User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2016

Add discussion
Active discussions
This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

bowling style (P2545) is available

Hi Billinghurst

Following the proposal you supported, the above is now available.
--- Jura 11:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

@Moondyne: just in case it has a semblance of interest.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I can hardly believe that, but to be honest I have zero interest in being involved. Moondyne (talk) 10:30, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Your comment on Wikidata:Requests for deletions/Archive/2016/07/22

Hallo Billinghurst

Archive pages all have the following comment.

This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion.

So commenting an archived discussion isn't useful. You can, however, nominate the page again and add the same comment you posted in the archive and link the same people. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 10:56, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

I understand your point, but it's good for other users looking at the history of Q7527705 to see how, what, why and where it was merged from. It really doesn't do any harm to leave the redirect. Jared Preston (talk) 10:59, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
@Cycn: I started the conversation about 22 hours ago and it is archived half an hour after completion prior to me getting a chance to respond. So I think that being asked to start a new conversation is unreasonable, whereas having a reasonable time to allow comment is quite reasonable. The archives are meant to be a usable and functional place to see a conversation and this process makes it multiple conversations and for no advantage, in fact it could be said that it was disadvantageous. I pinged users, so I would appreciate a less ridiculous commentary from an admin, and instead a display of wisdom and intellect.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 22 July 2016 (UTC)
The Request for Deletion page is monitored by bots (most of the time) so it's probably archived quite quickly indeed. If you don't agree with This page is an archive. Please do not modify it. Use the current page, even to continue an old discussion. there should be a project chat somewhere to argue the ridiculousness of that statement, and as you may have very good arguments you may even have it altered. But as for now, this comment is policy and I'm just pointing it out and provide you with advise. You can have opionions about any of this as much as you like, but providing me with opinions never helped anyone. - cycŋ - (talkcontribslogs) 11:51, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

DNB update

See WT:WPDNB#Main subjects now complete: state of the art. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:08, 22 July 2016 (UTC)

About the "country of citizenship"

Hi Billinghurst!

Thank you to contribute to "Alfred Diston" here too. But I have a doubt with one of your edits, the last about the country of citizenship. You changed "England" for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland" (UKGI). At this moment I think that it's more correct "England" than "UKGI" because "England" is a "country part of the United Kingdom" ―a constituent country―, both in the UKGI and in the current United Kingdom. I don't saying that my opinion is the correct, it's only what I think and I would to know why you think that it should be UKGI and not England, to take in account for future and existent items.

Another thing. If we set "England", in the Spanish wiki the field returns English, but if we set "UKGI" returns the name of the country and not the citizenship ―I think "Britain"―. In the case we decide to choose UKGI, how can we fix that? It should show the citizenship and not the country.

Thanks in advance. I await your answer.

Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión   01:12, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

The English version is "country of citizenship" which is the governing country at the time of the person's life, and "England" is not the country that grants citizenship (meaning people of England/Wales/Scotland/Ireland were all the citizens of the one country, not citizens of different countries), it is just residency, and an inexact label at that. I have added the English demonym (P1549) to UKGBI and you may wish to add the Spanish version to get the label that you desire. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:50, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The pertinent law for this person is en:British Nationality Act 1772, and the overarching article is en:History of British nationality law.  — billinghurst sDrewth 05:57, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for the info! Very interesting, I'm going to read History of British nationality law. I will take in account the next time. I have added Spanish demonym (P1549) to UKGI so now it's fine.
Regards, Ivanhercaz | Discusión   18:46, 25 July 2016 (UTC)


You've added conflicting dates to John Vandergucht (Q18810965), could you please fix them? Some sources would be good to have too. Sjoerd de Bruin (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

  Done @Sjoerddebruin: It looks as though PTBNP links are broken, eg. Abraham Lincoln (Q91) I couldn't find Lincoln in the author listing, so they may have had significant changes in their system. My Portuguese and translation tools are not good enough, and it seems better that someone with true knowledge dig through there. Definitely changes as they now have but a straight conversion for Lincoln didn't work.  — billinghurst sDrewth 04:45, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

meaning of

you deleted wikisource author's page because of this (no known works in the public domain out of copyright). This has a copyright but the novel is being kept, is not yet allowed for public for it will be released only to a few as exclusive copies. Please answer. Thanks.  – The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk • contribs).

Out of scope.  — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice if you can further define this. There are editors that liked it even assigning authority controls, wikisource identifier or number but you are the only one who disagrees. I really donot know what kind of boastful pride you have! Is that essential as a wikipedia editor? 12:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
In other words they are all wrong (the other editors) and you are right! Please further define - out of scope- in simple language. We are cultured and of course we would like to know the reason why you want it deleted at the expense of the author and other editors. And how is "out of scope" related to your reason for deletion that there is "no known works in the public domain out of copyright." I could not see a connection. Thank you. 12:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Our conversation is being photographed and I want an answer. Let's be fair. 12:21, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Really? Please go and read at English Wikisource rather than come here and pick a fight.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:23, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not fighting you. We just would like to know what you mean by "out of scope" so we will be learning in the process. You are such a narrowminded person. 12:39, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Your silence means that you did it for the "sake of deleting it." This is a talk page and it is necessary for you to answer simple questions. I hope that this conversation of ours will be brought to the attention of the wikipedia administrators and [to the wikipedia administrators] try to follow the behavior of this guy. I am here asking a pleasant question and he just can't answer. 12:50, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Don't make wikipedia as your "Linus security blanket". Be stripped of it and answer the question as who you are. 20:11, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
This is not a discussion pertinent to Wikidata, please take it to English Wikisource.  — billinghurst sDrewth 12:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikisource editions

Thank you for your message, and I will take your point in consideration. I usually link pages that are linked to Wikipedia articles. I will check in future for disambiguation pages on Wikisource.--Darth-memo (talk) 07:43, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

@Darth-memo: You misunderstand, it is not disambiguation, the disam. There is a concept of a work, the concept of the work as an intellectual idea that is copyrightable, and that is what the Wikipedias write their articles. Then there is the production of that work in manifestations of editions, etc. each work can have many editions, and each edition presentation is the interwiki. You should reference Wikidata:WikiProject Books and s:en:Wikisource:Wikidata for the detail. As a final point, if there was a wikipedia article about a first edition work, THAT article would like to the reproduction work that Wikisource uses. It is of significant complexity. <shrug>  — billinghurst sDrewth
Return to the user page of "Billinghurst/Archives/2016".