Wikisource talk:WikiProject DMM

Changes

Copied from my talk page:

Would you please have the grace to discuss these changes with me either on the DMM project page or on my talk page before making changes to the way I have carefully structured the work? There are also good reasons for the enWP links in a few articles. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:36, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The reasons are? -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

DMM Articles that cover more than one person where there are multiple enWP articles need more than one enWP link. Rather than create messy headers that have multiple WP links, the elegant solution is to use a single header enWP link for the main topic (if there is a suitable article) and in-article links to the others. This mostly happens when spouses and siblings are covered in the same article. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:01, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

It is a matter of text integrity. Links to sister projects (with the possible exception of wiki dictionary for unusual words) should be in the header. There is a consensus on this that is why the Wipedia link is in the header and is not linked under the name of he individual. -- PBS (talk) 23:14, 23 January 2016 (UTC)

The main discussion about this in relation to DMM took place at Wikisource:Scriptorium/Help/Archives/2013#How do I use plain sister to link to 2 wikipedia articles?. As you can see there were two solutions offered. One was to use {{plain sister}} in the notes field and the other was to do inline links. A few articles have an extra "plain sister", the remainder have inline links. The situation is rare enough not to require specific templating within {{DMM}}. You will find that WS:STYLE permits occasional inline links to enWP without overstepping the annotations boundary. Also, note that in this particular discussion dissent is expressed from the consensus you mention. A consensus, I should add, that I'm not aware of despite having been around enWS for 7 years. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:30, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

reverting a bold edit because "undiscussed unwanted changes" is no justification for a revert. (a) Bold edits do not have to be discussed first that is no reason for reverting them. (b) you may think them "unwanted" but I made the changes because I wanted them so stating "unwanted" is not correct. What are you substantive reasons for the reverts of:

1. The removal of the addition of a volume parameter in {{DMM}} template?-- PBS (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)
2. The {{EB1911}} and the {{DNB00}}headers for the articles supported by the projects EB1911 and DNB--both of projects have many more participants than the conversation to which you liked--both use the variable other_projects to get around the problem of multiple links. Your logic suggests that the parameter wikipedia ought to be junked in favour of links within article space rather than in the header. So even if you do not like it why revert the changes to the template {{DMM}} -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Bold edits that affect thousands of pages are too bold without a discussion. Or, at the very least the courtesy of "I think we need to make this change, does anyone object?" And then allowing a reasonable period of time for response.

With respect to the volume parameter, I gave my reasons when I answered you on Talk:A Dictionary of Music and Musicians. However, to reiterate, this is a single work that happens to have been printed in four volumes. The editorial intent (as demonstrated by the second edition) was that the new articles in the Appendix should considered to be a part of the main sequence. It was simply a matter of there being insufficient time to reset the plates. However, in the particular copy some of the corriegenda listed in the Appendix had already been made in the main articles (it's a late printing of the 1900 edition). I have very deliberately chosen not to double sub-page (e.g. not DMM/Volume 1/Beethoven) so as to make intra-DMM linking much simpler. This means that including the volume number in the title field of each article is not relevant. In addition by adding volume = 4 to the articles from the Appendix gives a link that simply does not lead to the Appendix. In the end this is about making this copy of the DMM available and usable by non-Wiki experts.

As far the other_projects variable is concerned, I simply cannot see that there would be any need to link from the DMM articles to items on WikiSpecies, Wikiversity, Wikibooks, Commons, WikiVoyage &c. from the headers. The only links to Commons should be to images, which are of course inline in the articles. This only leaves Wikipedia. As I said above, the vast majority of articles only need a single enWP link, which is covered by the wikipedia parameter. Templating in an unused parameter onto thousands of pages so that ca. 50 to 100 of them can use it is wasteful of resource. By all means, for the few articles that require it, we can put something in the notes field—as you suggested on the Andreoli family article or as George suggested in the discussion I linked above—but it's not needed on all the articles.

If I appear to be passionate about and protective of this work, it's because I've been working on it since July 2009. In fact, it's the reason I've spent so much time here on enWS. Volume 1 was Proofread of the Month when I wandered idly by the Mainpage and I seem to have hung around gradually getting involved in other works and projects, but this remains my first priority. I would guesstimate that about half of my 86K edits on enWS have been to the DMM and I'm only nearing the end of Volume 2. I am more than happy to have suggestions on how to improve the structure and presentation of the Dictionary, but to have them imposed is not helpful and only serves to annoy-which I know was not your intention. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:39, 26 January 2016 (UTC)