This user is an administrator and checkuser.
This user has a bot.
Email this user.

User talk:Billinghurst

From Wikisource
(Redirected from User talk:SDrewthbot)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Je suis Charlie inversée.jpg
A harp which sounds too good to be true is probably a lyre
System-users.svgThis user has alternate accounts named SDrewthbot & SDrewth.
billinghurst (talk page)
IRC cloak request: I confirm that my freenode nick is sDrewth

Note: Please use informative section titles that give some indication of the message.

Popular Science Monthly 1916 Ad.jpg

Wikisource has a number of active Wikiprojects that could use
your help in tackling these large additions to our library.

Popular Science Monthly Project
Work: Popular Science Monthly

TO DO — DNB footer initials

billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 20 March 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)

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)

To review

billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

template:OGL needs an author: ns version created for use. Currently only has works version.

header WP links and the use of main subject at WD

have a check to see that where we have (encyclopaedic) pages in main namespace that link wikipedia = through header, that these items at wikidata may or may not have "main subject" wikilink. Can or should we be pulling that link via WD to manage deleted and moved items, and also be prepared for any item that has a future wp link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:35, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Category:Authors with missing death dates -> Category:Authors without death dates

explore making this change. They are not missing if they are not dead, so we should cater for both scenarios without confusing things. Only would be missing of the person is alive 130 years after death. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:43, 20 March 2018 (UTC)

Contributing translator -> header template

(parking) See if we should plug in a parameter so something like Popular Science Monthly/Volume 3/September 1873/Hypnotism in Animals I can properly represent the translator. Otherwise we can have it as a note as we do for {{illustrator}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:38, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

link templates — to build

billinghurst sDrewth 23:47, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

convert template:NIE to template:header

convert template:NIE to template:header

Files to recover from Commons

Author disambiguations

consider disambig Palestine Mandate

monobook toolbar again

Have another look at it and see if I can get it functioning. fr:Special:Gadgets <sigh> — billinghurst sDrewth 01:43, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

Abraham Lincoln: His Life

I only very recently saw your comment here. The original layout I created was intended to match the formatting of the original work, with the quote to the left of the biographical paragraphs. Having viewed it as such, I believe your system would display better on mobile-width screens. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC).

Thanks. I have converted over. I understand that initial thought about the reproduction. It is the discussion that has occurred on multiple occasions, and it while it would have been cool to have that perfection, it just gets too ugly. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:48, 15 June 2020 (UTC)


You just deleted The Condor/2 (2)/Prominent Californian Ornithologists. III. A. M. Shields, a redirect which is still in use. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:13, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have placed a {{dated soft redirect}}. It is not usual for us to link repair user namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:03, 15 June 2020 (UTC)
If you don't want to fix their use in the user namespace when you break them, then please don't break them in the first place. Redirects are cheap, and perform a useful function; there is no need to delete them in any case. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)
I was telling you the local process, and that which I undertook. As said, we maintain redirects at the top levels, not typically at subpages. Nothing more or less. This isn't the place to debate our policy/practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-25

21:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

The Condor

I just noticed that you had deleted most of the unused redirection sub-pages here—thanks! I didn’t want to have to mark all of them by hand. Could you also move The Condor/24 (6) to The Condor/Volume 24/Number 6, with its sub-pages? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC).

Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 21:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-26

18:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

template:DNB link

Consider with the anchor feature whether it should project the name and state that it is part of a parent article. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-27

16:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Mixed Up Indexes


Would you please be able to help me with a few indexes which have got mixed up - the title matches the correct scan but the URL and the Index information have been mixed up between these three and I'm not sure how to fix it?

Index:Bessy Bell & Mary Gray (2).pdf --> Index:Bessy Bell & Mary Gray.pdf

Index:Stories of Bewick and Graham.pdf --> Index:Stories of Bewick and Graham (1823).pdf

Index:Short account of the origin and progress of the cholera morbus.pdf --> same

Thank you! --Annalang13 (talk) 11:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@Annalang13: Yes check.svg Done the shuffling. It needed an admin. Note the new variations. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Your edit on DomEnc template

