Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2017-11

Other discussions

Red Badge of Courage

Please remove Google notice / shift pages. We have a scan of the 1st book edition of File:The Red Badge of Courage (1896).djvu at Commons that needs the Google notice stripped, and the few proofread pages from the Index should be shifted after the notice removal. --EncycloPetey (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Twitter tweet topic suggestions

My own knowledge of the stores/pulse of Wikisource is limited, so I am requesting ongoing help with suggestions for English Wikisource Twitter tweet topics. I will create a User subpage for that purpose for now for anyone who would like to offer suggestions. Topics can be about projects, discussions, collaborations, maintenance tasks, "on this day" facts, text content, trivia, etc. Primary focus is on Wikisource promotion to encourage collaboration/contribution. Thanks for any help. Londonjackbooks (talk) 12:06, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

i would tweet, POTM and some @rosiestep WIR referencing, i.e. [[1] and [2]. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 14:04, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Slowking4: I moved your suggestion to a User subpage for ongoing suggestions so we don't take up space here. I also left a comment. Londonjackbooks (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-45

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Recent changes

• You will no longer see the patrol log on Special:Log unless you specifically select it. [3]

Changes later this week

• The 2017 Community Wishlist Survey begins on 6 November. You can post proposals from 19:00 UTC and until November 19.
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 7 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 8 November. It will be on all wikis from 9 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 8 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• URLs that link to sections on Wikimedia wikis with non-Latin scripts have looked like this: https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия#.D0.98.D1.81.D1.82.D0.BE.D1.80.D0.B8.D1.8F instead of https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Википедия#История. This will soon be fixed. Old links will still work. [4][5]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

18:44, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

2017 Community Wishlist Survey

Hey everyone,

The Community Wishlist Survey is the process when the Wikimedia communities decide what the Wikimedia Foundation Community Tech should work on over the next year.

The Community Tech team is focused on tools for experienced Wikimedia editors. You can post technical proposals from now until November 20. The communities will vote on the proposals between November 28 and December 12. You can read more on the 2017 wishlist survey page. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Minimum copyright renewal length?

Having been researching the copyright for the issues of Analog Science Fiction and Fact, I came across one renewal of the vol. 30 no. 5 (January 1943) issue that was made on 31st December 1969. I was under the belief that the renewal must be made in the 27th year, meaning it should have been made in either 1970 or 1971. Does this make the renewal invalid? Or, since it was made within a day of 1970, is it still a valid renewal? -Einstein95 (talk) 00:03, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Most monthly magazines were actually published in the month before, to be on newsstands at the start of the month. For example, note on Page:US_Copyright_Office_-_Renewal_Registrations_-_1950.djvu/30:

EUPHORBIA, by Gene Stratton Porter. © Jeannette Porter Meehan (C)

(In Good housekeeping, Jan. 1923) © 20Dec22, B567091. R56308, 21Dec49.

where the January issue of Good Housekeeping is copyrighted the previous December.

Moreover, I'm uncomfortable splitting hairs like that; I don't think we have the skill to judge correctly all the details about whether a slightly off renewal is correct enough to survive a court challenge.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:15, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Ah yes, I forgot that the copyright application is the month before. I guess that the renewal was made at almost the last minute. -Einstein95 (talk) 04:00, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119

I made a start on a template at {{MTBlayout}} but a template with 104 switches in it seems to be a case of doing it wrong.

This should be LUA if done at all? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:06, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Why does it need to be a template at all? Isn't it just a one-off table of images, which can just be hard-coded directly into Page:The mystic test book.djvu/119? Is there scope for re-use of this table? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 17:33, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

It can be done as hard-coding, but the same layout is duplicated on a number of pages, and typing up a LOT of table markup is error-prone. If you want to assist feel free...

ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Oh, I didn't know there are permuted layouts on other pages. I though this was just a one-off table. I think a two-level template would be the best bet. Then you can have the table layout code at {{MTBlayout}} and the code that selects the card image at something like (say) {{MTBcardimg}}. The latter would contain just enough markup to render a single card based on suit and number, and the former would call it 52 times. The trade-off is, I think, a lot of parameter-passing in {{MTBlayout}}, but that's just copy-pasting. The two-level system is how {{table style}} and {{custom rule}} work. Lua might make it more concise, but I don't have enough of an idea to tell you how that might be done. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:21, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I set up a subtemplate to use. I suggest that you subst the layout template on all the pages to prevent template overload. The subtemplate is called with safesubst to allow for this. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 18:24, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

And then cleanup, It's a shame there isn't an #output: function, to only use the output from the switch parser function as opposed to a blind substitution, of the entire switch logic ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 21:50, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Changes to the global ban policy

Hello. Some changes to the community global ban policy have been proposed. Your comments are welcome at m:Requests for comment/Improvement of global ban policy. Please translate this message to your language, if needed. Cordially. Matiia (Matiia) 00:34, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Working with Once a Week, New Series, Volume VII (1871) — anyone got time to assist there?

GinnevraDubois (talk • contribs) has been uploading works from Once a Week. Recently they are being loaded as root works, rather than as subpages to the journal. Is someone available to with the contributor to get the works aligned to style, and to get some improved source data? We have components in the mix already Special:PrefixIndex/Once a Week (magazine). Thanks if you can. If no-one can, then I will look at it later in the week when I have a little more time. (I will note that I need to build a linking template for the works from the author pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:15, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Index not fully transcluded

A Treatise on Soap-Making was a quirky January 2017 PotM, and is marked as completed at PotM proposals, but it doesn't seem to have been fully transcluded with pages linked to from the TOC. Was this an oversight? I can probably get to transcluding it tomorrow. Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:34, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It needs transcluding and it is marked as needing it, so it is complying there. I will admit that I haven't been checking Category:Transclusion check required as regularly as I did due to other maintenance work. `— billinghurst sDrewth

Thanks. Wasn't at the helm as expected today, but I will try to get to it tomorrow; and I'll put the transclusion check Cat link on my housekeeping page. Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Tech News: 2017-46

Latest tech news from the Wikimedia technical community. Please tell other users about these changes. Not all changes will affect you. Translations are available.

Changes later this week

• The diff you see when you compare two different versions of a page has changed on MediaWiki.org and the test wiki. This is to make it easier to find a text change in a moved paragraph. It will hopefully soon come to more wikis. You can report bugs in Phabricator. [6]
• A new user group on Commons will be able to upload MP3 files. The plan is to have this user group from 17 November. [7]
• Wikis using Flagged Revisions will get the New filters for Edit Review by default on the recent changes pages. It will be possible to opt-out in user preferences. [8]
• The new version of MediaWiki will be on test wikis and MediaWiki.org from 14 November. It will be on non-Wikipedia wikis and some Wikipedias from 15 November. It will be on all wikis from 16 November (calendar).

Meetings

• You can join the technical advice meeting on IRC. During the meeting, volunteer developers can ask for advice. The meeting will be on 15 November at 16:00 (UTC). See how to join.

Future changes

• Support for uploading and viewing 3D models is coming soon to Wikimedia Commons. The feature will support the .STL file format. You can see an example on the test wiki. [9]

Tech news prepared by Tech News writers and posted by bot • Contribute • Translate • Get help • Give feedback • Subscribe or unsubscribe.

19:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Better OCR?

Can a better ocr be obtained for this work Index:A Treatise on the Culture of the Vine and, and the Art of Making Wine.pdf? The ocr from the pdf is pretty bad and so is the ocr obtained from the ocr button. I also tried the google ocr button and that was pretty bad also. Jpez (talk) 05:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: Often the google scans from early days were not of the best resolution for good OCR. You can always try uploading the work to archive.org and see what they can do with the scan and reprocess the OCR. From there uploading with toollabs:ia-upload will enable you to bring it over in a djvu format, if preferred. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:20, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

This Google book has been imported to the IA already: https://archive.org/details/atreatiseoncult00busbgoog A quick look at the full text at the IA seems to show a rather better (but still pretty poor in absolute terms) OCR outcome. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes it looks like it's the scan quality which is to blame so I don't think any other ocr software would do a better job than what we've got here. @Inductiveload: I'm aware of the IA copy but I didn't like how some random pages were in colour and I thought it was an inferior scan. So I guess I'll just have to work with what I've got here. Thanks. Jpez (talk) 04:59, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Checked Hathi Trust? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:33, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Just had a look. It's there but limited search for me. Jpez (talk) 05:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

