User talk:Ineuw

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search



Adding empty pages[edit]

Hi. I am not sure about the advantage of founding empty pages, it seems really redundant. There could be some minor advantage if there was some useful OCR layer, but I rarely see such ones: the OCR button usually produces much better text than the original OCR layers. However, the quality of such text is still too poor, and so I personally prefer adding the text only after it has been proofread. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Having the text itself is not the issue, but the TOC Style used may not work if one references a non existent page. See my comments on your Scriptorium/Help post.— Ineuw talk 16:46, 30 March 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I see, sorry. Unfortunately, it seems it did not help :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:56, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

crosswiki vandalism[edit]

Please delete User talk:WikiBayer and User talk:Rodhullandemu and protect for a long time See enwikinews commons, Wikiversity, Wikispecies anod other projects.(SWMT)--WikiBayer (talk) 23:31, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

This should be posted at the Wikisource:Administrators' noticeboard.Ineuw (talk) 23:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

NopInserter tweaks[edit]

In trying to figure out where that error message in your console might come from I went a little overboard…

I've taken your custom version of NopInserter and re-sync'ed with changes to the site-wide version. And in the process I added support for a few user-configurable behaviours. The defaults are as for the site-wide version, but when you load it you can set options as follows to get the behaviour in your custom version:

mw.config.set('userjs-nopinserter', {
	dontConfirmNopAddition: true,
	notificationStyle: "highlight",
	notificationTimeout: 1000


It also fixes the bug that prevented the site-wide gadget from actually showing the outline based highlight it was supposed to. And for good measure I added support for a notificationStyle using mediawiki's bubble notifications (set notificationStyle: "message" to try it out). The weird double-negative construction of "dontConfirmNopAddition" is just because I've preserved the default behaviour of the site-wide gadget.

It probably won't fix the issues you were having (but it actually might, due to the re-sync), but if this works for you then we can update the site-wide gadget and you won't have to maintain a custom version any more. Give it a try when you have a chance? --Xover (talk) 18:48, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

@Xover: Apologize for the late reply, but had to understand the modifications, because I am

very weak with javascript and it's been a long time since I studied the scripts.

Also, I've have no problem with the edit layout any more. I suspect it was messed up because of my attempts to force the CharInsert "User" to be on top of the dropdown list. Again my thanks for you inestimable help. Ineuw (talk) 16:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Good to hear your problems cleared up! And never worry about response time: my own is highly unpredictable at times, so I never have any particular expectations of others'. Please let me know whether the modified version works ok for you (no hurry, whenever you get a feel for it), and I'll flag down an interface admin somewhere to update the site-wide gadget. --Xover (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2019 (UTC)
Have you had a chance to develop a feel for this? Any problems or issues? If you're happy with it I'll go ahead and request someone update the site-wide gadget so everyne can use it (and enable/disable it with a nice interface in the Preferences). --Xover (talk) 06:27, 25 September 2019 (UTC)
@Xover: Sorry for not looking after this earlier. Tested it now and it works well. — Ineuw (talk) 06:53, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Vol 1 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft your naming[edit]

I cannot seriously believe that this is a name that you have given to a main namespace work. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Believe it. — Ineuw (talk) 05:57, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Please tell me how that reflects the name of the work as published. Please tell me how it matches the work as cited. Please tell me how it matches the work as catalogued by institutes. Please tell me how that will be found by our search engines. I think that you are deviating from a standard approach, and I again implore you to not utilise this individualistic approach. Please have respect for the work as published and put it under its published name. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
Researched the titles on Wikisource which already included the words in the selected titles and wanted to distinguish it from the existing ones. Then, spent a lot of time time sorting out the idiosyncratic organization of the author's works, and that is why I named it accordingly. — Ineuw (talk) 20:56, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
We have quite clear guidance on this, and multiple examples of works done that need to be disambiguated, and the name should be "History of Mexico (Bancroft)". Starting a work with the name "Vol ..." is utterly hopeless, going outside of our disambiguation guidance is troublesome for someone who has been here so long. I don't even know why this conversation has to be had. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
It's the best I could do at the time. Is a redirect sufficient to correct it? — Ineuw (talk) 21:59, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
I cannot seriously believe that we're having discussions about titles that start with "I cannot seriously believe..." :) And in my humble opinion, "it was the best I could do at the time" is always a perfectly acceptable reason for doing something a little odd on a wiki, where things are easy to fix or adjust.
I brought this up a while back on the Scriptorium, and while I failed to ping you, I thought Slowking took care of that. I agree with Billinghurst that it should be changed (just not with the urgency). My suggestion would be: History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1 etc. If that's an acceptable approach, and if I can be of assistance in the logistics, I'm happy to help out. -Pete (talk) 06:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Also, I totally agree -- Bancroft's works, and the various forms in which they were published, absolutely do not lend themselves to easy titling on Wikisource! -Pete (talk) 06:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
I had several issues with the naming before I assigned the names.
  1. Locating the volumes. IA has a number of copies of the various volumes, but most of them are destroyed by Google.
  2. The idiosyncratic nesting of volumes without indicating the title of the parent volume.
  3. Could not find his bibliography which would indicate the organization of his volumes with the sub-volumes and titles.
  4. The lack or records have been because the publishing house, was his or his family's?
  5. Wanted to separate from all the other Mexico History books. — Ineuw (talk) 10:13, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes. I think a volume could something be, simultaneously:
  • Volume 1 of the History of Mexico (5 volumes)
  • Volume 2 of the History of the Pacific Slope of North America (34 volumes)
  • Volume 6 of the Works of H. H. Bancroft (39 volumes)
Then on top of that, in some editions it's the History of Mexico while in others it's The Conquest of Mexico, and in some editions the numbering is different because two volumes were published as one, etc. It's maddening, and that's without even getting into the controversy around how few of the "works of Bancroft" were actually authored by Bancroft! Pete (talk) 15:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)