Hello, Billinghurst! Could you please explan this your edit which you did in my project Domestic Encyclopædia, and for which edit you made comment: use of additional projects was grandfathered for EB1911 though not wishing to be continued for other projects; and no more disclaimer? P. S. I decided to not explain to you right now why I decided to ask this question only now, except mentioning that I was frustrated, and even angry and (frankly) hateful, on that your edit. --Nigmont (talk) 02:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Not sure what was unclear. We don't do that schema for modern templates based on {{header}}. Please follow the modern scheme. If you believe that a work falls outside the current schema, then feel free to open a discussion at WS:S so we can arrive at a community consensus. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
Also noting that if you have different years, are you talking about different editions or are you talking about serial publication of volumes over numbers of years. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
First, what is the "modern scheme" — where it is described? Point me out, please — where I might read it. Also point me out to rules / policies where it is declared as mandatory, or at least to discussion where some consensus established — that only "modern scheme" is allowed in the English Wikisource, and all other schemes are prohibited and must be abandoned.
"Not sure what was unclear." — if you wanted to say "I don't understand what is unclear to you": well, I make a try to explain. You said in the comment of that edit: "use of additional projects was grandfathered for EB1911 though not wishing to be continued for other projects;". The statement in such form sounds unclear and vague to me (first: I don't understand who are the people who "not wishing" — that's only you who are not wishing, or all others of the Wikisource also not wishing?) If you really minded "use of additional projects (i.e. parameter "other_projects") is strictly prohibited by all the community and rules and policies of the Wikisource", then such statement seems to be not true. First, additional projects are used not only for EB1911 but some other Encyclopedias — see templates Template:AmCyc, Template:NIE, Template:NSRW, Template:EB1922, Template:Appletons', etc. So, the "other_projects" parameter is allowed for many other projects, not only EB1911 — why is it forbidden for Domestic Encyclopedia then? Second: I worked on the Domestic Encyclopedia about a year or more before your edit, and that template existed in that form (with "other_projects" and other params) during all that time, and during all that time nobody made an attempt to change the template or warn me that I violated policies by putting "other_projects" to use. And I extensively used that parameter in many articles of DomEnc, and nobody protested against it, until you intruded and removed substantial piece of the code from template, without making any attempt to let me know why you did that (not mentioning that such removal put all my work of filling of those parameter in water, and you even don't worry about that). The fact that for so long time (a year) nobody interrupted my activity there also contradicts your assertion and proves it to be wrong.
Also you said "feel free to open a discussion at WS:S so we can arrive at a community consensus." — though currently I believe that you are wrong and that the "modern scheme" is actually not required as mandatory by consensus, and so far it's you who must start discussion to make other schemes to be forbidden, nevertheless I am ready to start that discussion myself. But at first I want to know grounds for your assertions, so I await for your information about "modern scheme" and why you proclaim it to be the only one which is permitted.
And your last question: "are you talking about different editions or are you talking about serial publication of volumes over numbers of years" — I don't understand why are you asking that. The template Template:DomEnc, your edit on which raised this discussion, is for all editions of that encyclopedia, regardless of years, isn't it? Or may be you minded something other which I don't understand? --Nigmont (talk) 20:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
@Nigmont: Oh please, come off it. We show the way that modern works are done for compilation works, and they are plentiful, and much more modern that show how we set out works, and it is not that way. We utilise both author and portal namespaces for listing works—links to author namespace through direct links or parameter "related_author" and through portal parameter to portal namespace. There we respectively can list the additions once.

You are trying to use an old discarded methodology, and one that is prone for incompleteness and of completely limited scope. Yes it does still exist on old old works, but on works where we are active, it is grandfather'd for new EB1911 articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Hello, Billinghurst, I'm sorry for answering so late (I was busy in previous days). Also I bring my apologizes if I write a bit aggressively. I don't want to bite anyone, really, I just want to get more understanding about the right ways how the things should be done in the English Wikisource, and I want to get proper explanations.
Nevertheless and unfortunately, your comment above explains almost nothing why "other_projects" parameter is prohibited and why it don't fit to "modern methodology" and "modern scheme". And as I understand, you refuse to give me proper and true answer to this question. Alright, I got it — that you don't want to help me. Also you seemingly is trying to say to me, that for the further discussion we must proceed to Scriptorium and discuss the topic with other users there, yes? Alright, I got it, and — okay — I will try to start that discussion there. --Nigmont (talk) 22:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-28

20:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

naming subpages in a collection of letters

Hello! You were so kind as to provide me with a thoughtful explanation why the tales were better under individual titles and not numbers in Folk Tales from Tibet. Today I have a totally different thing and I am confused. What would be the proper way to name subpages here? This is a 3-volume collection of letters (or fragments of them), ordered by date, divided into chapters by year, from Queen Victoria as well as addressed to her. The Contents list the subjects of the letters, but I am not sure if there are enough subjects for every individual letter. Can you please give some advice on the subpage naming there? --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 21:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

@Tar-ba-gan: How are the works known and how are they referred? By a number or a name? When searching? When they are added to Wikidata? For individual tales they are their own independent components, so we give them their names.

