Jump to content

User talk:Billinghurst/2019

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikisource
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Billinghurst in topic Theater / Theaters

AutoWikiBrowser

Look to better configure AWB for use here. Probably of most interest is the Typos functionality. More detail at Wikipedia:AutoWikiBrowser/CheckPage_formatbillinghurst sDrewth 01:52, 23 September 2018 (UTC) }

18:30, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Captions in January

The previous message from today says captions will be released in November in the text. January is the correct month. My apologies for the potential confusion. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 20:43, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - file captions coming this week (January 2019)

My apologies if this is a duplicate message for you, it is being sent to multiple lists which you may be signed up for.

Hi all, following up on last month's announcement...

Multilingual file captions will be released this week, on either Wednesday, 9 January or Thursday, 10 January 2019. Captions are a feature to add short, translatable descriptions to files. Here's some links you might want to look follow before the release, if you haven't already:

  1. Read over the help page for using captions - I wrote the page on mediawiki.org because captions are available for any MediaWiki user, feel free to host/modify a copy of the page here on Commons.
  2. Test out using captions on Beta Commons.
  3. Leave feedback about the test on the captions test talk page, if you have anything you'd like to say prior to release.

Additionally, there will be an IRC office hour on Thursday, 10 January with the Structured Data team to talk about file captions, as well as anything else the community may be interested in. Date/time conversion, as well as a link to join, are on Meta.

Thanks for your time, I look forward to seeing those who can make it to the IRC office hour on Thursday. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:09, 7 January 2019 (UTC)

Deleted 1923 Mark Twain work now in public domain

Hey, sorry to bug you, but you are the only admin I know who is active right now. Can you tell me how to get a work undeleted? The deleting admin hasn't edited since 2011.[5] -- Kendrick7 (talk) 21:07, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, got it sorted. -- Kendrick7 (talk) 18:11, 10 January 2019 (UTC)

20:34, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

Check

my recent edit at Portal:Educational institutions of Europe. There is a Oxford portal but not a Cambridge one here in WS. I am the author of w:Cambridge Companions and w:Cambridge County Geographies I hope that eventually we have WP articles on every notable book series published by OX and CAM. But that is too much work for me alone, what I would like to propose that we create a new list of book series by these two press first (two articles) from which redlinks can be turned blue slowly. If they are public domain we can consider creating portals similar to Portal:Cambridge County Geographies. Ping @Charles Matthews: if they are interested.

My second request is to create a template similar in format and scope to Template:Rulers of India for the indexes of Froude’s History of England (there appears to be two more volume indexes not uploaded here yet). Also ping @Beeswaxcandle: as they have it in their to-do list. Solomon7968 (talk) 09:39, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

@Solomon7968:I paused on the Froude project because I couldn't find scans of Volumes 6 and 12 in the same edition as the other 10 volumes. At some point I do intend to find those two volumes and complete the proofread, there is just rather a lot on my plate at the moment in RL as well as multiple projects here. I'm not sure why you want a template in the Volumes field, what I have done there is sufficient and covers everything required. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:38, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
I thought you had forgotten about it and would appreciate if others would join in this effort. I have seen Billinghurst using templates frequently but if you are fine with not templating I am of course ok with that. FWIW I am reading the first volume of the series slowly along with Hilary Mantel’s Wolf Hall (both cover the same period). Have you read the book? Solomon7968 (talk) 06:21, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And Foss, Edward (DNB00) needs to have an author page ASAP (from your booklist). Solomon7968 (talk) 13:03, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

CUP article now started. Solomon7968 (talk) 16:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

18:15, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

17:12, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

[Toolforge] Tools you maintain are running on Trusty job grid

With ref to:

This email is a reminder that the tools listed below have run jobs and/or webservices using the Ubuntu Trusty job grid in the past 7 days. This job grid will be shutdown on or before the week of 2019-03-25 as the final step in the removal of Ubuntu Trusty from Toolforge and the larger Cloud VPS environment.

* wikisource-bot

I took care of the migration, following this instructions: https://wikitech.wikimedia.org/wiki/News/Toolforge_Trusty_deprecation#Move_a_cron_job. Sanity check appreciated, if you don't mind— Mpaa (talk) 20:21, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

18:45, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

23:14, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Talk to us about talking

Trizek (WMF) 15:09, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

21:17, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

16:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

19:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

19:44, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Formatting Table of Contents

Hi User:Billinghurst, it's been a long time. :-) kathleen wright5 referred me to you. Might you be able to suggest the best way to correctly format a Table of Contents page like this one? Thanks, Dovi (talk) 09:05, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

18:05, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

16:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

18:24, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

23:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

19:08, 23 April 2019 (UTC)

22:28, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

16:28, 6 May 2019 (UTC)

00:49, 14 May 2019 (UTC)

13:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

phab:T224355

Hello. Please take a look, not a duplicate? Ratte (talk) 22:43, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

15:34, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

15:24, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

20:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

I've had enough of playing 'hunt the pedantic syntax' with this, Please reformat the transcluded pages, so I am not playing 'hunt the minutiae' every single time. Thanks ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Eventually resolved by removing the overly complicated LST approach entirely. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:56, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology templates

Hello, I started doing some work on Volume 3 of this dictionary and mistakenly started using the author and article links for the Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography. On the face of it it would seem to be a simple task to replicate the DGRG templates for use in DGRBM but I don't know how to do it. Do you know of anyone who could help me by doing it? Thanks chrisguise

@Chrisguise: The styles adopted for the DGRG and for the DGRBM are not aligned with each other, so duplicating the templates may not be a good idea. There are additional issues in that the person who started the project made a huge blunder in numbering the articles. Fortunately, not many articles were actually created, but it means that the indexing pages are all off. I may have time to discuss this more next week, but this week is very busy for me. I've done several articles for the DGRBM and know what quirks exist. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:26, 6 June 2019 (UTC)
@Chrisguise: Template:DGRBM link exists. What more are you needing? — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

17:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC)

Comment

Well, you've gone and closed the thread before I could respond to a load of hostile nonsense. Ok, I get it -- you don't want our help. I will leave, and remove Wikisource from my search script that I use to purge WMF projects from the relentless activities of a mentally ill individual who, by the way, is not a troll in any conventional sense. He believes he is on a mission, and will continue until he is jailed again. Ask Jimbo if you do not believe me. But I don't care any more. Most wikis appreciate my help, and my inclusion of the link to the ban is an effort to spread the word -- someone has to remove his nonsense, because it is relentless and will not stop until he is arrested again. And I'm glad I don't have to explain the concept of 'vandal' to you. Have a nice day, Antandrus (talk) 00:03, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

@Antandrus: I definitely closed the thread. I was trying to not make it about you or anyone, and to talk about global bans. Every time you make it specific about the person, they are at it again. They are fed and they respond. Surely you can see that for what it is, and that you don't need to be leading any sort of defence case about the ban, or their inappropriate actions.

