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

User talk:Billinghurst: Difference between revisions

From Wikisource
Latest comment: 3 years ago by PBS in topic Portal:Wars of the Three Kingdoms
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Content deleted Content added
→‎A History of Japanese Literature: no root page, not tagged as subpages
Line 302: Line 302:
Eventually there will be primary sources for the other wars in the [[w:Wars of the Three Kingdoms]]. There already is for the Cromwell's infamous Irish campaign [[:Category:Storming of Drogheda]] -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Eventually there will be primary sources for the other wars in the [[w:Wars of the Three Kingdoms]]. There already is for the Cromwell's infamous Irish campaign [[:Category:Storming of Drogheda]] -- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|PBS}} Yes, though an empty page there now is less than helpful. For the interim it would seem better convert it to a redirect to a heading on another page, like how I set up [[Portal:Victoria]] and split it out later when it is worthy. Populate or perish IMO. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
:{{ping|PBS}} Yes, though an empty page there now is less than helpful. For the interim it would seem better convert it to a redirect to a heading on another page, like how I set up [[Portal:Victoria]] and split it out later when it is worthy. Populate or perish IMO. — [[user:billinghurst|billinghurst]] ''<span style="font-size:smaller">[[user talk:billinghurst|sDrewth]]</span>'' 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
::Unlike that redirect this is a parent rather than a child, so:
::# what do you propose?
::#under which portal would you place the two sub portals that are tied together by this portal?
::-- [[User:PBS|PBS]] ([[User talk:PBS|talk]]) 16:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 16:44, 11 April 2021


Single apples are not pairs
This 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.

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


Dictionary of National Biography Project
Work: Dictionary of National Biography

billinghurst sDrewth 12:42, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Reply

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)Reply

To review

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

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

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)Antwort

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)Reply

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

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)Reply

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)Reply

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
Erledigt and resolved. Use of category in header can be replaced. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:14, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Antwort
  • mv text to header
  • rm "EM"
  • replacement /\<br \/\>/g
  • cleanup script
  • note to editor
  • consider if scripts are required for other NLS works, and either do or document the AWB actions

Categorisation to fix

  • Consider whether we want to migrate to its own header series Erledigt
  • review wikipedia and wikidata linking Erledigt => {{topicmatcher}} implemented
  • Check readiness to export

23:22, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

Flickr Commons

If you want to cooperate on a project, we can both help add context and help date the images that the Library of Congress releases each Friday, 50 new ones are released at Flickr Commons. We are currently in a 1923 tranche. 99.9% of the images are already at Wikimedia Commons, loaded by User:Fae, but the date says "1900" at Wikimedia Commons. They usually need a Wikimedia Commons category, and sometimes the image added to Wikidata, if none are present already. User:Fae used a bot to load them all as "1900" for the date. The people depicted may need a Wikidata entry. See for example S.A. Santa Maria (Q105592488), that way if someone figures out the person, they can fill in the info at Wikidata. Are you interested? The latest tranche is here. Most of the images still need categories at Commons. The first tranche from 13 years ago is here. There are still hundreds of people that were inadequately identified, or never got a Wikidata entry, or have one now thanks to The Peerage and other databases added to Wikidata, but no one added the image. --RAN (talk) 23:31, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Thanks. I currently have more than enough maintenance to do. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:46, 15 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Index:Knole and the Sackvilles (1922 London).djvu

This is given as being by Victoria, but the writer was Vita the daughter. I am just being overly cautious? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Not my area of expertise, but I think that you will find that Vita is a Victoria => Author:Victoria Mary Sackville-West. Family pet names when family members have the same name (guessing). — billinghurst sDrewth 21:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Right, so if this work is by the identified author, (who died in 1962), this might need localising as it's not yet PD-UK, which means whilst it is okay locally, it cannot necessarily be on Commons. That said it is PD-US (1922) publication. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

File:A Passage to India.djvu

This file was deleted from Commons after a year-long discussion where all commenters said "keep". Can the file be salvaged and uploaded locally so that Index:A Passage to India.djvu works again? --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Erledigt, please check that I have amended the data file appropriately. Commentators were wrong, it is under copyright in UK. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:52, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort

Bobbie, General Manager cover moved to "front matter" and index page now messed up

Was there a necessity to do this stuff to my work? The cover and half-title were fine where they were. Also, if they're both to be called the front matter, why have one with a subpage called "front matter" and another that's called "front matter" by other pages? Confusing.