All they have is a modern 1979 edition, that will be limited search for everyone.--Prosfilaes (talk) 18:19, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

i see there is a 1979. reprint [10] of the 1825 original [11] works before around 1870 are bad ocr’s because typeface issues. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:52, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I copy-pasted the text from the pdf file downloaded from Gbooks, and the ocr is actually pretty good. Somehow it got all mangled when it was uploaded to Commons. Mudbringer (talk) 04:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

That's interesting @Mudbringer: I wouldn't have thought it would've been screwed up by commons like that.Jpez (talk) 05:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

the google ocr is better than the open source ocr from IA. for some language character sets, it is all they have, and they cut and paste routinely.Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 02:01, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Authority control for works and edition

If a Wikisource mainspace page represents a specific edition of a work, how should this be managed with the {{authority control}} template when the AC data is split across the Wikidata work and edition items? Generally, that template is taking statement from Wikidata's edition item. However, these often don't contain all the AC data we might want at Wikisource.

For example Treasure Island (1911) (1911 ed.) has a Wikidata edition item (d:Q14944010) with an IA ID, LCCNbook, OCLC control number and an Open Library ID, but the work item (d:Q185118) also contains the VIAF ID for the work in general, along with many others. I think all these identifiers are useful on the Wikisource page?

What is the correct way to handle these case? Remove WS AC data that is on the edition page, but leave the work item AC data entered manually? Or is there a way for the {{authority control}} template to follow the P629 (edition or translation of) property if extant and also include AC data from that page? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 14:45, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I think the best approach, if the community agrees that AC data from d:Q185118 should be displayed on Treasure Island (1911), is to try to modify {{authority control}} to follow the relevant property and retrieve them that way. Manual entry should also be acceptable if desired, but I'd avoid it if the alternative is feasible. It's pretty much the same issue as linking to w:Treasure Island in the header of Treasure Island (1911). —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

My opinion: The authority control data are separate because they indicate different things. The VIAF for the work is for the work in general, not for that edition, and so should be displayed with the work page only. The edition we have should point to a work (versions) page on WS where readers can access information about the work in general. We shouldn't mix work and edition data because that will confuse editors and readers alike. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:10, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I agree in principle, but the vast majority of mainspace pages at Wikisource don't have a versions page until they get a second version. This rarely happens in the first place, and for a work that only ever had one edition, will never happen. Perhaps, if the AC template can indeed follow the "edition of" property, it could have a "work" and "edition" split? Would also save the user having to know to find the "version/work" page at Wikisource to find the VIAF link? Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:25, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The (partial) solution at the Italian Wikisource is to have a new namespace called Opera: (Work: in Italian). We might want to consider that approach. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. In the meantime, while I check it out, I will try to avoid any edit that drops an AC field from WS, even if it means duplicating data like VIAF between a WS mainspace (i.e. edition) page and the WD work page for now. There are not many examples of this anyway - most duplicate WS/WD data appears to be OCLC edition data which already exists at WD. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 18:07, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment at Wikidata, edition data goes on the edition, and the work data goes on the work, we just pull the data for the appropriate item. Why would we do different If we are finding that there is a huge data hole, then maybe we can consider additional data display. I would hesitate to do that at this point due to the lack of pairs of work and editions. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:00, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

I understand that - it just seemed it might be valuable for a reader to be able to get to (say) the VIAF record or ISFDB title record from our WS page, which is actually an edition page, without needing a wrapper around every page to provide something for WD to hook up to as a work to hang that work AC data on.

Perhaps it's not even a problem that needs solving? I was just noting that we have pages that link to "work" items and some that link to "editions", and unsure how to reconcile the two. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 23:26, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

That's a big discussion that is start starting to be resolved on various Wikisources. I've mentioned how the Italians are approaching the issue. And the French have been going through and splitting editions from works—often adding new editions in the process. On Wikidata, they're discussing data structure and what we mean by "work" and "edition", so the whole discussion is still very much in its early stages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:19, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

While we could, I don't overly fuss the current linking of authorities as our book data is so scarce anyway, and if you are putting it into WD correctly, then we an easily modify its presentation here. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

this is an issue in flux, and i would look to the wikicite people to arrive at a consensus. we can then pull the wikidata for work or edition as decided on. would not want to pre-decide an ontology that would make for rework. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 01:06, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Sounds sensible, I'm happy to wait for the Wikicite/Wikidata people to get it set up how they want it and do it their way, when it happens. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 13:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Obvious errors in source

