User talk:Billinghurst/Archives/2011/May

The Signpost: 2 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 22:16, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Farre article
If your sandbox article on John Richard Farre is somewhat ready, it's now a redlink in several places. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:03, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I am ham-fisted with articles, so feel free to move it and turn it into something worthy. — billinghurst  sDrewth  11:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

Auxiliary sources
This is a DNB issue, but not exclusively. See demo templates DNBaux, and DNBauxJohnKirk as used on John Kirk (antiquarian) for the general concept. Also what I wrote earlier today on User talk:Deacon of Pndapetzim. I'm sure you get the idea: for both DNB and CE, there is a ragged usage of sources from the original text here on WP, in various styles. These "refs" shouldn't really be in the orthodox "References" section; and yet they are quite helpful as access to literature (especially given that the publications can be posted to WS ...). Some thought is needed, parametery things going on in templates too; I feel it's time to air this issue, and then look at getting the DNB project here a "manual of style" that covers the points with sensible options. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * (background) my more recent approach has been
 * Paste the (DNB/DAB/...) article as raw text with introductory para formatted, with the use of named ref (with application of ) for each of the paragraphs
 * wikify, and split any refs from the cited work as Further reading
 * So identify the original source and then start the conversion to WP article.


 * I think that we are looking at something sustainable and extensible, rather than something that is going to be labour intensive. So here I am thinking that the schema used for s:Template:table style/parse may have been nice though that many parameters under a #switch: is probably going to be a killer.  Though (dreaming) as we add those sources to enWS, or they can be externally linked having a means to have readily wikilink to the work would be sweet.  So maybe my thoughts are to how we stack linkable & cross-referenced links into place, and make it bloody easy and non-ugly to maintain. — billinghurst  sDrewth  14:57, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I'm not thinking of a MoS that is very prescriptive (not much notice would be taken) or definitive. I do think examples of how the refs can be handled (e.g. the "ref group" method at Andrew Ducarel) can now be gathered up, usefully. And with that as one solution to the inline refs from the DNB (when they are worth retaining - I do mostly cut them, but a few seem to be interesting as properly targeted to verify specific facts) I'm looking for a viable solution to the end refs. All this content has to be justified, case-by-case. Anyway my thought process had reached this particular issue as a sticking point. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 9 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:46, 10 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 00:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 01:08, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

The Signpost: 30 May 2011
Read this Signpost in full &middot; Single-page &middot; Unsubscribe &middot; EdwardsBot (talk) 19:02, 31 May 2011 (UTC)