, but with a couple of thousand links on that page I'm concerned this could be challenged as "overlinked" ;-)

Some things that I have forgotten how to do, if you wouldn't mind reminding me. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 08:03, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

• How do I float an image to the right and add a centred caption?
• How do I add a ref to some footnotes (a footnote to a footnote)?
• And how do I do that in an overflowing footnote (a footnote in a ref follow)?

---

This is a right-floated image with a centered caption.

You have to replace the outer

<ref name="foo" group="bar" follow="ook">Footnote content</ref>

with

{{#tag:ref|Footnote content|name=foo|group=bar|follow=ook}}

but leave the inner one alone. For example, this text contains a footnote that itself contains a footnote.^{[outer 1]}

1. This is the outer footnote.^{[inner 1]}

1. This is the inner footnote

Good luck. Hesperian 11:39, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

PSM Article titles redirected.

Hi. Now that I am learning to look at the "Recent changes" more frequently, I noticed that you are creating redirects for the PSM articles. I feel somewhat remorseful for not having created them when generating the main namespace article headers.

The reason was that I tested the idea some months ago and the redirect page didn't show up in Google searches. So after some four weeks I dropped the idea. I now realize that redirect page status to be included in searches must have been changed since then? Am I correct? - I will gladly generate them in the future, and deal with duplicate titles through disambiguation pages. Thus, it will save you time.

As things stand now, my main namespace work has stopped at the end of Volume 37 and presently proofreading pages with tables and images until that volume is reached. The return to proofreading and collection of article titles, and plan to complete them up to and including Volume 50. . . . then, back to authors, pages with images and tables, and image uploads in between which is currently in the midst of volume 63.— Ineuw talk 03:49, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I have been engaged in a personal project involving the identification of missing links from page titles to works properly so titled. e.g. disambiguation pages with missing entries, redirects that ought to be disambiguation pages, non-existent titles that ought to be redirects or disambiguation pages. Such a large undertaking must be subdivided into digestible subtasks, and at present I am working on two such subtasks: creating redirects to PSM articles, and creating disambiguation pages for ambiguous court cases.

There is no need for remorse. This is a hobby, and I do only what I feel like doing, for my own reasons, and I happen to feel like working on these tasks right now. It certainly would never cross my mind to think that I am doing something that should have been done by someone else.

I have no idea what Google scrapes and what it doesn't. All I know is, when a reader types "The Chemistry of Oyster-Fattening" into our search box, they should be taken straight to the text unambiguously so titled, and this is achieved by creating a redirect from The Chemistry of Oyster-Fattening to Popular Science Monthly/Volume 32/November 1887/The Chemistry of Oyster-Fattening. Creating such a redirect also helps ensure that a disambiguation page will be created should we ever host another text with the same title.

Hesperian 05:00, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Before you can change your mind

… Wikisource:Administrators#Nomination for bureaucrat. Well you can change your mind if you so wish. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:22, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Advice

.... and maybe a review.

Had an annon-ip try to restore one of those quirky Weird Tales stories Pigeons from Hell previously deemed too questionable to host here as the best research available still points to it being in copyright limbo. History.

If this was indeed ok to undo by me, should I be hiding the revision history containing the now superseded 65K of text as well? TIA. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:40, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with your undo, and yes I think you should delete the revisions that contain the text. A community discussion led to the decision not to host this material; that decision can be overturned, but only by opening another discussion. For what it's worth, I'm convinced this is still under copyright, essentially because of the Another Thought article cited by Adam previously. Hesperian 05:24, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

I tried to follow this saga, including the last by Carl & Adam, over the months as best as I could for just this possibility, but with so many titles and nuances involved I wasn't so sure of myself at that very moment. A quick re-read and it all came flooding back to me fortunately.

Anyway, the revision text is now "hidden" and that was really the only issue I didn't feel comfortable doing without double-checking my reasoning first. thanks again. -- George Orwell III (talk) 05:44, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

The Aborigines of Australia

Yeah, sorry about that, thought they were in the process of being consolidated on the index of the complete file. I'll leave it alone.Misarxist (talk) 09:27, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

The above text is preserved as an archive of discussions at User talk:Hesperian. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on User talk:Hesperian. No further edits should be made to this page.