In the QV letters work, we would use chapter numbers "Chapter 13" as they would be referenced that way. The chapter is a construct just to make the set out of the work easier. One could say that in terms of WD, that one is less likely to add the chapters as entities. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! Chapter numbers are important. But what if I want to put every letter on an individual page? --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
It has chapters, so not certain why we would want to break up how the author constructed the work. One can do internal links and separations on a page. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, reason one, there are subjects of every letter listed under every chapter. Reason two, if letters have their separate subpages, they can have their own categories. My interest in these letters stems from the fact that there are a number of letters (and not chapters) concerning the Russian Tsar Nicholas I. It would be easy to have a category "Nicholas I" or "History of Russia" and the list on his own page. The Tsar's own letters, in French, are included too, and they probably require a separate treatment. I feel they are more likely to be translated if there are subpages for them. And, he is not the only author there. There are letters to QV from a variety of British politicians included. They are more likely to be noticed if there are subpages for them. Else, we get chapters with a great number of authors. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
If you believe that chapters need further breakdown, then I would suggest that they be subpages to the chapters, rather than replacing chapters. There are always cases why we move away from a standard, though always look to reproduce the work as published. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you for your advice! I will make them subpages. Chapters are also the years, so they are more than formal chapters. --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 19:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-29

16:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC) needs services turned back on. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

=> wikitech:user talk:Magnus Manske
Yes check.svg Donebillinghurst sDrewth 12:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Filter 40

Regarding Special:AbuseFilter/40. Can you explain in more detail what this is trying to achieve? I read abusefilter syntax well enough to see what it does technically, but I'm not entirely clear on what its ultimate goal is. Perhaps a couple of examples of things it is intended to prevent, and a couple of what it is not designed to prevent and/or is designed to actively permit?

I'm guessing that it's intended as a speedbump rather than a road block: trying to cut down on unthinking export to Commons without doing proper cleanup first, but that it's not really trying to completely prevent it.

The context is that I'm trying to figure out if there are adjustments we can make that would achieve the same end without at the same time preventing things that are needed for an efficient workflow for some special cases; either by tweaking this edit filter, or by employing one of the other tools we have at our disposal. --Xover (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Don't fuss it. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Not fussing; I'm just trying to find ways we can iteratively and incrementally improve our setup to reduce needless friction for contributors. For example, I've added {{raw page scan}} and Category:Raw page scans for missing images to the FileImporter blacklist so that files with one of these present can no longer be imported to Commons. That should prevent a lot of unthinking transwikiing of such files without cleanup. Perhaps if I better understood the specific goals of that filter I could come up with other or adjusted ways to achieve them without the unwanted side-effects of the filter as it stands. --Xover (talk) 12:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Turned it off, don't fuss it. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-30

19:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


Should be fixed now, sorry about that. legoktm (talk) 20:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Thanks for all that you do to generously support the Wikisource communities, it is really appreciated. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

@Legoktm: Something quirky going on

billinghurst sDrewth 23:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg resolved — billinghurst sDrewth 15:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing page labels

Hello Billinghurst, I noticed that you sometimes simplify pagelists by removing page labels for non-sequenced pages, for example [26]. This seems odd to me since it runs counter to the instructions given at Help:Index pages#Parameters, and also makes the Indexes harder to navigate. What are your thoughts on this? Kaldari (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I think that you will find that I generally apply page numbering as per the published work, not generated labels, and the skipped page numbering in a work. In the identified work, yes, I did put generic en-dashes in place.

Naming that way is pretty much pointless and detrimental once the pages are transcluded. Those labels when transcluded are just silly, each of those is blinding obviously on the transcluded page, look ugly in their display as a presentation and provide no useful anchors. It doesn't run counter to the broad instruction on the page. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for explaining. That makes sense to me. If you have the inclination, it would be good to change some of the instructions under "General recommendations for labeling pages" at Help:Index pages#Parameters. Otherwise, editors will continue to add these labels to their transcriptions. Kaldari (talk) 16:42, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
I am past arguing, and just into fixing. Hacking through half the bloat and the senseless and thoughtless that people add is beyond me. Even when you have examples everyone else's ideas are always more brilliant. I will gently go through and tidy works and author pages to be neat and tidy when I stumble across them. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


My profound thanks to you for moving Knaves of Diamonds. I'm sorry for the bother. -McGhiever (talk) 19:58, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

@McGhiever: No issue, not a usual request, fiddly, not difficult. DON'T WANT TO WASTE GOOD WORK. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 23:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Removing wikilinking of places & obscure minerals?

