User talk:Jura1

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search


Hello, Jura1, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

Have questions? Then please ask them at either

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Please pause[edit]

Your addition of {{NBD}} is not the best implementation for this issue, and not how I recommended. Please pause while the community goes through the discussion process. We operate at a different pace, and allow broader community consensus matters and that takes a week or so. Allow this community to know itself. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 7 May 2016 (UTC)

PLUS you were definitely told not to amend {{larger}} that way, so don't. If you want to play with a template, please use Template:Sandbox. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:37, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Personally, I think it's problematic when I see administrators at a Wikimedia site asking volontueers to do manually what can be done by a Mediawiki function. At best, this pointless. Some may see it in an even worse light. In any case, we have a avoid the mess we had with DNB last time. Please help avoid a repeat of this. Jura1 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
I am not asking volunteers to do any systematic process manually, and none of my words have intimated that. Preferably, tools at Wikidata should be designed to utilise the built-in functions of Mediawiki, specifically Special:PrefixIndex rather than set a categorisation that is not required at the local wiki. The Wikisources use subpages as a design (DNB excepted that precedes that approach) to manage biographical/encyclopaedic works, so getting tools adapted this function would be well worthwhile.

We will get to the end point that you need, though not by jerry-built hack of a widely used template that exists for another purpose, instead by a sustainable and functional process that the community agrees to utilise, and as an approach that can be utilised more widely for future and already existing biographical type works. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

As a rider to previous commentary. I understand that you have come here with a task for NBD, but I ask for you to look at this holistically. For example, look at a work that was finished today Index:RussianFolkTales Afanasev 368pgs.djvu that contains ~70 tales. By your methodology we need to categorise these, and that is either manual, or by some specific adaptation based upon a work (again manual). That is not sustainable, and gives no real benefit to how we do work and set it for public view. We have many thousands of works that have subpages, and these works can have hundreds of subpages. So where Wikidata wants these works, that we need to have a category of little local value is problematic, especially where we have other tools. Further where these works are in Wikidata, and that is going to have many elements of categorisation, there is more means to reflect that back locally rather than by an manual application. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:36, 8 May 2016 (UTC)