What's the policy for obvious errors (e.g. typos of common words) in the source text? Should they be transcribed verbatim with some kind of template to indicate the correct word? Thanks. Grover cleveland (talk) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Use {{SIC}} (which indicates a replacement in the text) or {{sic}} (which leaves no mark in the displayed text, but lets bots and problem searchers know that you've checked the word and it matches the scan.) Your choice.--Prosfilaes (talk) 20:15, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

But do keep in mind that some words have simply been spelled differently in the past. We don't mark words simply because they were spelled differently, but rather because they are spelled incorrectly. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:17, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, for scanned texts, what you see is what you transcribe. @Grover cleveland: As stated we can have a "editorial commentary", it is mentioned in some of our Help: pages, though maybe not sufficiently. From the {{welcome}} message, which page link would you have expected to find that guidance? — billinghurst sDrewth 23:25, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't know, to be honest -- I'm more of a searcher than a follower of links :) Thanks for the feedback! Grover cleveland (talk) 06:53, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Lists of author works

Noting that 'Lists' as reference material are not desirable in the Main, I was wondering if it is permissible to maintain lists in Author-space as subpages (exs.)—or should they instead remain in User-space? Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 23:03, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have always considered the WWI reference to lists to be seen as related to published works (per the top of that page), as such our collection in main ns. We have always considered Portal: and Author: nss as curated spaces, so I would have said, go ahead where it is output to curate main namespace.

If we think we need to better express that WWI and published works/main ns relationship, then let us do so. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:41, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

How crazy am I allowed to get? I would also like to add a list of Coates' Greek mythology poetry, perhaps a Flora list, Fauna...? Also, @Billinghurst:, I am not quite sure what you meant by your last sentence. Thanks, Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

WS:WWI should clearly be showing that inclusion criteria relates to published works in main namespace. Implicitly we need to indicate that other nss are supportive of main nss and their processes work accordingly. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

My impression is that our Author: namespace lists items we have, or could have. We typically have opted not to include Authors whose works are not in PD. Are we planning to change that to allow authors whose works are hosted somewhere on-line? If so, we run the risk of turning into a link farm with the need to investigate whether or not our links point to works that are legitimately hosted. I for one would not want to begin allowing links to sites that illegally host works that are under copyright, nor would want to devote community effort to such investigation. --EncycloPetey (talk)

The war poetry list points to works strictly available at WS... I can see how the magazines & music lists (the latter in particular) may push the envelope. Magazines, however, link solely to WS versions, etc. pages. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: @EncycloPetey: I agree that links should lead to WS works, and will reconsider/perhaps rework the music list. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:39, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Good specific point EP. Author pages and portal pages are contextual and supportive to our main namespace, or what could be in namespace. My commentary was implicitly slanted to subpages to author.

LJB: For the purpose of completeness, (my opinion only) I think listing music for an established and prolific author is fine as part of a compilation, and as the music was published. I would not think that we would do the same for people primarily known for their music, photography, art works where the listing the works is not usually focusing on published works we can reproduce. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:59, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Calling it a night, but thanks for your time. I will consider all of the above comments. Londonjackbooks (talk) 03:18, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reworked Author:Florence Earle Coates/Music to link only to WS works. Will look over What Wikisource Includes for possible wording improvement/clarity. Londonjackbooks (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Copyright status of translation

Is this translation of a sonnet, published in The Romanic Review in 1925, out of copyright? ~ DanielTom (talk) 00:02, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

i would say - PD-not renewed. going to the LOC cocat database (sorry no permalink) for "Romanic review" shows first registration in 1951 for "Pattern at the center". then 1962 then 1978, nothing near 1953 renewal. [12] and hathi pdfs show no hits in 1953 [13], [14] - your search may vary. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 00:46, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Cocat won't have renewals of works published in 1925. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/11800 shows renewals for 1932 and 1941 and 1942, but not 1925. http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/cce/firstperiod.html has a list of "all of the more than 1000 periodicals that renewed issue copyrights (for 1923-1950 issues) between 1950 and 1977, all the periodicals with contribution renewals made between 1950 and 1965", and doesn't mention The Romanic Review. I'd like to see more details, including specifically the translator's name, before saying it's clearly not renewed; there could be a renewal that doesn't mention the Romanic Review, or one with a typo in the name, and I'm assuming the underlying work is well and clearly PD, but it seems to be {{PD-US-no-renewal}}.--Prosfilaes (talk) 06:10, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks Slowking4 and Prosfilaes! @Prosfilaes: I believe the translator is w:Fidelino de Figueiredo. ~ DanielTom (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

