User talk:CalendulaAsteraceae/Archive 7

Use of template
Hi, you have removed Template:Index progress bar from WikiProject The New Church but you didn't give an explanation why. Is there a reason I shouldn't be using it? I'd like to use it as it's helpful for showing the progress of each individual work. Thanks Jpez (talk) 05:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * @Jpez: Using index progress bar inside a gallery makes the page show up in Special:LintErrors/multiline-html-table-in-list. I agree it would be nice to use that template in the galleries instead of galtext. I can look into it. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * ok thanks Jpez (talk) 04:36, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

pseudo-defaults
I just got around to (start) looking at pseudoheading. Looks great generally. But I wonder, what's your rationale for not making the default centered? In my experience this is what the vast majority of texts use so it seems kind of odd to require them to create a stylesheet just to get a centered heading. Xover (talk) 17:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)


 * @Xover, I did that at first, but I had trouble with stylesheet conflicts when I wanted to use it for a work with left-aligned headings. I did also create pseudoheading/leveled, which has styles based on classed heading and defaults to centered, 150% size text. If there are other common heading styles that come up a lot, I would definitely support making a template based on pseudoheading that uses them. (And sorry for the unwieldy names; as discussed, most of the good ones were already taken.) —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:49, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Hm. Probably a selector precedence issue I'm guessing. What was the code at the time, and what page were you having trouble on?Index CSS is fairly new (and it was Inductiveload's baby), so we don't have a lot of existing experience and established practice with applying it. I have a hunch we're going to need some specific guidance to account for the fact that normal TemplateStyles and IndexStyles have the same base specificity. Xover (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover, I don't remember the original page, but I do remember that pseudoheading was using a stylesheet and had centered text by default. I've been able to replicate the issue, using pseudoheading/leveled, on Index:ICD-10-CM (2010).djvu: if you go to Page:ICD-10-CM (2010).djvu/1, the headings are aligned left, but when they're transcluded to the index, they are aligned center. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 06:07, 2 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover Having thought about this a little more, I would prefer to keep the base pseudoheading template unstyled (except for the anchor-link highlighting) for separation-of-concerns reasons. Like I've said, though, I'm happy for there to be more templates like pseudoheading/leveled which use the architecture and add commonly-used styles. Am I right in thinking that it's a good idea for such templates to use a class other than  in their stylesheets, so there won't be interference if multiple such templates are used on the same page? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 05:56, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a todo for looking at this (that keeps getting pushed down). My starting assumption is that we want two templates, one for a main chapter heading and one for the subheading, that are styled by default such that they can be used without parameters most of the time. That is, they should center the text, and the main heading should be slightly larger. But, of course, when that theory meets reality I may come around to your position. :)Each template or cooperating group of templates should use a unique class so they can be independently targeted. If we do some design work on a group of related templates there's no reason they can't also have a common class so you can target all of them at once. Xover (talk) 09:38, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh, you may also be interested in User:Xover/Template guidelines that I just barely started drafting. It's a braindump more than anything, but... Xover (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I like the way you're thinking here! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:56, 11 April 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover, how does Template:Pseudoheading/doc look? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:41, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

You broke templates
Please use the respective sandboxes for the development and testing of templates prior to implementation. You broke templates, and I have reverted your changes. — billinghurst  sDrewth  05:57, 27 April 2023 (UTC)


 * You're absolutely right, and I'm sorry. I should have been more careful and will be in the future. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 01:33, 2 May 2023 (UTC)

PD-India
Is there a reason you are removing the PD-India notices from author pages? The US notice is insufficient to cover many of the relevant works by these authors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:53, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

Please read the text of the PD/US notice which only covers works published more than 95 years ago. If the author has works published in 1928 or later, than that notice won't apply. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * @EncycloPetey: Yep; I left a more detailed explanation on your talk page. Happy to have this discussion here or there. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:04, 19 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Your explanation is actually a question. Your assumption is incorrect, and the answer is yes. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:06, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
 * @EncycloPetey: Legit, and sorry. I'll check the rest of the authors in question. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 20:08, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

nop
Please stop doing this. The nop is deliberate. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry, will do! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 19:36, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
 * On second thought, @EncycloPetey, I think I'm missing something. Could I ask you to explain the purpose of that nop? —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Do you understand what nop does? I'm not sure why you have a question. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
 * @EncycloPetey: Let's assume that I am very dense. My understanding is that nop inserts  and this prevents MediaWiki from collapsing terminating blank lines. Is the issue that you want to have a very simple policy for when to use nop, and if the box were followed by plain text on the next page (as opposed to being followed by another div-based template, or being wrapped in a div-based template which is then preceded and followed by a div-based template) the following text wouldn't get wrapped in   tags?

—CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 03:50, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * You are assuming that (a) the following page of the scan must, and always will, be the only thing ever to be transcluded following the page with the nop but that is not necessarily a good assumption. The same text can be transcluded to other locations.  You are also assuming that (b) the preceding box template will always function just as it currently does.  But didn't you just finish making changes to that template?  So that is also not a solid assumption.  The nop might not be necessary given the current state of things, but there is no guarantee that those circumstances will never change.  The nop may not be necessary for the current situation, but it is a safeguard in case the situation changes, and does not hurt anything. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:56, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Template:PD-US-no-notice
PD-US-no-notice produces "Lua error in Module:PD-US-notice at line 12: assign to undeclared variable 'notice_basic_text'.", on page Waring Ice Cream Parlor manual (012413). Was this a product of something you changed in the PD-US modules? PseudoSkull (talk) 04:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)


 * @PseudoSkull Shoot, I didn't realize adding  to Module:PD would propagate. That's on me. Should be fixed now. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:20, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
 * No worries. PseudoSkull (talk) 04:21, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Periodicals listing
Hello. I have been an active member of the German Wikisource for around 12 years now and was one of those who have finally achieved that pages only listing links to digitized works of individuals and pages listing links to digitized versions of magazines and journals could be ingested into the German Wikisource. As a result we have a mere comprehensive listing of all titles covered A-Z at WS Zeitschriften, each title followed by a link to the subject area the journal is on (and where the journal may be further discussed or its sequence of titles and sub-titles is listed). Journals generally having more than 15 or 20 volumes have aditionally been separated into an individual page dedicated to this journal alone (e.g. Building news and engineering journal). All separated pages are linked both in the general comprehensive list of titles and in the individual subject area. As a result we not only have a list of titles by subject area, but also a comprehensive list of all titles covered and where this journal can be found. To give just some examples, we have sub-pages comprising the journals for individual subject areas Classical Studies / Studies of the antiquity, Books and library sciences including Book printing and production etc. On these subpages we also interlink the title sequence (previous title - new title) of each journal that had more than one title so that the full sequence of titles one journal had is covered, plus on the other hand we list the mergers of two or more journals into one or the absorption of one title by another journal (takeover, purchase of one journal by another) - (see example for the linking of previous and new title or an example for a journal which absorbed another one.

Some years ago, I was repeatedly approached by some members of the German Wikisource if I could help them with getting together a collection of the one or other foreign-language journal on a given topic, which finally gave rise to a discussion to install sub-pages in the individual subject areas for journals/magazines in other languages than German if a number of such journals has been integrated into the actual "German" listing of German-speaking journals on the given topic. As a result we have a large number of journals, among them many in English, e.g. on Technology, Architecture and Building, Books and library sciences including book printing, Photography, Parapsychology, The Arts or Medicine.

Why I am writing is that now in the German Wikisource a discussion was started if it weren't wiser to integrate our efforts to have lists of journals in foreign languages other than German in the dedicated WS department, e.g. English-speaking journals here in your WS section, French in the French sub-section.

I generally support this idea and am glad to see that meanwhile the English Wikisource allows such listings of links to digitized volumes of a journal. Of course I simply could integrate the journals dedicated to one journal in the appropriate subject area, but I would also like to open a discussion if a system similar to the German Wikisource system now widely adapted of one main portal page comprising an alphabethic listing of all titles covered A-Z on the one hand and of sub-pages of the relevant subject area (what area of interest the journal is on), on which title sequences, mergers, absorptions etc. could be properly illustrated would be a feasible way to further develop the English periodicals section. I see a number of advantages for the bigger the number of titles finally covered is the more difficult it might become to keep an overview of whether a title is already covered or not,, the more so with numerous journals like "The Builder" which could either be classified as a technology journal or one of the subject area architecture and building. Also a journal that e.g. has 3 volumes overall only like Architecture : a monthly magazine of architectural art (London : Talbot 1.1896 - 3.1898) would not have to be separated into a separate page but could be simply listed on the page of the subject area with the links to the digitized items of all three volumes and the title simply be integrated in the portal page comprising an alphabetical list of all journals covered (and where).