If you want his nonsense removed, then please label it with {{delete}}, and it will get cleaned up. Probably even protect the page so its propagation is curtailed.

I am hardly new here, or there, and hardly unaware of vandals, LTAs, etc. I know that he is a PITA and occasionally I get a stream of torrents of his crap. It is my belief that it dies quickly as I don't engage. Plus, I have look at certain pages that you and he have been at it for four years, so I don't think that your current approach is working. You are engaging in debate, you are giving him every bit of air that he wants. I feel that your methodology is feeding the troll. We should smother the troll quietly, no air. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

USGov-SCOTUS

That's funny, I actually put it on my page as a reminder to delete it myself! BD2412 T 22:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

After we had the 2009 conversation, no point in waiting longer. No evidence that change is required. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:55, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
I wasn't planning to wait for anything, I was just going to get around to it later. BD2412 T 02:48, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Passionist Nuns in Author:Arthur_Devine

"Passionist Nuns" is a sub-article of Catholic_Encyclopedia_(1913)/Passionists. It is not in bold, it is a mistake of Page:The Catholic encyclopedia and its makers.djvu/73 to have it listed as separate.— Mpaa (talk) 23:15, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

See Page:Catholic_Encyclopedia,_volume_11.djvu/578.— Mpaa (talk) 23:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
Suggest that you create a redirect and put an anchor on the target. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:18, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
No need of a redirect, that article should not exist. I fixed the link where it is wrongly mentioned.— Mpaa (talk) 23:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

20:13, 8 July 2019 (UTC)

Bot request - {{right sidenote| and {{LR sidenote| to {{USStatSidenote|R| and {{USStatSidenote|L| respectively

Billinghurst,

Would you be able to run your Bot over US Statutes at Large Vol. 33, Parts 1 and 2 in order to replace obsolete/broken sidenote templates, please?

{{right sidenote| needs to be replaced by {{USStatSidenote|R| and both {{left sidenote| and {{LR sidenote| need to be replaced by {{USStatSidenote|L| please.

No hurry! Thanks. CharlesSpencer (talk) 09:47, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I've just done it myself (I think), through the wonder that is AWB! CharlesSpencer (talk) 15:46, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

15:30, 15 July 2019 (UTC)

As you helped design the current sidenotes scheme, perhaps you would be able to advise on how to get the result here looking closer to the what's present in the page? My approach would have been to just ignore the sidenotes entirely but someone asked me to look into this on Index_talk:A_history_of_the_military_transactions_of_the_British_nation_in_Indostan.djvu.

It would be nice to have the figures line up (they don't currently do so consistently) especially even when the same alignment is set on BOTH sidenotes. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:23, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

The underlying template is {{sn-year}} to handle the "under-bracing" ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
It would also be nice to have templates that render consistently in Page, Main and Template namespaces, regardless of viewing, editing or preview. {{left sidenote}} and {{right sidenote}}, are not CONSISTENT in respect of this as far as I can tell.ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 16:37, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
Well, the inconsistent presentation of {{left sidenote}} and {{right sidenote}} seems to be an issue of a user-side script I have changing the layout slightly. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 22:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have no opinion. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

reJennie Jerome

Hi, I created Author:Jennie Jerome at the end of a long day and didn't investigate her proper name enough before creating the page. Wikidata has it as Jeanette Jerome. Could you do a redirect, please? I keep forgetting, and have just remembered but it's been another long day and my brain is mush. Sorry/thanks/cheers Zoeannl (talk) 06:31, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

moved leaving a redirect. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:54, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

13:07, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

No notice template

We continue to have editors make well meaning changes to {{PD-US-no-notice}}, but which will cause problems. Specifically, the change people wish to make is not backwards-compatible with prior usage, such the wrong text will be displayed on all of the oldest works that use this template.

I've devised a solution proposal, if you (or someone) is willing to implement it.

  • Step (1) : Add the year of publication as a parameter to all uses of {{PD-US-no-notice}}.
  • Step (2) : Rewrite the template to do the following (except in the Author namespace):
    (a) Check for the existence of the pub. year parameter, generating an error message if it does not exist.
    (b) If the pub. year parameter exists, determine that it falls within the correct range of dates (CURRENTYEAR-95 to 1977) for current usage of the template
    • (i) If it is post 1977 (too late), generate an error message.
    • (ii) If it is more than 95 years ago (too early), display the PD/1923 text, but generate a message / category to permit cleanup
    • (iii) If it is in the correct range of values, generate the current no-notice text.
  • Step (3) : Update the documentation, especially regarding the mandatory pub. year parameter.

The added pub. year parameter will allow us to track and correct old usages each year as the calendar rolls over, which is the biggest wrinkle of previous attempts to "update" this template. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:13, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

 Comment I don't think that we need to change anything (well except I just protected the template to admin only with specific protection statement). The no-notice applies to works between 1923 and 1977, so it will always be factually correct. They should be picking a different license if post 1922 and out of copyright for another reason, and the actual year of publication doesn't need to be there. Only reason for a death year is so it goes to PD-old or equivalent. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)

21:42, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

Roman numerals in {{article link}}

This was initially requested by @Levana Taylor when cleaning up the Once a Week (magazine) pages (Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2019-02#Cleaning up Once a Week namespace) and implemented in the sandbox by ShakespeareFan00. After two months I saw no reason why it wasn't added to the main template, and copied the code over.

My apologies if this was not wanted due to standardising on Arabic numerals. --Einstein95 (talk) 11:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

Nothing to worry about, just don't want it to propagate. It is due to our requirements for future wikilinking that we decided that we would standardise. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Could you please explain me the reason for this decision? I was not notified of this, and will have to change dozens of author pages if Roman numerals are forbidden ... Levana Taylor (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Roman numerals are not "forbidden" (in big scary letters), but they are non-standard on Wikisource, and should only be used in certain limited cases where there is strong reason to do so. They should never be used to record the publication date of a work, even if the source uses Roman numerals. They should not be used in page names to represent volume or issue numbers, in part because the trend in modern libraries has been to shift away from Roman numerals for these purposes, and to use Arabic numerals instead.
Roman numerals are still used on Wikisource for the page numbers of front matter, for some bibliographic information, for the acts of plays, and in titles of works such as Shakespeare's Richard III. But on the whole, the use of Roman numerals for information about parts of works is discouraged. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
OK! My knowledge of bibliographic practices is evidently severely out of date. Back when (in the Pleistocene?), it used to be that Roman numerals were a way of distinguishing different levels of numbering: in a play, Act III Scene 2; in a magazine, Volume III Number 2. But if that's not done now, so be it. Levana Taylor (talk) 21:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: hi, apologies for the inconvenience, I checked SF00's additions and didn't find particularly anything in their edits, and it was only yesterday that someone identified that it was your work. I will get a bot through and do the maintenance, and it should be able to get done in the next few days. Please do not feel required to make these amendments ... maintenance are us!

