Template talk:Oxon

@Charles Matthews: I have created a derived form of {{header}} to make these article creations simpler. They also will automatically link to wikipedia now. If you have needs, please do not hesitate to let me know. At this stage it is only set for (1715-1886) works. If we ever get to the earlier set of volumes then I will put a switch in place to have an additional parameter for that set. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:28, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I have set about a replace, though there over 25k articles in the first batch, and that will mean I need to grab a later batch. I also will be skipping those with a hard wikipedia parameter, and will come back to those, too much variation in their placement to easily do a text capture and not certain they are in WD. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I use Template:AO2block when I'm doing Al.Oxon., and so I'll look into modifications to that. (I have paused work here to deal with a large backlog from my 2019 project on Wikidata. It is coming under control.)

As for Alumni Oxonienses 1500-1714, have we ever discussed the digitisation at https://www.british-history.ac.uk/alumni-oxon/1500-1714 ? Based on the work done there, which includes some of the formatting, automation could be used. I was kicking this idea around at the beginning of 2019, in the hope of getting funding. Getting a list of disambiguated titles would be one thing where some human input might be needed.

The source HTML would need a script with a pinch of intelligence to convert to wikitext, but I can't believe it is an intractable job. Dividers to place to mark off the pages. I would have thought it is possible to make a bot job of it.

Charles Matthews (talk) 14:06, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

I will be keeping the conversion script, so will be able to run that through as required. Nope, never talked about Oxon1500. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:01, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I have Page:Alumni Oxonienses (1500-1714) volume 2.djvu/40 ready to transclude. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:53, 12 November 2023 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: I have updated this template to handle the early series | series = early and also now have a parameter for the series we did first with the default in the template set for later. I have also created {{oxon1}} which utilises this template and is solely for the early series. I haven't yet updated the documentation, as that is going to be a bit of a fiddle.

Where we have examples of fail, then we should be looking to add them to the new set of testcases I have built parallel to the sandbox, and we can fix as we need to do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:44, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Also noting that I have done updates to {{oxon link}} and {{oxon lkpl}} to account for the updates, and to standardise the parameter of "series". — billinghurst sDrewth 06:45, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Many thanks. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:31, 15 November 2023 (UTC)

onlyinclude

@Xover: includeonly is problematic in its use for us, it hides way too much when we are transcluding all things through templates. Better to fix the problems, not hide them. This was purposeful and I would hope that somethings like this would be better discussed. I have gone back to only include. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I was mainly focussed on keeping it out of the maintenance categories (as a false positive).

I took another look with adjusted perspective, and it looks like we can simply make sure #tag:pages is fed valid input on the template page (i.e. just give the params a valid default) to silence the errors (and thus don't need to wrap the whole table in any of the *include tags). But then we'd actually PRP-transclude some content onto the page; which would be invisible due to onlysection, but might be problematic because we have gadgets that trigger off the presence of such a transclusion.

The compromise would be to wrap only the #tag:pages inside includeonly. I put the modified version in a sandbox (diff). Would that be a workable approach here?

Alternately, we could just display an example entry and not worry about any PRP-induced triggers. That'd probably be the most convient from the "seeing what the template does" perspective. I put up a version of that approach in another sandbox (diff). The code gets a little uglier since we can't just give onlysection a default value here, but when looking at the rendered template it should be more immediately obvious what it does.

Either (any) way is fine by me, just so long as it doesn't trigger the main tracking cats. Xover (talk) 06:40, 16 October 2022 (UTC)