I am contacting you as you are among those most actively contributing to the portal page of periodicals so that either you know who to contact to discuss these questions / my proposal or where to open a general discussion on this. I would like to actively support the development of the English periodicals section / portal and of course would be delighted to move the many listings I have already made to the English Wikisource for this purpose. I would also continue to try to establish which gaps finally exist (which volumes have not yet been scanned anywhere) and identify libraries that could help getting these digitized and ingested e.g. into Hathitrust, Google Books only, Internet Archive or on individual pages of university libraries that are no members of the Hathitrust consortium or do not have a workflow established to ingest their digitized volumes into Hathitrust (like e.g. Linda Hall library for the history of sciences and technology or U Chicago with whom I have completed a number of journal listings with vplumes not yet scanned, but whose volumes are not ingested into Hathitrust or Google Books but only on their page (or if I upload a copy also on Internet Archive).

Sorry for the long message. I hope I can make myself understood. Otherwise I am happy to arrange for a video call to explain in further detail what I am suggesting. Haendelfan (talk) 14:30, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Reverts on Broken Ties and other Stories
Hi there. I saw that you had reverted some of my validations on this work, which I picked up as it had been flagged on one of the Petscan reports on @Billinghurst's user page as being problematical, due to the incompleteness of the transclusion.

I ran the full transclusion checker and fixed the transclusion, by including both the adverts and the fly titles before some of the pieces. My view is that transclusion means of the whole work to reflect the layout of the original, not leaving out random pages. Transcluding the fly title as a separate page followed by a page break, then the contents of the chapter, should ensure that the work appears as originally published when exported. I note that you have not changed the transclusion status to reflect its incompleteness now that you have done these reversions.

Regarding the Contents page. I don't know what your comment about your method being 'better semantics' means, but I removed the extra bit of coding (in table format at the top) because it doesn't appear to do anything, anywhere, other than show the word 'Contents', which can be achieved using basic formatting. No one has ever flagged to me in all the works I've done that the use of basic formatting for the title word 'Contents' on contents pages is anything other than sufficient.

Regards, Chrisguise (talk) 08:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * When I exclude pages I manually add  so it is obvious that it was purposeful. Only unfortunate issue is that the new transclusion checker isn't able to differentiate the purposeful, like the old listing used to do. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  I do not consider it is necessary to do those pages like half title. We are not trying to facsimile the books, we are trying to bring them into a modern wikimedia. The style guide does indicate this. — billinghurst  sDrewth  10:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Billinghurst: Is the transclusion checker highlighting untranscluded pages that have been tagged with Category:Not transcluded? It's not supposed to do that, so if it is that's probably a bug. If you have a link to an Index with unexpected behaviour I can take a look. Xover (talk) 07:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It is probably more accurate to say that it was at one stage when I gave it a precursory check, and it was a throw away line when mentioned, so please excuse that casual expression. I did prefer the overt listing, rather than the muted interpretation that is now required. I will admit to not having been in the situation to run it more recently as I have been more focused on maintenance tasks and building the EB9 contributor list. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Xover: I just checked on Index:Broken Ties and Other Stories.pdf (after putting back the category on the relevant pages) and this is still happening. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * @Chrisguise: By "better semantics" I mean that "Contents" is a caption for the whole table, and "Page" is a header for the second column, so from a semantic HTML perspective, it's better to use the caption and header elements to reflect this. I suppose this isn't especially transparent from the wiki table markup. It's fine to just use basic formatting, but I do think semantic HTML is better. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Page range fix in EB1911
Hi, I found an edit you made to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Minnesota on 22 January 2022 resulted in a missing page (p. 576) and duplicated map (p. 577) displaying. I have since fixed this up. DivermanAU (talk) 18:15, 4 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Sorry about that! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 00:49, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * A bit weird. We all make mistakes and poking someone about something from 2022 is helpful how? Fix them and move on, we are all human, and unless you are needing someone to fix something, or prevent further systematic errors, it seems a more pleasant way to progress. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem. DivermanAU (talk) 12:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Arrowsmith
Hello, I don't see why chapter headings and subheadings are no more centered. I've restored the .css page, but subheadings are using center... Does this template no more support additional styles?— M-le-mot-dit (talk) 08:15, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I see: I should have used "margin:2em auto 2em auto", not "margin:2em 0 2em 0"; it seems to be no more compatible.—M-le-mot-dit (talk) 11:48, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I should have checked more carefully where the CSS page was used. Glad you've gotten things straightened out! —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:41, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

ProofreadPage and .mw-parser-output
Are you familiar with the internals of the ProofreadPage extension, and if so, why it produces two (nested) s on a Page:? It strikes me as odd, and perhaps a bug that should be reported. Fish bowl (talk) 23:48, 22 September 2023 (UTC)


 * @Fish bowl: I am not familiar with the internals of the ProofreadPage extension. Wikisource:ProofreadPage might help you get in touch with people who are. —CalendulaAsteraceae (talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 September 2023 (UTC)