With regard to the style, we have long had the guidance about the use of numbers rather than roman numerals for subpage titles (different from the presentation layer), and it came about as one of the changes that we would make to a book to enable future-proofing and to have one standard rather than multiple standards for our works. This information should have been put to you by the community ages ago, and that should truly have been said when the linking and templating was being envisaged. <shrug> — billinghurst sDrewth 22:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

I have had a quick look, and I see that {{Once a Week link}} hasn't been particularly used, and there has been a direct use of {{article link}}. I will convert all existing plain links, and convert the particular article_link to use the template, though will do it when I can concentrate on the task at hand. It doesn't look overly egregious. Noting that "Once a Week link" is simply a dressed up "article link" and meant to allow easier finding and manipulation of said articles. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
The reason I wasn't using {{Once a Week link}} is because it doesn't have enough parameters. Thank you very much for doing the conversions but could you please add the display title parameter and also an "author" parameter? Levana Taylor (talk) 00:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
ETA: Please don't convert any more of my {{article link}} to {{Once a Week link}} until you add the title parameter ... I had reasons for doing the titles the way I did ... Thanks Levana Taylor (talk) 00:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Not a problem, I do these conversions slowly and with testing, diligence and looking at what is in place for existing manual links. The template already has contributor, coauthor, year, p and pp parameter fields that can be used now. (These "link" templates were pretty much converted to utilise these base templates so these additional parameters can be made available, and allow a universal presentation, I have converted over 20 old disjointed formats.) FYI I ran a test on one author looking at what was involved, and saw that "display" was not present, and will be adding it though will only do so after sandboxing that change. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:15, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

(unindent) Sounds good. What do you plan to do for translations? You can see the format I've been using so far for translators on the pages of George Borrow and Blomfield Jackson. I hadn't yet settled on a format for putting these works on the pages of the original authors; you can see two of my attempts at Emanuel Geibel and Ludwig Uhland. Levana Taylor (talk) 02:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Urk, more complexity. @Levana Taylor: 1) The neat thing about the approach of nesting children templates is that the formatting is something that can be easily changed on all the templates without effecting the data, to the point that we can plug in the parameter even when it hasn't been created and when it is done, it will magically appear (a trick I have used when I know that I need to improve them but don't want to remember where); 2) the template is a bit of a complex beast, so will need to look at it when I have 100% concentration (hasten slowly). With the receiving author of a later translated work, I would suggest that we would want to keep the template data the same though look to have trigger text that switches, so one indicates "translated work of" with a text switch that indicates "translated by" if at all possible.
I suggest that what we want to do is start populating testcases in {{article link/testcases}} (and I would point to what I have done at our complementary template {{authority/link}} and {{authority/link/testcases}}). So let us start populating simple through to complex testcases—even with ridiculous amounts of parameters to worse case scenario—and then when we build the sandbox we can tweak the formatting. I will build for the situation without translators, and we can work from there. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:56, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
I have added some test cases to that page. In the best-case scenario, the information I give about the original work is its author, title, and original publication date. However, sometimes I don't know some of those facts. In the worst case, some sort of free-text explanation seems unavoidable, like when the work is "from a Russian folktale" instead of a work with an author and date, or when I wanted to note that the poem "From the French of Malherbe" (Jackson) translated only part of its source. Levana Taylor (talk) 18:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Thanks for the test cases, and I agree with your thoughts. We can try to design so text can be (seamlessly?) appended outside of the template, or we can look to have a "comment" parameter as I did with template:authority/link. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

searches, regex, etc.

"\[\[Once a Week \(magazine\)\/Series (\d{1,2})\/Volume (\d{1,2})\/([^\|]+?)\|.*\((\d{4})\)(?:.+)?\n
{{Once a Week link|series=$1|volume=$2|article=$3|year=$4}}\n
<Typo word="<enter a name>" find=""\[\[Once a Week \(magazine\)\/Series (\d{1,2})\/Volume (\d{1,2})\/([^\|]+?)\|.*\((\d{4})\)(?:.+)?\n" replace="{{Once a Week link|series=$1|volume=$2|article=$3|year=$4}}\n" />
  • {{Once a Week link}} needs an article/link parameter update, look to translator; build testcases

Aribtary break

I am now slightly confused as to why I even got asked about this, as my recollection was that I'd put this in the sandbox with a view to a wider discussion (which didn't happen, with the additional functionality being swapped in by a single contributor).

The actual structure of links, (as I indicated on the relevant template's talk page) was such that as I also stated there, the display of a Roman numeral, was display only (ie. the right hand side of a piped link), It didn't and was never intended to change the ACTUAL links (on the left-hand side) of a piped link. English Wikisource has long said that pagenames shouldn't generally use Roman numerals in names.

If there had been a decision to standardise BOTH sides of a piped link to use conventional digits, then that's a discussion that should linked, so there can be no confusions as to what had ACTUALLY understood to have been reached as consensus. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 07:09, 2 August 2019 (UTC)

Annotations

Did we ever decide as a community whether Annotations such as this work are allowed? I understood that we wanted clean copy in the main namespace, and annotated copies in a separate namespace, and only once a clean copy existed. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:55, 4 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:Annotation is pretty clear that this would be unnecessary. A simple note could cover this, or wikilinks to wiktionary. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:44, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
Previous "simple notes" from me to this contributor have been ignored, or have led to Scriptorium arguments that are still going on. --EncycloPetey (talk) 14:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

13:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource-bot

Hello. At the moment, it is not apparent to me that I have access to this robot. If I did, I do not, at this point know how to operate such a robot. James500 (talk) 03:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