On Page:Dictionary_of_National_Biography_volume_20.djvu/280, I noticed you removed my wikilinks to two towns and a (very obscure) name for w:cinnebar. Those seemed useful and neutral to me -- could you say more about why you thought them inappropriate? JesseW (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Didn't know that you did those links. Please see Wikisource:Wikilinks for our linking approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
I am familiar with it (and just reviewed it again). I added the links based on my reading of the following: "Links to Wikimedia-project pages are acceptable and considered to be annotations. ... Heavier wikilinking may also be more appropriate in reference works, such as dictionaries ... With older works, wikilinks may be more appropriate". Could you clarify what part of Wikisource:Wikilinks you see as discouraging the links I added? JesseW (talk) 23:56, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
enWS is a minimalist off-site linking wiki, and only links when there is true value to adding a link, not based on a "just because" or "neutral advantage". We don't link towns, countries, etc. what is the value of that link? Where does that stop and start with our works, though a chapter of all of our works, what is the value of linking places just because there is a target article at enWP? How does will that work in a consistent fashion? Should a link like that be local, or should it be to enWP? How does a link to Wigan in 16thC work equate to a link to Wigan in a 21stC work? Linking like enWP is not our go, so we look for high value links that increase knowledge, and don't treat our readers as being unable to run basic searches.
Compare these two works Highways and Byways in Sussex/Chapter 26 and Notes on the churches in the counties of Kent, Sussex, and Surrey/Supplement/Kent and see where I believe that there is the value in the linking. We do not want a sea of blue links. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Also noting that we have seen issues with our static linking, so not to mention link rot. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
OK, thank you -- that does explain your concerns about the location links. I was hesitant about the difference in time, too. But regarding the obscure name for the mineral -- that one really does seem relevant and useful. It's difficult to search for (I tried), and provides useful context in understanding the passage (knowing what treatment is being suggested). JesseW (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
@JesseW: If you think that it is central to the article, or important for the understanding of the article, then feel welcome to add it back. Typically if it is definitional, I would add a link to wiktionary rather than to WP, as I consider it pop-out, pop-back. If it requires that greater understanding then WP is fine, though they may not come back. 🤷‍♂️ If you think that the wikilinks guidance is not sufficiently guiding, then please suggest changes. Trying to get uniformity of linking and trying to express the difference between WP and WS (wikisource:For Wikipedians is always a challenge. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
Great, sounds good. I'll make sure there's a good definition at wikt:æthiops mineral, and consider whether it's important enough. Thanks for the discussion and suggested considerations! JesseW (talk) 01:19, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-31

13:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-32

15:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-33

16:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-34

20:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Revision history of "Author talk:John Jeffrey"

@Inductiveload: Just discovered Author:John_Jeffrey. Personally important to me regarding reference to "Danish literature"; i.e., I suspect IDUB to have had consensus blacklisting any reference to S. Kierkegaard, my favorite author and most prolific Danish author of 19th century. By the data documented, it would appear to me that the wikisource & wikidata could be clarified to include YOB 1822 instead of (?–1872). Regarding this DOB factoid, is my reasoning deficient? Klarm768 (talk) 09:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done not even sure why I didn't do it at the time. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 05:11, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-35

17:59, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Henry Clay

Please see Special:WhatLinksHere/Author:Henry Clay to understand why I am now asking you to revert your move of my recent creation, Author:Henry Clay (fl. c. 1767-1817). Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

@Pigsonthewing: I have relocated the other links, so they are out of the way. Feel free to use either the original link or the redirected target. We don't need to move it back until it is needed. The beauty of our schema. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:32, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-36

20:11, 31 August 2020 (UTC)


Please revert this change. It caused Template:U to drawn upon a different template than it should. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC).

Ugh, damn collateral damage of an import. Thanks for pointing it out. Sometime I really hate mediawiki. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:48, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-37

15:59, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-38

16:19, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

write proposal to remove "categories"

  • use of this methodology overrides redirect and disambiguation aspects of templates and hotcat
  • makes maintenance harder with pywikibot, AWB and HotCat
  • put in a tracker on use
  • non-standard and should be avoided unless part of a standard

Tech News: 2020-39

21:28, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Please undelete a page

Hello. Could you please undelete this page. Thanks in advance. Ratte (talk) 11:00, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Tech News: 2020-40

21:24, 28 September 2020 (UTC)