And secondly, something I have more concern with than that, you did something unnecessary to the index page that makes everything look and work worse. Now the individual pages can't be anchored to individually if that was ever necessary, since they're all "—". They have no individuality anymore. I.e. a wikilink like "the copyright page of Bobbie, General Manager" won't work anymore.

Are we going to take away the anchors to the frontispieces of works next, which are literally linked to within the works themselves?

Please link me to a community consensus that warrants any of these changes. Because I haven't even seen a work on all of WS before that called literally everything that's not a numbered page "—". I was going to link you to an example of a page with things like "copyr", "cover", "dedic", etc., but just look anywhere else on Wikisource and you'll find any of them pretty quickly. PseudoSkull (talk) 12:50, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Help:Page numbers is the guidance page. Anyway, how often are you expecting to link to a copyright page? How many have you linked to so far? How many references within a work have you seen to them? They are generally unnumbered pages and don't need labels, they are what they are. Many of our works actually have these pages page numbered, and people should be using the page numbering, but instead we still have those ridiculous and ugly abbreviations/labels that mar the basepage and are never the source of a link. And you can always add {{anchor}} to get to a point without it having to look ugly or be a manufactured page number.
The transcluded cover and half page just looked butt ugly in my opinion, what purpose were they forming in leading into the book multiple scrolls down a page. Removing them to a pre-chapter is quite often done if people are choosing to display the cover and half-title, and many don't, and it is quite a recent and, IMO, weird trend, in holding up getting to the book content, especially rubbishy when you are using a mobile device. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:47, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
I said that the guidance was at, I didn't say it was set in stone. These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish that he went and set on many pages because he likes it. It just useless manufactured labelling, rather than page numbers. More than happy for you to bring it up as it is truly butt ugly and unnecessary, and it has been brought up before, and the advice was number the pages as they are numbered. Do we drill holes in people's heads? Nope. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:18, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
Alright, well I'll bring it up as a discussion then.
I did want to take the opportunity to say that, though I vehemently disagree with the things I have brought up, I do appreciate the other edits you've made to Bobbie, General Manager and don't contest them at all. PseudoSkull (talk) 15:42, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
We probably want to reconcile the guidance on Help:Index_pages under the pagelist tag where it has guidance label the Cover as Cvr, the Frontispiece as Fpiece, Title as Title etc. to match Help:Page numbers MarkLSteadman (talk) 21:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
@Billinghurst: "These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish" , Okay then you want me to replace the runs on every single Index page I contributed to? Much appreciated if you could provide a specific format to use (such as considering all front matter to be numbered as lower case roman) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 08:35, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
I can also take out specifc identification of things like ToC etc... - https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Handbook_of_maritime_rights.djvu

