See the /Archive for older threads

Writing abilityEdit

I've realized that my writing ability (what's the exact opposite of reading comprehension?), more specifically my ability to clearly convey an idea, is somewhat lacking. This does not entirely surprise me. Because even though I tend to mull and rewrite a lot before publishing something, the very reason I do that must be that I have some difficulty in writing clearly on the first try. English isn't my mother language. Even though the breadth of my vocabulary is pretty good, it must still put me at a disadvantage. So, while not surprising, it is troubling that, when re-reading something I wrote some time ago, I often fail to immediately grasp whatever it was that I was trying to say. Something to look out for, I guess... If you've seen my writing and have any input, or tips, please let me know here! --Azertus (talk) 13:57, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

DNB00 sourcesEdit

I see that in this QS batch you're mass-removing described by source (P1343) statements to items pointing to specific DNB entries, when there is a parallel described by source (P1343) Dictionary of National Biography, 1885–1900 (Q15987216) statement with qualifier statement is subject of (P805) pointing to the distinct item for the entry.

Has it now been agreed that this should be the way to handle large works on Wikisource, where we also have items for individual articles/entries?

Also pinging User:Charles Matthews and User:Billinghurst for info. Jheald (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Jheald: Are you suggesting that my batch edit is establishing consensus on how this should be handled? Because a cursory look should indicate that the described by source (P1343) statements with optional statement is subject of (P805) qualifiers are the de facto standard for this case. I haven't investigated fully, but it seems that most of the direct statement is subject of (P805) statements were added by the same user. I consider it an anti-pattern and it is not used with EB1911, Brockhaus and other frequently used sources. It is also how I linked entries from A biographical dictionary of eminent Scotsmen.
I agree that a discussion is not a bad idea. By the way, I documented this series of edits here. --Azertus (talk) 11:00, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
No side intended, I was just asking because I was curious, in case I will be adding statements myself in future. I agree that the Q302 example does make what you are doing look very sensible. Jheald (talk) 11:10, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
I would have said that the conferred and preferred means is P1343 -> THE WORK with a subsidiary P805 -> THE ARTICLE ITEM. There has been a discussion about the use of this latter method by me in Chat on numerous occasions, especially when the qualifier links were moved from P248 to P805. It has been how I have been handling these and multiple other works for a long time now. You will note on such items where both appear, that the two qualifiers were added in the same month in 2014, and there was a little competition back at the time to achieve, rather than consensus first. As I trip over duplicates, I have been removing the P1343 -> ARTICLE instance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:35, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
To be pedantic, you probably mean P1343 -> THE EDITION OF THE WORK? --Azertus (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)
Done --Azertus (talk) 16:43, 20 September 2018 (UTC)