All The Tropes Wiki Project, Part XIX

[robkelk]

New category: British Literature. Please help populate it.

(I've already added the lowest-hanging fruit: Adams, Gaiman, Pratchett, and Rowling. EDIT: Also, Dickens, Tolkien and C.S. Lewis. No Shakespeare yet, because our pages for his works tend toward the plays, not the sonnets.)

[robkelk]

Still working on putting "infobox book" on all the literature pages (except for the Franchise pages).

Finally got to Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves

Hmmmmm... the page needs an image.

This one, maybe?

[robkelk]

Another new user to watch, for all the right reasons: RivetVermin

[Bob Schroeck]

Finally got to Ali Baba and the Forty Thieves

Hmmmmm... the page needs an image.

This one, maybe?

<snrk>  I like it.

[Bob Schroeck]

Another new user to watch, for all the right reasons: RivetVermin

Agreed.  Lots of potential there.

[Bob Schroeck]

And a major heads-up for staff:

According to Matomo Analytics we've been visited twice in the last week from the "copyright" subdomain of Higbee & Associates, a noted "copyright troll".

We may be on the verge of getting targeted. Reading the article I linked, it appears that they go after a lot of alleged misuse of photos.

[robkelk]

And a major heads-up for staff:

According to Matomo Analytics we've been visited twice in the last week from the "copyright" subdomain of Higbee & Associates, a noted "copyright troll".

We may be on the verge of getting targeted.  Reading the article I linked, it appears that they go after a lot of alleged misuse of photos.

I don't know what they expect to gain. Quoting from copyright law:

Violation du droit d’auteur : responsabilité

35 (1) Quiconque viole le droit d’auteur est passible de payer, au titulaire du droit qui a été violé, des dommages-intérêts et, en sus, la proportion, que le tribunal peut juger équitable, des profits qu’il a réalisés en commettant cette violation et qui n’ont pas été pris en compte pour la fixation des dommages-intérêts.

Note marginale :Détermination des profits

(2) Dans la détermination des profits, le demandeur n’est tenu d’établir que ceux provenant de la violation et le défendeur doit prouver chaque élément du coût qu’il allègue.

I don't know whether UK law is similar.

EDIT: In the meantime, there's one use that I'm pretty sure isn't Fair Use: "Face Claims" in roleplay threads. I'm replacing the images on roleplay Characters subpages with this in order to protect the wiki.

RE-EDIT: Oh, dear; we have two lists of roleplays - here and here. I could use some help with finding the images.

RE-RE-EDIT: Oh, dear - "Image Links" subpages. Somebody needs to go through all of them and weed out the images we're hosting that aren't actually illustrations of the trope in question. And if it's an Image Links page for a work or a creator instead of a trope, is having the subpage actually "criticism or analysis"?

[robkelk]

Roleplay character subpages are now cleaned up. Now to actual;ly delete the files (over a hundred of them)... EDIT, 20 minutes later: and done.

[robkelk]

Still adding "infobox book" to our pages about books. I'm up to the end of the 18th century now.

Before getting distracted by the roleplay character pages with their "face claims", I made it up to the end of "L" in the 19th-century list.

[Bob Schroeck]

Starting on Image Links pages, in between other tasks and dinner. "A Boy and His X" has a whole slew of pics that exist solely for its image links page.

Rob, am I understanding you right? We just have to make sure the hosted images actually illustrate the trope or work in question?

[robkelk]

I think so. I hope so.

And thank you.

[GethN7]

Thanks for heading off these bloodsuckers at the pass, Rob.

[Bob Schroeck]

Back at work on image links, but for some reason a lot of "[[media:" links are throwing "500 Internal Server Error"s. If I cut and paste the file name into a "File:" URL I usually find that while thumbnails are visible in the history, the image itself is not, at least until I open the media viewer, at which point whatever's going on is auto-fixed.

[robkelk]

That's... weird. I haven't encountered image behaviour like that, but I haven't checked ATT in the last few hours either.

[Bob Schroeck]

Whatever it was, it appears to have been temporary. A few hours later it wasn't happening any more.

Meanwhile, I think I've stumbled upon the explanation for some of the "unused" images you've been cleaning up over the last couple years. I've already come across three cases where it looks like someone at TVT tried to embed a link to a work inside the pothole linking to an image, and it was never caught there and so got faithfully converted here. With the obvious result of a broken link.

[robkelk]

Still adding "infobox book" to our pages about books. I'm up to the end of the 18th century now.

Before getting distracted by the roleplay character pages with their "face claims", I made it up to the end of "L" in the 19th-century list.

Now up to the end of the 1920s - which means I can't simply link to images on Commons from here on (unless there's a CC-licensed illustration for a work that doesn't yet have an infobox).

One thing: I'm not putting the infobox on pages that have the category "Multiple Works Need Separate Pages". We don't prioritize one work over another, after all.

[Bob Schroeck]

I really need, among all my other tasks, to start going through that category and start removing pages from it. <sigh>

[robkelk]

Oh, yes - if anybody knows of any literature first published in the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th or 10th centuries, please create work pages for them. Those seven centuries are the holes in our "Literature by Century" categories because we currently don't have any pages to add the categories to.

EDIT: Wikipedia has lists

RE-EDIT: In a related note, according to the wiki, there were only two writers active during the 1930s: Faulkner and Steinbeck. Okay, I exaggerate - but not by much.

[robkelk]

Head's up: The protection on "Donald Trump" expires in eight hours as of this posting. (The protection on "Joe Biden" has already expired.)

[Bob Schroeck]

Let's see what happens in the next couple days. Norm's ban is still active, so we know he won't be carpetbombing the page with whitewash edits... yet.

[robkelk]

I need a second opinion on this edit. The stated edit reason is "Making changes to the description to make it easier to read " However, I think the changes made the text harder to read.

Am I off-base here?

(And, just before that edit was made, I was about to ask whether the trope candidate was launchable...)

[Bob Schroeck]

Oh god, it's classic Kuma garbling. In a brief skim I spotted multiple "corrections" that broke grammar and usage badly. Definitely made the text harder to read. And understand.

[Bob Schroeck]

And a major heads-up for staff:

According to Matomo Analytics we've been visited twice in the last week from the "copyright" subdomain of Higbee & Associates, a noted "copyright troll".

We may be on the verge of getting targeted.  Reading the article I linked, it appears that they go after a lot of alleged misuse of photos.

Checking this morning, they've visited five times in the last week and it's been six days since I posted the above.

I'm only in the Ds for Image Links pages because I keep getting distracted or having other obligations that take priority.

I will say that the original contributors did at least manage to stay on-topic for their pics. I've yet to find anything that failed to adequately illustrate the topic at hand.

By the way, has anyone alerted Miraheze staff just in case they're targeting other wikis?

[robkelk]

By the way, has anyone alerted Miraheze staff just in case they're targeting other wikis?

Not I... and I know there's at least one other Miraheze wiki that uses a lot of Commons images, so they might be a target as well.

[robkelk]

Oh god, it's classic Kuma garbling.  In a brief skim I spotted multiple "corrections" that broke grammar and usage badly.  Definitely made the text harder to read.  And understand.

So... revert? EDIT: Never mind - I see Bob beat me to it.

And this is post 300 in this thread.