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Index:Literary Landmarks of Oxford.djvu Also updated - That's the most recent the oldest 500 Index I could find in my contributions, I've updated some of them as I found some issues. I'd appreciate a review, before I update any more, but will be adopting the convention of lower-case roman for front-matter starting at a half-title (if present) or title in the absence of another specfic-pattern, on new Index currently unchecked.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:11, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
These many Index pages are ShakespeareFan's rubbish Sorry, this is out of line. SF00 does an enormous amount of page list work and scan checking of all sorts of tricky indexes, which is tedious, difficult and valuable. They are almost single-handedly responsible for ongoing clearance of Category:Index - File to check. Dismissing it as "rubbish" because you don't like a convention (and like it or not, right or wrong, it is a convention) used for <1% of the pages is unfair and unnecessary in my book. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 10:28, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
Indeed. I realise you only meant to express your personal opinion on the convention in an emphatic manner, but when you use a term with such a strong negative connotation and connect it with the contributions of one individual contributor it crosses the line. To paraphrase our big sister: direct such comments at the inanimate object, not the person. --Xover (talk) 12:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
@Inductiveload: Do not take it out of context of the discussion of labelling of pagelist. And rubbish is exactly how I see those manufactured page numbering, they are butt ugly and add zero value => rubbish; and even more importantly where there is specific or clearly implied page numbering in a work and that is then replaced with manufactured numbering. It may have been less ambiguous to have said "rubbish page numbering" if that makes you feel better. That style of page numbering has been expressed and expressed in WS:S over the years and I don't resile from having my opinion on my out of the way talk page. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
And re connotations, maybe it is a local language usage, but calling something rubbish in Australia is hardly strong negative connotation. Far more gentle that many have accused me of other things here with little to no response by others. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort
That's rubbish. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 12:12, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Reply
Directing your expressed opinion clearly at something inanimate—e.g. the page numbering convention—would indeed make me feel better. But more to the point, it would make those people who would otherwise be the target of the comments feel better. It is also usually possible to express dislike or disagreement with something like this without dismissing it as mere "rubbish", which would go even further towards insulating the person from the thing you dislike or disagree with. If you just call it "rubbish" you are going farther than merely expressing dislike and disagreement, you are also asserting that holding the contrary opinion is invalid, completely without merit, and implying that something must be wrong with those who hold those opinions (stupidity or malice being the obvious inferences). Sometimes that may be warranted, but that's a pretty aggressive position to take, especially if you then want to argue that you're "just expressing my opinion".
Oh, and the reason I don't jump in to defend you when someone is being… less than cordial… is that you're very much a big boy, with the +sysop hanging from your belt, and presumably fairly thick skin from dealing with xwiki LTAs for, what, a decade or so now? That being said, in the episode I'm guessing you're thinking of, it was a very close thing and had it escalated any further I would have interposed myself. That behaviour certainly wasn't ok, and if it persists for too long or even escalates then some kind of intervention will be needed. --Xover (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort

16:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Jack Turncott

Thanks for fixing Jack Turncott! --RAN (talk) 22:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Didn't fix anything, just updated following research and more data. Death was registered as John K. so perfectly reasonable; presumably just wrong assumption by whomever registered death. Always the issue with death registrations. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:06, 26 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Convert

Dictionary of Indian Biography from {{header}} to {{Dictionary of Indian Biography}}/{{DIB}} — billinghurst sDrewth 15:07, 27 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

The War of the Worlds (radio drama)

Conversation moved to "user talk:Nicole Sharp/The War of the Worlds (radio drama)." Nicole Sharp (talk) 18:45, 30 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort

17:30, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Special:Contribs/2600:1700:9A00:20D0:D421:42F0:9B2F:7EC2

Calling attention to this user's vandalism/test edits (at best). Looks like possibly the same person as another IP who edit warred me yesterday. PseudoSkull (talk) 00:00, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply

Erledigt month-long block on /64. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:50, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Antwort

19:41, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Year

I'll send a bot through there later to remove all the years from the chapter header templates, in multiple books I've done in the past. PseudoSkull (talk) 03:32, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Okay, just cleaning as I add WD items. Try to spend an hour a day doing maintenance. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:52, 6 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

A History of Japanese Literature

Will you be fixing all of the headers? Right now they are broken: the title parameter and link is incorrect on most pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey: Oh thanks, I had done some check of a few pages and all was fine, though I must have fluked single level subpages. AWB has a narrow list window so hard to see the the cascading level of lists, will run through soon. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:13, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Antwort
Thanks. This was one of the first lengthy / complicated works I did, so there are likely to be errors that I would no longer make. I make take a look through it in a week or two when I have some time off work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2021 (UTC)Antwort
When there is no ROOT page then they don't get tagged as subpages, and they then appear as uncategorised. And I hear you about early transcribed works. What was important then is not so now, and what wasn't them can be now. Experience! — billinghurst sDrewth 00:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

Portal:Wars of the Three Kingdoms

It ties in the two sub portals that are children of the Portal:Wars of the Three Kingdoms

Eventually there will be primary sources for the other wars in the w:Wars of the Three Kingdoms. There already is for the Cromwell's infamous Irish campaign Category:Storming of Drogheda -- PBS (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Reply

@PBS: Yes, though an empty page there now is less than helpful. For the interim it would seem better convert it to a redirect to a heading on another page, like how I set up Portal:Victoria and split it out later when it is worthy. Populate or perish IMO. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)Antwort
Unlike that redirect this is a parent rather than a child, so:
  1. what do you propose?
  2. under which portal would you place the two sub portals that are tied together by this portal?
-- PBS (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2021 (UTC)Reply