@Billinghurst, @Peteforsyth:I would rather change the titles to the style of History of Mexico Vol nnn by H H Bancroft . . . etc. The questions are:

  1. . I would request in the quarry, (since this cannot be done by me), if it's possible to replace the old titles in all namespaces to the agreed on new titles?
  2. . Depending on the answer to the above, I have volumes 5 and 6 to upload, but will wait until the titles are resolved. — Ineuw (talk) 21:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
To address one point of yours, I think it is actually quite rare that the filename matches Wikisource's title for the work. Wikisource has its policy, and Commons has its own naming policies (which are very loose, and not at all systematic). I don't think there's any practical problem at all with having a filename that's almost entirely unrelated to the work name (and if it is a problem, it's a problem shared by, I think, the vast majority of transcribed works on Wikisource). So with that in mind, my suggestion of History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume X stands...even for the volumes with slightly different titles, like "Conquest of Mexico". We could always make The Conquest of Mexico (Bancroft) as a redirect to History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1. I think Wikisource guidelines on this are fairly clear, and fairly sensible; I don't see any need to go back and rename the files (which would be a big hassle for anybody, including any users of the site who have bookmarked or linked existing locations). -Pete (talk) 23:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
We can't mix "Conquest of Mexico" with the "History of Mexico". "Conquest of Mexico" is a distinct title outside the "History of Mexico" series. The same applies to "Native Races" which also contains Maya and Aztec info. What HHB did is that he republished portions of his works with some additions with different titles. I read somewhere that at times 40 researchers worked for him. — Ineuw (talk) 00:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
I think you are incorrect on this point -- the one @Billinghurst: linked in the section header here is called "Conquest of Mexico" on its title page, and identifies itself as Volume 1. According to its TOC, it runs through the year 1521. 1521 is also where "History of Mexico" Volume 2 picks up. I think they are the same series, even if they have different titles on their title pages. Is there a "History of Mexico" Volume 1 that is distinct from "Conquest of Mexico" Volume 1? I think not, but of course I could be mistaken. (I agree with you regarding the Native Races series, though.) -Pete (talk) 21:24, 11 August 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Sorry for the late reply. I was not in error since they are the exactly same, page for page. At the time of the upload, I selected the cleaner looking version and should have noted it on the Index and the main namespace title page. But then promptly forgot about it. Here are the links to the two versions:
History of Mexico Volume 1
Conquest of Mexico Volume 1