Re the message you placed on my user talk page: Are you asking me to make a request for the pages to be created at Wikisource:Bot requests? Please tell me exactly what you want me to do, because I really am not sure. James500 (talk) 11:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: Apologies for being unclear. Yes, we can run the bot through to apply the text layers rather than the repetitive and noisy component of having to do it personally. The bot requests page, the bot's talk page, or my talk page are all acceptable places. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
In that case, would it be possible for the robot to create the missing 'page namespace' pages of Notes and Queries? James500 (talk) 14:06, 18 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: Which Index: pages? Identify which you need, and I can get the files and inhale the data. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I have kicked Index:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 1.djvu as an example. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 19 July 2019 (UTC)
I was planning to do all of them, starting with the most recent and working backwards. I have partly completed volume 7 of series 12 (up to the 185th page). The following volumes of series 12 (from volume 8 onwards) are complete. I do not know whether any of the preceding volumes are complete, as I have not looked at them yet. James500 (talk) 02:44, 20 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: I am pushing volumes 4, 5, and 7. Please can you look to see what is the issue with Index:Notes and Queries - Series 12 - Volume 6.djvu. If it is overly broken, is it repairable, or do we need to find another version? — billinghurst sDrewth 07:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure why volume 6 says "Source file must be fixed before proof reading". I suspect it refers to this, which is a request to "create a pagelist for the source file ... to verify file is correct". The pagelist was started by this edit, but it is not complete. The pagination given on the index page is consequently not correct. The adverts do not have page numbers and should be marked as "???" on the index page. While the early adverts are correctly marked as far as I can see, the later ones are not correctly marked on the index page. That may be all that needs to be fixed. I have not seen any missing or duplicate pages in the file yet, and there might not be any, though I have not looked at all 400+ pages. If, for the sake of argument, there were any missing/duplicated, my understanding is that individual pages can be added to or removed from a file, so it would be repairable anyway. All the pages I did see looked okay. I suspect there is nothing wrong with the file. James500 (talk) 15:46, 21 July 2019 (UTC) I have looked again. Page 28 of the volume seems to be missing from the file. James500 (talk) 17:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
I have completed the pagelist for volume 6. The only missing page is page 28. As far as I can tell, there are no other problems with the file. I apologise for the mistake I made earlier. James500 (talk) 05:14, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: are you able to find an alternative version? See if there has been another scan at either Google or archive.org? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 23 July 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find another copy of volume 6 on the Internet Archive, and I am unable to read the scans of post-1878 books on Google Books. However, I think that page 28 probably never existed. My reasoning is that page 27 looks like the last page of every other issue, and page 29 looks like the first page of every other issue. I think the error is probably an error in the original pagination of the printed volume, and not the result of there being a page missing from the scan. And I apologise for probably having made another mistake. James500 (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2019 (UTC)

@James500: I am applying the layer of s12v6 now. We are probably also able to upload s12v11 and s12v12 and s12GeneralIndex if they are now available (I believe that copyright term complete). Note that I have also added a local search engine to the volume table of contents, so you can search for pages with keywords. I have started on working backwards through volume 11. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:47, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

ser. 11 vols. 1 through 6, underway. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
@James500: series 10—1,2,3,4,5,7,8 underway 11,12,index done Index:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 6.djvu and Index:Notes and Queries - Series 10 - Volume 9.djvu need fixing or replacement. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:50, 31 July 2019 (UTC)
I cannot find any scans of volumes 6 or 9 on the Internet Archive other than the ones we already have. Google Books is likely to have multiple scans of both volumes, but I cannot read scans of post-1878 books on that site, so someone else would have to look there. James500 (talk) 01:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
Okay, I will just leave those volumes. You may find someone at WS:S who may look for you as I will probably end up with the same restrictions. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)
I would prefer to make a start on series nine. James500 (talk) 05:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)
S9 v1-6 done, v7-12 running. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

A further query about the capabilities of the robot

I have noticed that the OCR text of scans of certain volumes of other periodicals has words to the effect of "digitised by google" etc on every page. Would it be possible and desirable to have the robot perform the repetitive task of removing those words? James500 (talk) 17:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

@James500: Not really, it would be a separate run and process. It can be cleaned out during proofreading, and if you are using m:TemplateScript (straight or as gadget) then you can take the text replacement script that I utilise in my common.js. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:11, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

File:Patents Act 1970 (India).pdf

This is not GODL. See discussion at 1. Moreover, the file should be moved to Commons. Hrishikes (talk) 04:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Was moving the file to Commons. If not GODL, then we need to create a PD-IndiaGov at Commons to host it there. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Already exists: c:Template:EdictGov-India -- Hrishikes (talk) 04:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I have updated the data files so that these can now be exported to Commons, and paired these templates between sites. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

18:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

Richard Tangye

According to w:Tangye, Richard Trevithick Gilbertstone Tangye is the son of Richard Trevithick Tangye; you recently moved the latter page to the former name. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

Oops, thanks, I opened up the wrong probate entry. <facepalm> — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 17 August 2019 (UTC)

15:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)

Thomas M. Shallenberger

The burial you listed at Author talk:Thomas Martin Shallenberger is for Thomas C. Shallenberger. Is that the source of the death date you used? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 15:32, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

Sure, the transcript will be wrong, as often happens on many death records, and especially with Find-a-grave, which is other people's effort, not primary records without quality control. I didn't change it, just left it as reproduced. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)

09:08, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Alden's Cyclopedia of Universal Literature

Why do you think it belongs in portal space, unlike the other encyclopedias we host here? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:07, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

The build page with lists of external scan links, or index: links, belongs in Portal: ns or Wikisource:WikiProject, as we have always done, or tried to have done. The content, when it comes, belongs in main namespace. Otherwise it becomes a stop, drop, forget, and move-on exercise, as we have seem with many pieces over the years. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:25, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

meta Requests for help

thanks for the level headed remarks. however, give the pattern of behavior of giving out indef blocks, with locked talk page access, you should expect the same behavior here. this is the behavior of the banned admin who started this fight. so get ready. - cheers. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

@Slowking4: I try to be reasonable, and considerate and give people the ability to edit. That doesn't mean that I should be taken for a fool, nor taken for a ride. If you were issuing me with a threat, then I think that it would be wise for you to reconsider that approach, as that is not the basis for any trusting or cooperative relationship.

