article links and a question about tools at commons

s:en:The Land of Enchantment#7 tells where the first publication was. If the journal is ever published at source, where does the article link to source go?

Perhaps you can stuff 5 to 10 automobiles into a garage, but if you cannot get them out again then all you have is a garage with a bunch of stuff in it and not really having automobiles. Where will the [[en:s:Young Folk/Volume N/Ben the Sailorman]] link go?

About tools at commons, do you have tools available to move images into and out of category that I do not have access to? I am simply making the categories there match the Main at source better. To me, "Illustrations for" at commons is a silly redundancy, like "data at wikidata" or "source at wikisource" and if you have tools that will more quickly do this than I do, can I ask some moves of you?

Well, that is a lot of ifs. But the most relevant "if" is the answer to where the link will go.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2021 (UTC)[]

@RaboKarbakian: My understanding of the model is that where a written work by an author that is not implicitly part of another work (as happens in compiled works), it can have its own item as a conceptual item (linked to enWP) and a separate/physical item that is the edition item linked to enWS and these are joined through is<->has an edition. For editions, the first published information is interesting, though not directly relevant to this edition's metadata, that information is pertinent to the conceptual, and that other edition.
Re automobiles. If the metadata mechanics is not working, then we fix the model's mechanics not put in (dis|mis)information to fix up what is not working. It may take a little while, and that is why phabricator: and the Wikidata tag exist to line up fixes, or upgrades to Module:WikidataIB, etc. This is a wiki, these things will develop, so put the right data now, and the fix the model, rather than wrong information that needs fixing later. All editions at enWS of "Ben the Sailorman" will point to the conceptual item for Ben the Sailorman which will also be a versions page at enWS when we have more than one edition. (Our versions pages link to conceptual pages, which interwiki to enWP as pages exist)
Re Commons, there is a bulk category move tool there, check c:Com:Tools (I have it loaded through my global.js at metawiki). There is also the ability to request bulk moves at c:User talk:CommonsDelinker/commands. Always seek consensus for bulk moves that may be contentious. I wouldn't ever use "Illustrations of ..." in a nomenclature, 1) because it is a hard search through HotCat, 2) redundant for my needs; though cannot be definitive if use case without looking at the cases, there may be a valid reason that it is used in places. See c:Com:Category name for guidance.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:56, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@billinghurst: thank you for your explanation, I confess, it is going to be a challenge for me to know when one situation applies or the other. I am forward looking (having had to update many things throughout my years) and if there is a chance that a publication might appear at source and the original article with it, then in my minds eye, they each get different data. There is a book "The Princess Porquoi" (or something like) whose short stories were all published in Scribners or Atlantic Monthly or etc. and the space is there for those originals and the images are different (the magazines had colors (not colours, as USA). So, I think that any short story or scientific article should be treated the same, with or without the images or the already existing wikisource link. The instructions and understanding of how to unfurl the data when needed (move the automobile out of the shared garage) also seems, without it existing yet, confusing.
About commons, I can recat better without the tools, although, hotcat was nice on the touch screen. The admin there have not had a problem with my reorganization of things and that they match the source source better is probably a plus overall. It is nicer, really, having Cat/Subcat. Anyways, you caught me trying to toss off a dreary job on you. There is a bot I could "trick" into making the moves for me, but not all cats are to be cleaned out entirely, so that would not work.... ENOUGH typing through this problem on your talk page. Apologies.
Is there anything that you can do to make the differences and when one applies or the other easier to understand? Also, nice style on the TOC at source. It looks much better! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 02:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]

WSes throws up so many variations to WD due to the diversity of what we reproduce. I am not the best at explaining it, there will be others that are better.

Any published work, any short story and any article could have a dual conceptual and physical, it is just going to be total overkill and take you away from transcribing if that is what you do. So, for me it is best value effort, so those works most likely to be replicated are the fiction works as you described, so they are more likely to have that dual set of items. Single use/throw away representations will get the one as "life is too short". I don't understand your example about illustrations vs colour, etc., I reproduce the work as is and record the data as is.

The use of both wikidata and metadata for enWS, or for pulling enWS data into other fora is definitely imperfect, and all we can do is pound and pound and pound the developers. It comes in time. It took five years but now we have w:en:Template:cite Q and while it could be better that is about the pounding, and remembering "it is a wiki", we are volunteers. From where we were 13 years ago when we started this is a vast improvement.

Whereas a mini-biographical entry in many works will unlikely ever see a reproduction, so will only have the one physical item, and be part of a larger conceptual item of the work in which it was published. There often will be many mini-bio through multiple works.

If it has a physical representation, which is the case for enWS, it will be part of an edition of a work. It may also be part of some other set of metadata that sits outside our edition. For example, an edition item linking one of Dickens serialised works can pick up the parts from multiple of editions of a journal, and each of those is an article of those issues. It is all bloody tricky when we get out of the single physical.

Re Commons, it is just a gadget for selective moves, it is what you are wanting if you are doing category re-orgs, it is what I used for the WS author occupations restructure.

Re TOC at enWS, Inductiveload has styles that sit with each Index: page and that allows for a lot simpler editing than those complicated TOC begin and subsidiary templates. It has allow me to strip a whole lot of cruft from my ToC and tables. Part of that is guidance to set a max-width in the css that allows for alternate displays and better exports. I couldn't get it working with classes in the "TOC begin" template though as you say the parameter gave a decent display.  — billinghurst sDrewth 03:01, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

@billinghurst: I made a really nice title page for Q19028421. I used a different scan of the same publication because there was a super small tiff at the source version and only single color, etc. It is the same version of this edition so all should be good there. I put all of the relevant information on the record there and I very much encourage you to use the data item at the scan (via the book template) to see the problems there!! Perhaps a concensus will be as great at writing the phab ticket as it is at voting! Who ever did the images for the Jacobs books (well, English Fairy Tales....) there has my respect. They just stroke my eyeballs with their goodness! --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:51, 14 June 2021 (UTC)[]
@RaboKarbakian: Our work is on editions of each published work, not the reliance on the scans as provided by Google or IA. If we have to scavenge different scans of the same editions to build our djvu, I am all 👍👍👍, we did that for DNB in the old days. What I am uncertain (and undecided, and I wax and wane) about is whether we should be inserting colour images where a work was published in black and white. That is not a discussion for here.  — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 15 June 2021 (UTC)[]

Use of automated tools and correct instance of (P31)

Hi, please be careful when using scripts to edit Wikidata in bulk. I noticed some of your edits about A Naval Biographical Dictionary (Q16055052) are problematic: [1][2]

Accordingly, please undo or fix your overwrites. If you think changes to existing items about A Naval Biographical Dictionary (Q16055052) are needed, please propose these on Help talk:Import_NBD_from_enwikisource first. Thanks. --- Jura 12:19, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Not using scripts all manually selected in WEF tool which just allows the input at enWS. I must have just miss selected with the drop-down list for Murphy, thanks for picking that up.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:39, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
Also, none of Wikisource main namespace pages will be "Wikimedia list articles", we are reproducing works, so there is nothing Wikimedia-created in this space. Tables are tables.  — billinghurst sDrewth 13:45, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[]
  • Yeah, I have to fix those. Can you repair the others? --- Jura 12:00, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[]

Charles Aubyn Beach (Q108451212)

Hello! That might be a bit pedantic, but it is not a good practice to change the date of birth and keep the reference. The source DOES NOT state that the subject was born on 1 December 1827. Proper way to do it is to deprecate existing claim with the reference and add the new one. Thank you, Henry Merrivale (talk) 11:13, 8 September 2021 (UTC).[]