— Ineuw (talk) 03:37, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm, I am confused. Above, you said " "Conquest of Mexico" is a distinct title outside the "History of Mexico" series." But I don't think that's accurate. Now, I think you are saying something different -- and I agree with what you are saying now: that the same work was called "Conquest of Mexico Volume 1" in one edition, and "History of Mexico Volume 1" in another. Correct?
If that's the case, I would say the best way to approach it is to title the pages like this:
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 2
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 4
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 5
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 6
... and then create redirects where necessary, such as Conquest of Mexico and Conquest of Mexico/Volume 1. I don't know what's a better alternative, except maybe to make the Vol. 1 into Conquest of Mexico/Volume 1 and then making a redirect in the other direction. -Pete (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Yes I confused you because of the list Hubert Howe Bancroft copied from Wikipedia (where it appears listed both ways). My assumption is that the "History of Mexico Volume 1" was published first in 1883, and then reprinted and republished under the "Conquest of Mexico Volume 1" title in 1886 for commercial reasons. — Ineuw (talk)
OK. So, is the naming scheme I described above OK with you? -Pete (talk) 19:29, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: Sorry for the delay. Life needed attending to.
Many thanks for your help. Please go ahead with any name you think is right, as long as it meets WS naming conventions for the main namespace. Please note the volumes' status following each title.
* History of Mexico (Bancroft) only as the disambiguation page
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1 will consider my options regarding the 1883 or the 1886 copy.
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 2 index being proofread
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 3 index proofread
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 4 index proofread
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 5 not yet uploaded
* History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 6 not yet uploaded
As for the Categories on the commons, I will change them according to your volume names. — Ineuw (talk) 23:40, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Ah, I thought you were talking about file names on Commons. Category names, that makes more sense. I tried to start this, but I ran into trouble -- for some reason, when I move the base page, it doesn't give me a checkbox offering to move the subpages. So, the project is only partially complete. Maybe @Billinghurst: can help? I moved the base page and the top page for Volume 1. History of Mexico (Bancroft) and History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1. -Pete (talk) 00:42, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

I create a category by the title + the word (book) or (books). Then upload the djvu and images into that "container". The current categories are wrong because they are named Vol 1, 2 etc..., but cannot change them until you create the djvu file name.

Are the Index .djvu name, the page names and the main namespace pages going to be modified by SQL? — Ineuw (talk) 00:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

List of relevant works of H H Bancroft[edit]

Extracted this list from Internet Archive but the titles do not identify contents, or the wrong contents. — Ineuw (talk) 23:40, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Changes required for the four History of Mexico (Bancroft) volumes[edit]

@Peteforsyth: Just to keep you updated. These are the changes need to be made.

I can manage the necessary changes on the Commons which should be the first step. The .djvu file names as the sources for the link to Wikisource and then their "container" categories.

The Wikisource changes are best to be done with an SQL at the Quarry. Already posted a request if it can be done and if there is someone who would undertake it. SQL is very very fast. — Ineuw (talk) 05:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikimedia Commons
File:Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO File:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_1.djvu
File:Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO File:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_2.djvu
File:Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO File:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_3.djvu
File:Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO File:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_4.djvu

Category:Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft_(book) TO Category:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_1_(book)
Category:Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft_(book) TO Category:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_2_(book)
Category:Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft_(book) TO Category:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_3_(book)
Category:Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft_(book) TO Category:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_4_(book)

Index:Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Index:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_1.djvu
Index:Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Index:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_2.djvu
Index:Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Index:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_3.djvu
Index:Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Index:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_4.djvu

Page:Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Page:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_1.djvu 830_pages_
Page:Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Page:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_2.djvu 814_pages
Page:Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Page:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_3.djvu 804_pages
Page:Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu TO Page:History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_4.djvu 848_pages

Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft TO History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)/Volume_1
Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft TO History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)/Volume_2
Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft TO History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)/Volume_3
Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft TO History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)/Volume_4

Chapter_1 TO 34_change_<pages_index="Vol_1_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu" TO <pages_index="History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_1.djvu"
Chapter_1 TO 34_change_<pages_index="Vol_2_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu" TO <pages_index="History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_2.djvu"_
Chapter_1 TO 34_change_<pages_index="Vol_3_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu" TO <pages_index="History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_3.djvu"_
Chapter_1 TO 33_change_<pages_index="Vol_4_History_of_Mexico_by_H_H_Bancroft.djvu" TO <pages_index="History_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)-Volume_4.djvu"