When taking on administrative roles in these communities, one is elected by the community to try to be impartial, and to offer the best impartial advice and especially to act on the consensus of the community, whether the admin is in agreement of the community or not.— billinghurst sDrewth 16:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

oh, no. i have no power to threaten. however events elsewhere might serve as a warning. the admin misbehavior which has disrupted english wikipedia for many years, is now being carried to other projects. it seems we have a cadre more into rules enforcement, than collaboration. they would rather delete references and content, thereby harming the project, than compromise. they would rather act summarily because they are always right, than consider consensus. and my case is a crucible by which to judge the leadership or lack thereof among admins. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is a community with its strengths and weaknesses; we work better if we work together rather than divided. One is better to discuss and promote and work through issues as our differences will be actually small. Throwing the baby out with the water, or having hissy fits, or going ballistic are not options for a functioning community. I would ask that you work within the framework of the consensus of the community, and to partake in the discussions to form those consensus. Your case is just one like many others, and you have contributed to it more than others, though there have been others who have willing participated and similarly shown intolerance as you have. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:31, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
i have always tried to work within consensus. while trying to advocate for fair use here, i have not confronted the failure to get one. the dispute thus far was about an admin bringing their URAA drama here, where there was not a consensus. i am intolerant of abuse of power; i follow proven leaders including wikipedians of the year. it is quite a contrast between non-leader admin behavior. but, it is a matter if time until the power abusers come here. and 100k edits on commons and 25k edits on wikidata counted for nothing. so they will try to find an admin to do an indef here and then go for a ban again. i am ready. Slowking4Rama's revenge 16:47, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I will stand up for Wikisource, our established editors and editors here in good faith. I believe that the community has the integrity to stand by its principles, and not to have unreasonable interference by those coming here on crusades. Our peace has long been established on trying to be reasonable and inclusive, and to understand the value of compromise, rather than winner-takes-all, combative approach of some other places. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Structured Data - blogs posted in Wikimedia Space

There are two separate blog entries for Structured Data on Commons posted to Wikimedia Space that are of interest:

  • Working with Structured Data on Commons: A Status Report, by Lucas Werkmeister, discusses some ways that editors can work with structured data. Topics include tools that have been written or modified for structured data, in addition to future plans for tools and querying services.
  • Structured Data on Commons - A Blog Series, written by me, is a five-part posting that covers the basics of the software and features that were built to make structured data happen. The series is meant to be friendly to those who may have some knowledge of Commons, but may not know much about the structured data project.
I hope these are informative and useful, comments and questions are welcome. All the blogs offer a comment feature, and you can log in with your Wikimedia account using oAuth. I look forward to seeing some posts over there. -- Keegan (WMF) (talk) 21:33, 23 September 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. @Keegan (WMF): I did put a note at m:user talk:Lucas Werkmeister#Re blog and structured data ...IAUPLOAD a while ago with some thoughts/questions, though Lucas mustn't be looking at that page (or hiding from me o_O) — billinghurst sDrewth 12:05, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

The American Printer: A Manual of Typography

Hello. Regarding your message: Do you want me to create an author page for MacKellar, or do you want me to create a portal for his manual, or do you want to upload the scans etc so that a versions page can be created? If you want the scans to be uploaded, I would need some assistance as uploading scans and creating index pages is beyond what I am capable of at this time. James500 (talk) 20:54, 24 September 2019 (UTC)

@James500: My discussion was about what we put into the main namespace, and consequentially, what we we don't; primarily we are focusing on presenting editions of works.

No, I am not asking for uploading of a scan unless you are going to work upon it. If you wish to create an author page and list the work, then go for it, and whilst we may list that a work went to twelve editions, we typically wouldn't link each edition unless there is a specific purpose to do so. If you wish to mention all the editions, and something akin to an encyclopaedic article then the work level has been done in portal: namespace. If you are wanting to create a project for people to work on the 12 editions, then that belongs in Wikisource: namespace. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:12, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

I have reworked the page and moved it to Portal:The American Printer: A Manual of Typography. Please let me know if this is okay. James500 (talk) 00:28, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Methuen Catalogue (and Author pages)

Thanks for the updates to Author pages. I am wondering if I lack the skills to do the consistently high quality level of biographical research you produce. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 09:32, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

It is both a learnt skill, and access to resources. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:42, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Error

Hi Billinghurst. I've noticed an error here, but I have no idea how to fix it. Can you help? Trijnstel (talk) 22:29, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks. Someone deleted the work at Commons, then someone deleted part of the work here, and didn't properly clean up. I have followed through. You're the best. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:33, 25 September 2019 (UTC)

16:49, 30 September 2019 (UTC)

Maintenance query about categories

I’ve been carefully placing categories in the header, only to realize much too late that for the sake of HotCat that isn’t where they should be. Are you planning to do some sort of mass maintenance operation to shift categories out of the headers at some point, or planning to make HotCat access the header? If so, then I won’t bother going through and fixing all my pages. Levana Taylor (talk) 07:29, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@Levana Taylor: I hadn't planned to do so. Whilst I disagreed with the methodology when it was introduced, I don't go against a consensus, and current practice. If you have works that you would like me to run a bot through, I can.
Do I understand you correctly, there was a consensus to place the categories in the header, in spite of the fact that HotCat can't handle it? That would be weird because HotCat is really useful. Levana Taylor (talk) 15:27, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Probable long s replacements

Donebillinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Checkmark This section is considered resolved, for the purposes of archiving. If you disagree, replace this template with your comment. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:00, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Tell you what you want?

https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Index_transcluded/doc&oldid=prev&diff=9627381 ? Ndashes are spaced and mdashes are not (e.g. w:en:WP:DASH) and MediaWiki markup is better than raw HTML (e.g. w:en:Help:HTML in wikitext). I didn't expect either of these statements to be controversial. What is the problem? —Justin (koavf)TCM 13:17, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Mate, <code> is markup, not raw html, and we have it in so many places including in our edittools and you want to pop into one place and apply a principle that doesn't exist. (FWIW your link is information, and provides no recommendation that you so promoted.) Oh, and hang me, I had spaces around my emdashes. If you had removed the spaces, then I may have left it, but no, you converted to endash. I didn't know that having it that way was so controversial. Simply unnecessary changes. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Fixed the link. "But most HTML can be included by using equivalent wiki markup or templates; these are generally preferred within articles, as they are sometimes simpler for most editors and less intrusive in the editing window". —Justin (koavf)TCM 03:57, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
I read the page, and that is an opinion for articles at English Wikipedia. It is not a recommendation for here, and <code is markup, not raw html, it isn't even html.