no hits there. given the renewal of four excerpts only, i would be tempted to upload all romanic review before 1978, including IA [15] and then go digitize the missing issues and block out the four exceptions to PD. [16] Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 12:45, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think everything before Romanic review. Vol. 54, no. 3, Oct. 1963, is okay, but anything 1964 on just needed a copyright notice, not any notice with the Copyright Office. (The last two 1963 issues were renewed.) It would be nice to have volume 16 as scans instead of just one sonnet, but I don't see scans available online.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:40, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks again Slowking4 and Prosfilaes, for your time and research. I went ahead and created Love is a fire that burns yet burns unseen. (I know it's not ideal, but it's all I can do right now.) ~ DanielTom (talk) 22:13, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Reference Tooltips

Are we able to use Reference Tooltips here on wikisource the way it is used on wikipedia. I think it would make be a great addition for our readers. Jpez (talk) 06:08, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: it is a gadget, you should be able to use it here (said hoping that the code is fully pathed to allow that). You should even be able to set it to work globally if you put it in your meta global files, see local and global links in your preferences.

• to either your local common.js file or meta global.js page

mw.loader.load('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript');

• to either your local common.css file or meta global.css page

@import url('//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Gadget-ReferenceTooltips.css&action=raw&ctype=text/css');

— billinghurst sDrewth 10:20, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks @Billinghurst: I will try it later. What does the community think of having on as default for all users? Jpez (talk) 11:34, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I tried both approaches but no joy. Jpez (talk) 12:25, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

@Jpez: I have updated the syntax used in your global.css per my comment. Maybe try it again. Otherwise we may have to User:Yaur rand to tell us what we are not doing. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:04, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

and just checking that you have the gadget "Navigation popups" turned off. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:11, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

A little help with my project

Hi, I did a lot of work setting the project up and then started to mess around with this page. I don't know if I did well though. Will you see if it can be fixed? Thanks so much. I truly appreciate it. Thanks.

A Statistical Account of Bengal/Vol 1/Preface.

Samiur Rahman 2017 (talk) 03:00, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

@Samiur Rahman: Some initial thoughts. You will want to create A Statistical Account of Bengal/Volume 1, which will include the front matter of the volume & Table of Contents &c. For your Preface page, it is preferable to write out the word "Volume" in the title. You can perform a move to make that change. However, I personally would wait to transclude text until more Index pages have been proofread. Londonjackbooks (talk) 02:53, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

and need to clean-up table of contents. i started one page here [17], (or you could use template:TOC) ; then you can make you table of contents page, and chapter pages for each volume. Slowking4 ‽ SvG's revenge 18:03, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Disambig with multi-author

Does naming a page something like Song (Lyricist/Composer) cause anything to break due to the slash in the title? Is Song (Lyricist and Composer) preferable? Is Song (Lyricist) sufficient, since most versions here will be lyrics only anyway? Just wondering what others think. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 20:23, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it would help commenters to understand better if we could see the content to be placed on this hypothetical page. I'm totally lost. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

We should avoid forwards slashes as that makes them subpages. We did address similar previously — billinghurst sDrewth 22:31, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

... and we should only disambiguate if necessary. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: I'm attempting to build {{author-list}} using Wikidata, and would love some more test works to experiment with. What work are you dealing with here? Sam Wilson 02:52, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Samwilson: @EncycloPetey: Some examples that I have created or renamed, generally with just the lyricist in the disambig, but not with any real consistency:

• The Englishman (Gilbert)
• Good-Bye (Whyte-Melville)
• The Sunshine of Your Smile (Cooke and Ray)
• A Soldier's Song (Kearney/Heeney)
• Babes in the Wood (Kern & Greene)
• Not Yet (Kern and Wodehouse)
• You Never Can Tell (Kern)
• Why? (Kern)

etc. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:04, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. Thanks. I'll try to incorporate the 'lyrics by' P676 and 'composer' P86 properties as authors too. Are there any like this that aren't using 'override_author'? Sam Wilson 06:16, 6 December 2017 (UTC)