Something like Philosophical Transactions/Volume 54/46 is not the way that we would usually portray a work. We have been using the philosophical approach of an article title. Page titles with numbers are horrid for search results, and generally portraying a work. They are also not very useful for putting into linking templates from author pages. Is there any particular reason that this is your approach with these works? — billinghurstsDrewth 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, I decided to rename the subpages after I read that "Works that have chapters/sections should be numbered, not named" in Wikisource:Style guide#Page titles. I had also noticed a similar approach was applied e. g. in Philosophical Transactions/Volume 95/Number 19, but I decided to omit the word "number" as it may be misleading for somebody, who might consider it a number of an issue and not of an article within a volume. What is more, some article titles are too long and are not allowed by wikisoftware as page titles, which can be solved only by changing/shortening the title (which thus stops being the original title anyway), or using the number system. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:22, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apologies for sounding a bit gruff in my first post. :-/
The chapter pointer, to which you refer, is meant to be more about using the word "chapter", not just number, and then to not use the names of chapters; as such it more relates to running books, rather than articles in journals and other compiled works. In such circumstances, there we are usually only listing the root work on an author page. [Noting that the Number 19 is another that has escaped review.] Obviously we need to do some expansion of our help pages.
Littell's Living Age, PSM and our other journals and newspapers are better and more relevant examples of our nomenclature. We have something like {{article link}} and the templates that utilise it to standardise output and links. — billinghurstsDrewth 09:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hm, I understand your point but it is difficult to understand it that way from the guidance as it is spoken there generally of subpages and does not distinguish compiled works. I have nothing against returning everything into the state before the subpages were moved, but I would prefer the guidance was changed prior to doing so to avoid a situation in which somebody else would come and argue that the movement was in fact correct and should not have been reverted. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:32, 26 September 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Unless there's something special about how paragraph indentation is used in a specific text, we usually don't try to represent the indentation of the first line of a paragraph. In the past it's caused more problems than it benefits from having.
Also, with a big complicated work like the Encyclopedias Brittanica, it's best to do whatever everyone else seems to be doing. It's good to have consistency between different parts of the same work, and updating the entire work to reflect the improvements you make for the small parts you're working on would probably be difficult and time consuming, so the easiest thing is to not make your parts different, unless it's a really worthwhile improvement. Prosody (talk) 04:24, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I started indenting the first line when adding some articles from Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th edition, after I saw that other contributors did it here, e. g. at Page:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition, v. 16.djvu/843. I don't know whether this attitude is applied widely in EB articles or whether I just happened to meet some of few examples of such practice. However, if it is not recommended generally, I will not apply it in EB too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:00, 1 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have set up the template to allow for link to the respective articles from the author pages. It leverages {{article link}} to give a standard, and traceable means to link to works. If you think that there will need for a shortened version (... lkpl) for interwork links, then please let me know. — billinghurstsDrewth 05:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am sorry to hear that it does not work in Chrome. I use Firefox where, as you mentioned, it displays as the examples in Template:Sfrac/doc are described. I have just checked using Microsoft Edge and it displays in a similar way to Firefox. If this display issue with Chrome is still a problem for you, as I do not know how to fix it, I suggest that you ask at Wikisource:Scriptorium, as someone there may well be able to help you. -- PBS (talk) 08:44, 6 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have just viewed the documentation page of the template with the Chrome browser. It seems to display OK (although some numbers are in grey). -- PBS (talk) 19:38, 6 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PBS: Yes, now I see it displayed correctly as well. That's strange, but I am glad it works as it is supposed to work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
When you are listing multiple English translations of the same source text, we use {{translations}} instead of {{versions}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: You probably mean the poem A Mood. These are not different translations of the same source text, it is one translation, just published in different anthologies, so I would guess "version" suits better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:52, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I could not verify whether they were the same translation because one is redlinked. But when the original is not in English, we prefer {{translations}}. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:01, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey:OK. The translator wrote that some of the poems were simply reprinted from another anthology in the Preface, but I have no problem to use "translations" instead of "versions". I am going to change The Pitman in the same way too.