So you are making changes that suit you and have no context whatever to any actual improvement, and you will fight for the right to do it. The use of {{code}} here is absolutely minimal, and the use of <code> and other similar markup is quite extensive, so please don't pull the false "it is better", most especially in one of the most obscure maintenance templates that is set up by me, and pretty much only used by me. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Code is an HTML tag: not sure what you mean. Why do you insist on having inaccesible pseud-headers, directly-inserted HTML instead a template, and spaced mdashes? Isn't that just "making changes that suit you and have no context whatever to any actual improvement"? —Justin (koavf)TCM 16:36, 4 October 2019 (UTC)
Find a different ditch in which to fight, you are farnarkling in places that simply do not need to be undertaken; you are applying rules that do not apply here. We allow its use and it is in our edittools. That editing change is unneeded and unnecessary editing, so just take a hike. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:35, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

Filter 38

Hi, the filter seems to allow on-going edits to User Talk: space. I recommend that, for this filter, that gets blocked also. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 22:37, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

I am working on a killer, targeted and specific, though with a little wriggle room. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:52, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
Sweet! Thanks for your efforts. -Pete (talk) 23:53, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Recent deletions

Your deletion of A General Biography of Bengal Celebrities and Bengal Celebrities was unambiguously out of process. There clearly was meaningful content for both of those pages. CSD G1 is for test edits, vandalism, gibberish and the like. It is not for "best not to transclude at this time". In addition to that, there clearly is a work to link to in both cases. The fact it is in the process of being proofread is not the same thing as "no work to link to".

I am completely fed up of being plagued and pestered with endless objections, criticism and obstruction by you, especially when it appears that you are the only person who objects, and your objections appear to be questionable. I think this has reached a point where it appears that all forward progress on content is imminently about to become impossible. James500 (talk) 04:18, 28 September 2019 (UTC)

@James500: The community has had repeated conversations about the simple transclusion and abandonment of a few pages of work. WS:PD is full of those conversations and how it just looks ugly, and misrepresents what we have available. The community adopted the practice of listing of pages with {{small scan link}} and projects to assist with the transcript process, and linking to works for visibility. We also allowed portal pages to build similar content pages, see help:Namespaces.

Build a body of pages and significant pages, and then we can transclude, not a few trophy pages. And before you "at" me, I spent significant time running a bot through dozens of Index: pages for you as you wanted to work on them. Nada. It seems that you are more concentrating on building root pages with no content, and the community doesn't need that facadism, it is pretty valueless, and we don't need more incomplete, abandoned works.

If I am being accused of pushing a higher standard, and not having hundreds of abandoned heads of work, then GUILTY. If I am accused of pushing you to produce higher quality that benefits this community, then GUILTY. If you are people are accusing me of having us to comply with our consensus for standards then GUILTY. The standard that we walk past is the standard that we accept. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

My immediate concern was that pages should not be speedy deleted unless they actually meet the speedy deletion criteria. I was under the impression that speedy deletion of pages not meeting those criteria was considered a misuse of admin tools. I also had some substantive concerns: The deletion of such pages removes them from relevant categories, making it extremely difficult to find things. The page and index in question had not been abandoned (the pages had only just been created). The body of page namespace material seemed to me to be significant (one of the indexes already had forty proofread pages, not "a few pages"). I was not consulted or offered any opportunity to improve the pages/indexes in question. You did not specify how much material you want there to be for transclusion to happen (how many pages exactly is "a body of pages"? what number?). You keep asserting the existence of consensus without linking to or clearly identifying any policy, guideline or discussion that establishes the existence of that consensus. (I do not think I can reasonably be expected to trawl from finish to start through the archives of WS:PD; some actual examples of deletion discussions would be helpful; an old RfC would be better; a guideline would be better still).
As regards Notes and Queries, you told me that you would upload the OCR text into the page namespace. You have not completed that. You have not uploaded any of the OCR text for nearly two months, for reasons you have not disclosed to me. If I had created the page namespace pages manually myself, the whole thing would probably be done by now, instead of being less than half done. I did some improvements to Notes and Queries (for example, I typed up some of the the pages for which the OCR text was wholly missing). That is not "nada". I have not forgotten about Notes and Queries, and I have always had every intention of correcting all the OCR pages. Just because I paused briefly while doing something else does not mean that I am never going to correct those pages. It means that I was multi-tasking.
As regards the 'root' pages, the intention was always to proofread all of them. Since the number of such publications within scope was relatively small, I felt it was an attainable short term objective (bear in mind that I can make more than twenty thousand manual edits a month (probably a record), and I am not the only editor). I thought it would be more efficient to upload them en bloc and then proofread them en bloc. James500 (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2019 (UTC)
You transcluded two works at the same time which was a few bare pages in each. The works have been in the Index: namespace since July 2015 with little work done on them, so they were at best moribund, at worst abandoned. I deleted with the commentary "there is no work here to link to, best not to transclude at this time".

I have no issue with them being transcluded when there is some content. And I won't be digging out diffs about the conversations, they have happened often enough, and I have no reason to lie about it. There have been numbers of people over the years who come and undertaken facadism. We have others who come and copy and paste shit OCR, etc. We have the Index:/Page: namespaces for the preparation of works aligned with scans, and when we have suitable content from a work that gives value then we can transcribe it. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:32, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

For one of those works, there is forty pages of proofread content to transclude. You say that you are happy to transclude "when there is some content". If forty pages of proofread content is not enough, how much content do you want? How many pages? Or do you want the entire work to be proofread from start to finish? I have no idea because what you have said to me is not clear.

If you do not produce diffs or other links to the conversations, I am afraid I cannot assume that your description of those conversations is accurate. You clearly have very strong personal opinions about "facadism" etc and you have made too many factually inaccurate statements already. If you really want to invoke these conversations when other editors question your actions, the least you should do is collect links to them in an essay like the common outcomes essay on enWP.

If someone tells you that they are completely fed up with hearing objections from you, it is not helpful to immediately respond with even more new objections. The most likely result of that kind of response is that the other person will retire from the project because they fear that your objections are liable to escalate forever. James500 (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I have pointed you to the existing practice undertaken by the community. I have explained what we do in the various namespaces. At this time you are not generating transcriptions of proofread work, you are building a variety of head pages that have no substance below the root page, sometimes not even valuable head pages aligned with content of the main namespace.