— Ineuw (talk) 05:10, 13 August 2019 (UTC) Updated list. — Ineuw (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for breaking this all down.
I agree with the changes you describe for Wikisource. I regret forging ahead with Volume 1 - from past experience, I thought it would be possible to make all sub-pages move along with the main History of Mexico (Bancroft)/Volume 1 page, but for some reason I'm not sure of, that option wasn't there.
I do not understand the needs for Commons, or the related needs to change titles in the Wikisource Index: namespace. I have worked on numerous works with file titles on Commons that are entirely unrelated to the names in Wikisource main space. I don't see how that is a problem, and it's never really occurred to me to do anything to change it. I'd be interested to understand your thinking on this, but it's not critical that I understand. Feel free to explain if you like, though.
I will make sure to find somebody who can help me clean up the mess I created with Volume 1 in the coming days. -Pete (talk) 05:55, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Logic dictates that since the Wikisource .djvu file originates on the Commons, it should be the first change in the chain of changes. As I see it, I must rename the .djvu file, then change the commons Category name, and then change the image files' category using a bot which I hope exists. Done numerous moves/changes manually on the Commons, so I know what has to be done. — Ineuw (talk) 06:05, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
Don't worry about the main namespace Volume 1. This gave me the name needed to start the move on the commons first. Main namespace pages should be left last. — Ineuw (talk) 07:24, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
OK, I'm happy to let you work in whatever order you like. It seems to me like you're creating a lot of extra work for yourself by changing the filename, and I'm not sure what practical disadvantage there is in having the DJVU file and the Wikisource pages carry different names...but there's certainly no harm in aligning them, either, so carry on. Thanks for talking it through this far, I'm glad to find somebody else interested in Bancroft's work! -Pete (talk) 07:56, 13 August 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I am glad that you are happy. :-) I am not so. The transfer failed because of my mistake of overlooking the forward slash in the .djvu filename. This was automatically replaced with a hyphen.
Then, the Wikisource bot failed as well. This also means that my rationale failed because of ignorance about the data structure hierarchy (in which direction the changes cascade and which don't). I don't believe that there is a single move process which replaces all the old relationships with new ones.
So, I requested advice and help at Quarry talk page. Your thoughts? I am in no hurry. For me, it's a learning experience and have plenty of other work to choose from, until this is resolved. — Ineuw (talk) 22:39, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

2019-08-14 file move continued[edit]

Well, sorry you are not happy! I'm not familiar with Quarry, but it looks like an interesting initiative. Glad to learn more.
I'll keep making the same point, I suppose -- I think this all would work smoothly if we simply didn't bother with changing the files on Commons. I don't see a downside to that, but the brokenness you're dealing now seems like a pretty major downside. (I realize I complicated it with my initial move, but if we simply had an administrator make the page moves on Wikisource, they could use the "move all subpages as well" checkbox, and it would just be smooth and easy.) -Pete (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: You messed up nothing. The commons copy needed to be renamed to Conquest of Mexico and moved out of History folder. It is now in it's own Category in commons:Category:The_Conquest_of_Mexico_(Bancroft)_Volume_1_(book).
The new uploaded version is the real 1882 History copy with it's pages matching the Wikisource layout page by page. Before uploading this 1882 version file I made sure that the two were identical. And here is the list of the old & new pages to be, extracted using the Quarry User:Ineuw/Sandbox3. — Ineuw (talk) 23:32, 14 August 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see -- you want to use the 1882 edition instead of the 1886. That's fine with me, but if they are identical (or even, close to identical) we would do well to move Page:Vol 1 History of Mexico by H H Bancroft.djvu/N to Page:History of Mexico (Bancroft)-Volume 1.djvu/N for all (existent) values of N. Otherwise, we will be throwing away hundreds of proofread pages, to start from scratch. @Beeswaxcandle: are you able to help with that? -Pete (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I didn't want someone to look at the word "Conquest" when the page name is "History". As for the old pages, I intend to move them with a bot or the quarry. The quarry prefers a bot. I plan to ask User:mpaa. Also, there are still some manual changes which is OK by me. — Ineuw (talk) 00:36, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
OK. Yes, that'll eliminate some possible confusion down the road. I will watch and learn, seems you have things under control. Sorry to call you in unnecessarily, @Beeswaxcandle:. -Pete (talk) 00:59, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
No problems. I would have advised a bot anyway because I'm not a bot user and would have been moving pages manually. I don't mind doing that for a few pages (< 30), but ... Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:12, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
I am still hoping to get someone to do it at the quarry. It would take 1-2 minutes. — Ineuw (talk) 08:47, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Not terminating tables with an additional table row[edit]

Hi. Would you mind updating your practice to not terminate tables on a page with a table row |-, it is unnecessary coding to insert an extra table row, and when done on a continuing table actually breaks the page numbering display. I have mentioned this numerous times in Scriptorium, and have long updated the help pages, so it would be really helpful to get you to change your practice. Thanks.

An example of your coding and my fix in the succeeding edit.

billinghurst sDrewth 04:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I assume that this message is to me and not User:Peteforsyth. If you are referring the last row |- above the footer? if so, consider it done. Also, that by "breaking the page numbering," are you referring to the page numbers along the transclusion in the main namespace? Please confirm.

Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 14:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Reminder: Community Insights Survey[edit]

RMaung (WMF) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

Edit summary[edit]

Hi. Thank you for updating the Validation of the Month page. I just want to ask if you could fill the edit summary properly when editting a page. Looking at the list of changes, I am not able to find out what was changed and when unless I open each individual edit. Summaries like "minor change", "minor" or even "m" are not very helpful. Thanks very much. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:58, 27 September 2019 (UTC)

@Jan.Kamenicek:No problem. — Ineuw (talk) 20:25, 27 September 2019 (UTC)