We wish for moribund transcriptions to be worked upon in the Index:/Page: namespace, and where there is something significant and suitable to be transcluded, then we transclude. That is not a binary switch, and numbers of factors can come into what and when we start to transclude, though think of some value more than a title page. What reader comes here and view a title page? They are here for the work's subpages. There are here for quality transcriptions, if they just want an image or facsimile page, or rubbish OCR, they would be at archive.org. That isn't our purpose. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:59, 4 October 2019 (UTC)

I can see that you are continuing to abuse CSD G1 by continuing to delete pages that manifestly have meaningful content. Let me make this very clear to you: the only legitimate process for seeking the deletion of those pages is WS:PD. Not speedy deletion. What you are doing has become exceptionally disruptive. James500 (talk) 21:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I am in the process of correcting the pages of Notes and Queries right now. I also corrected page namespace pages of other publications at the time you erroneously accuse me of doing nothing but "building a variety of head pages". Please do not claim that I am "not generating transcriptions of proofread work" at this time, because that is simply not true. James500 (talk) 22:07, 6 October 2019 (UTC) Further, I am not building a variety of head pages "at this time". I have not created any "head pages" since you started deleting them. That is not "at this time". I would like you to altogether refrain from making factually inaccurate claims about me. James500 (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC) The allegation of "facadism" you made in the edit summary when deleting Herringshaw's National Library of American Biography was an unambiguous personal attack. James500 (talk) 23:42, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
My apologies if you thought that I was making a personal attack, it was not my intent. Can I encourage you to create Wikisource:WikiProject Literary journals or something similar to link together all those interesting literary journals. I did something similar for Wikisource:WikiProject Biographical dictionaries a while back to try and highlight those biographical compilations that were available for transcription, and to talk about common approaches. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:43, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

15:35, 7 October 2019 (UTC)

23:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Global templates

Hi!

You are one of the main contributors to templates (and to a lot of other things) in Wikisource.

I wrote a little something about how templates could get better: mw:User:Amire80/Global templates draft spec/TLDR.

There's also a (much) longer version here, if you have the time: mw:User:Amire80/Global templates draft spec.

I'd love to know what do you think about it.

Thanks! :) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

14:27, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Ping

m:Community Wishlist Survey 2020/Wikisource is officially open. Whatamidoing (WMF) (talk) 18:11, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Dictionary_of_Indian_Biography

Hi. I have added all sections to the work in subject. Section naming is intended to be same as page name, to ease automatic Main ns page creation. I have tried to be as consistent as possible in capitalization, format, etc. I have listed them in Dictionary_of_Indian_Biography/Sandbox. If you would like to review them, you can change them directly in the work, I can recreate Sandbox automatically.

If you do not have remarks, let me know and I can start to create pages in Main ns. I was thinking to use this format:

{{header
 | title = [[../]]
 | author = Charles Edward Buckland
 | translator =
 | section = Strange, James Charles Stuart
 | previous = [[../Shepherd, W. J./]]
 | next = [[../Subbyar, S. Shungra/]]
 | notes =
}}


<div class="leftoutdent" {{ts|mc}}>
{{#tag:pages||index=Dictionary of Indian Biography.djvu|include=486|onlysection=Strange, James Charles Stuart}}{{DEFAULTSORT:Strange, James Charles Stuart}}
</div>

Cheers.Mpaa (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, but please don't at this stage, in the early part of the works there have been too many errors in the proofreading to automate, so I was correcting along the journey, and creating the WD items at the same time, and the names are not suitably familiar to me to eyeball. That said, the approach with these biographical works is to match the entry name with the section name for that consistency in section/sort/title. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
the approach with these biographical works is to match the entry name with the section name for that consistency in section/sort/title -> That's what I did. Typos are possible, anyhow I'll leave it up to you then. If you need help in mass transclusion once you have proofread, let me know, tools are in place.Mpaa (talk) 12:32, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

16:11, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion

Hi, you did a bit of housekeeping on a file I had worked on (thanks), but I think the outcome is slightly less than optimal. I think a slight tweak would avoid the problem...let me know if this makes sense?

I see that you moved this file:

File:Portland, Oregon, its History and Builders volume 1.djvu-85.png

to

File:William Clark, of the Lewis and Clark Expedition (Portland, Oregon, its History and Builders).png

on Commons, and then you deleted the local copy. This makes sense, I understand why you did it. However, you didn't change the link on the page:

Page:Portland, Oregon, its History and Builders volume 1.djvu/85

I think there's an elegant way to avoid this -- if you were to reverse the order of the steps you took (i.e., first delete, then move), I think Commons would offer to automatically change links when you move the file. -Pete (talk) 23:14, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

p.s. To anticipate a possible rebuttal... The reason I did not change the file name prior to moving it to Commons is because I have that right on Commons, not on Wikisource. -Pete (talk) 23:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
@Peteforsyth: I was distracted by goings-on around me , and just moved the wrong one. As I did delete locally prior to moving the Commons file, the links should have caught up, and the global links at Commons were showing okay, so not certain why it didn't (and I was still dealing with goings-on unfortunately).

To note that the expectation with {{raw page scan}} was that they were never going to be moved to Commons as they needed to be properly cleaned, trimmed, etc., they were always just expected to be a good quality image pulled from the scan which could be the basis of work, rather than scraping the (lesser quality) image from archive.org. The text of the template is worded in that respect. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, no big deal for a one-off, that all makes sense. Thanks for explaining that about {{raw page scan}}, I didn't realize. It's not something I use much anymore anyhow; I was using it because for a while, I had not found a good way to find the individual images at Internet Archive, or to convert JP2 to PNG; so I was using @Hesperian:'s bot to take care of that part. Now that I have figured that stuff out better, it's more efficient for me to do the conversions and uploads myself...and cleaner as far as generating cruft on Wikisource that later needs deleting, too. (I do still use the template on occasion with scans I don't expect to get to for a while, but I'll try to minimize that now that I understand its intended purpose better.) -Pete (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
Now that I understand this better, I think the source of the problem may be that [[ping|HesperianBot}} may be in error, in using the {{raw page scan}} template on file pages. The whole point of the bot is that it uploads high quality original scans from the Internet Archive, which is distinct from the purpose of the template (which, as you describe, typically pulls in the low quality preview from a DJVU file, so the reader has something to look at.) Maybe the best thing would be to adjust the way that HesperianBot tags files? (Personally, I no longer use it, primarily because the lack of PD tags makes the transfer to Commons cumbersome; easier to just download the JP2 files directly from the Archive myself.) But the bot is still active, and there are plenty of Wikisource pages it can and does improve on a regular basis. Is this analysis correct, Billinghurst? -Pete (talk) 23:09, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
No. The bot pulled in high quality scans from the JP files. Compared with the user approach of us (still?) just expanding the viewable pages at IA, and doing an image save. So the template is correct.

If someone has the skills to write a script to have Wikisourcebot do that on a more regular basis, then that sounds like a winner now that Hesperian is less active in the image capture. Hesperian's efforts are from a long time ago before WMF gave us a more usable bot infrastructure. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

OK, that makes sense. Yes, Hesperian told me some time ago that the bot is something they run manually on their own server. Do you think it would be worthwhile to request that the code be released under a free license, and migrated to the toollabs? I do not personally have the skills to either write or migrate that kind of code, nor would I know who to ask. But I expect it would be easier for somebody with the proper skills to start with the existing code, if Hesperian makes it available, than to start from scratch. I'd be happy to make that request, but I don't want to do it unless there's good reason to believe it would lead somewhere useful. -Pete (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

16:47, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

22:03, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Seattle population graph.PNG

Why did you mark this with {{do not move to Commons}}? --Xover (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Due to its "parent" work. Trying to {{information}} it, and have it maintained at Commons, was not a risk I was prepared to try and manage. Easier to just keep it local. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't follow. What's the issue with the parent work, and why would having it on Commons be problematic? --Xover (talk) 07:08, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Old licensing here, and I simply don't trust Commons to not delete it, so I labelled it to just stay here. It isn't as though it is going to be used elsewhere at Commons. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:46, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

source for U.S. pseudonyms

The American William Cushing compiled multiple volumes of dictionaries of pseudonyms; here is what Hathi Trust has by him. Levana Taylor (talk) 22:52, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Happy to pull in one of the Second Series and apply the text layer. Have a preference from search to see which has the last worse OCR?
There are two different works by Cushing: the Intitials and Pseudonyms, which is a dictionary of pseudonyms in two parts, 1st and 2nd series; and the Anonyms, which is the reverse dictionary of works matched with their authors, and I think it has some works that aren’t in the others. They’re all a challenge for OCR, that’s for sure! At a quick look, this one seems about as good as any for the 1st series, and this one for the 2nd series. For some reason IA doesn’t have the Anonyms, but Hathi Trust and Google do. Levana Taylor (talk) 03:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
@Levana Taylor: Ah, two series, rather than editions. Silly me. Both are in place and nearly finished the text layers. Now, my access to HT was pretty crap last time I tried, ang GB doesn't show me full text versions. If we want to do the same then we are going to need to find someone with HT access who can download a full version to poke into IA for processing. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I can go to the university library and run Google’s scan through ABBYY FineReader. What format should I provide the output in, so it can be used here? --Levana Taylor (talk) 06:53, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
If you can get the PDF through HT, then it can be uploaded to Internet Archive, and IA's system will do its magic, and we can then download it to Commons with IA-upload bot, and get the djvu that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:49, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
I can't get the Hathi trust PDF but it's just the same scan as you can download from Google. A poor scan. I ran a few pages through ABBYY FineReader and the results were discouraging no matter how I adjusted the settings. Levana Taylor (talk) 17:22, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Disambiguating Author:Augustus Allen Hayes

I put Author:Augustus Allen Hayes at Author:Augustus Allen Hayes (1837-1892) because w:en:Augustus Allen Hayes is an entirely different person who also wrote stuff; I don't know if that will be a problem, or how soon, but it certainly could be.--Prosfilaes (talk) 02:10, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Being a different person at enWP … <shrug> … that happens in many cases, our means of disambiguation is different. It is pretty much a non-issue as enWP's {{wikisource author}} uses WD for link management, so matters little these days. If we get another author of the same name, we move back over the redirect which is still in place. Any name-duplicating author will be (xxxx-yyyy) on same methodology, and the basic page holds the disambiguation page, so no issue for us. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:52, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

20:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

horizontal TOC Templates request

Salutations, Billinghurst!

I have a long TOC at Translation:Likutei_Halakhot/Orach_Chayim/Part_One_Daily_Devotions/Early_Rising that I would like to make horizontal. The Wikipedia templates listed at w:Template:Horizontal_TOC namely {{horizontal TOC}}, {{horizontal TOC|nonum=yes}} etc. do not work here. Could those be made available here? Thanks! Nissimnanach (talk) 13:39, 21 November 2019 (UTC)Nissimnanach

Please take to WS:S as this should be a community decision, rather than mine. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:48, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

16:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

16:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Fray Juan de Torquemada

"Fray" is his title (Friar, Brother). It's not part of his name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay, I will fix it, though no need to be left until now. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:03, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, you did it. Good-o. My Spanish religious is near zero. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:05, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
Please do pass the message onto the original contributor. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:06, 9 December 2019 (UTC)
I expect they simply copied the name from the English Wikipedia. I assume the title "Fray" was used in the page title to distinguish him from the Cardinal of the same name. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:22, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

16:37, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

a template as a tool of uniformity

If you restore the template, I can use it until the project is completed. Once the pages are all uniform and acceptable, the template use can be sub-stringed and then the template destroyed.

Further, any changes that you deem fitting can be made to the template (before it gets set into type) and when I know that the template will be destroyed, I can add those versions to it and make this task much much more easy.

Please consider restoring the template and undoing everything except your name changes. I really don't like unnecessary string replacement and pasting. I really do like uniformity and completeness.

I am not sure what you like.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:20, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

These are version pages and version pages will never be uniform, well, beyond all using template:versions. If you are looking to substitute "templates" then they don't need to do it from the template: namespace. Simply create a subpage in your user ns, and substitute it when you apply it. It is what I do with user:billinghurst/sandbox3 -> usage: {{subst:user:billinghurst/sandbox3|''previous link''|''next link''|111}}. The template namespace is not a place to build templates for temporary use and later substituting. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:34, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Theater / Theaters

If there are items worth keeping as pertaining to "Theater" (buildings) I would create a Category:Theaters for them. The plural clearly pertains to the buildings and their function, and not to Category:Drama, which is a synonym of "Theater" in the abstract sense. "Category:Theater" is therefore ambiguous as a name; it could refer to all drama in general, or to specific buildings for the purpose of staging dramas, showing films, or the playing of music. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:45, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Sure, that is why I added it to the singular, and not created the plural. I am presuming that Theater/Threatre is the concept, not the building. To my understanding drama != theatre, though not an area where I claim any expertise, and happy for others to work out that minutiae. — billinghurst sDrewth
From what I could tell "Theatre" is the preferred term in the UK and "Drama" the preferred term in US library cataloging. "Drama" is the term used in the Library of Congress cataloging, and hence the term I adopted for Portals here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:23, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
To me ... "drama" is a subset of "theater". — billinghurst sDrewth 04:35, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
Both terms have more than one sense in English, so neither will be a perfect fit for everyone's conceptions. I'm sure the catalogers for the Library of Congress faced the same issue. We had a lengthy debate on Wiktionary over whether words like "three" and "fifth" were numbers or numerals for much the same reason. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:41, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
As long as it makes sense as we explain it, so the punter understands, and it is findable, and we have redirects, I really don't care. Usually I just look to what enWP/WD/Commons has done, and if it semi-reasonable, then I will follow, as it is linking that way. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:52, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

00:16, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

20:04, 23 December 2019 (UTC)