That versions page isn't recommended as an example. Rather, the fact of different source information pertaining to different editions of that poem is mentioned as example for use in titling the different pages where two editions are located. There is no link to that Versions page, nor is it offered as an example. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:47, 21 October 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi, I see you've put a licence template on the subpages of The Jail. This is not required because the licence is on the main page. The only exception to this is when dealing with an anthology where the various works on the subpages have explicitly different licences. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Beeswaxcandle: Well, I have noticed that there are work based categories, such as Category:Slavonic Fairy Tales, Category:Grimm's Household Tales and others. There are also sometimes a few things which cannot be got from the TOC, such as front matter or back matter. Can you point out the rule which says that work based categories should not be created, please? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:51, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, I have already found it at Help:Categorization#Excluded categories. OK, so I will remove them. However, I saw quite a number of such categories here, so English Wikisource is not very consistent with this rule. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We don't always catch things quickly, and sometimes problems sit unnoticed for a very long time. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you categorize an author in Category:Czech poets, you do not need to place them in Category:Czech authors. The category for Poets should show up as a subcategory of Authos for the same language / nationality. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:36, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: Yes, I know, I ususally do it only if the author is not only a poet, but some different kind of author too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I notice that in the Table of Contents, you have linked items in the Contents list to Author pages. That is not best practice, and is likely to (1) confuse readers, and (2) break links for people who read the book as a download. The Contents of a work should only link to the work's content. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks as though the linking to Authors in that work was done by a relatively new editor here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
And before I forget again, Thank You for adding the Anthology, and for all the work you've been doing here on Wikisource. Your efforts add greatly to the value of this site. --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:45, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Wikisource doesn't use cross-namespace redirects. They're on the shortlist for speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Lately I have been working on the backlog of lint errors (see Special:LintErrors). FYI, {{lang}} is a span template, the way it is used in Page:Bedřich Smetana, The bartered bride, Die verkaufte braut.pdf/8 and similar will trigger a lint error (Miscellaneous Tidy replacement issues, div-span-flip). If this is a real issue or not, I am not certain, but would be nice to have the goal to be "error free".— Mpaa (talk) 22:06, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mpaa: Thanks for noticing me, but I am afraid I did not get the problem: Can you please specify, what is wrong with the way I've been using the template and what is the correct way of using it? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:30, 29 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The problem is that a template that uses <span> tags (lang) is wrapping a template that uses <div> tags (e.g. center). That is, roughly speaking, a template that works on blocks of lines, such as center, is used within a template that works on a single line, such as lang. Then something like this will be obtained: <span><div>some text</div></span>, which is flipping the HTML hierarchy of tags.
Unfortunately, I do not have a solution for the usage of lang that you are doing here (actually I have not actually understood the benefit of using lang here). One solution might be to restrict the application of lang to single lines, otherwise a div-based version of lang might be needed, if this is a common use-case and it is technically possible (both of which I can't say, as I am no HTML-expert).— Mpaa (talk) 15:39, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see. The reason why I tag non-English text is the demand for such tagging written in the documentation of the template: Texts on Wikisource should be tagged to specify the language in a machine readable format. All pages on English Wikisource are are automatically tagged as "English". Any piece of text that is not in English should be tagged as such with this template or one of its derivatives. Tagging every single line separately does not seem a good solution to me, but some solution should probably be found as the text I have mentioned really insists that tagging is important. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2018 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please note tat the lang block must be closed accordingly to the div hierarchy, see here.— Mpaa (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mpaa: I also wonder, if it works across pages too. E. g. when a foreign texts starts at one page and ends at another page, so can I start the lang block at the beginning of the foreign text, end it in the footer, than start again in the header of the following page and finally end it at the end of the foregn text? I do not mean only the lint problem; would the foreign text be tagged correctly after the transclusion? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:45, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We should set up "lang block/s" and "/e", I guess. If it works for other "blocks" it should work also for lang. There will be only one <div lang="de" dir="ltr"> (the first one) and all the others will disappear in header/footer transclusion.— Mpaa (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Mpaa: Thanks for the answer, I was just curious if it works that way, I do not need it just now. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:01, 20 January 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the second bibliography page of the work, you give the author of “John Hus” as one W. N. Schwarze; however, the author is listed as Rev. I. Schwarze. Is it merely a mis-type in the original work? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Thanks very much for validating the pages. I also noticed that you have added there links to all the authors in the list. I have been adding such links only to those, who I am sure published something in English and so there is a chance of their appearance here at en.wikisource in future. I think that e. g. Jan Jakubec and some others have no chance that some of their works appear here, at least I have not found anything by him written in English or translated into English. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I added those links, as I believe the policy states (I’m not quite sure), that all authors should have an “Author:” page. In addition, public domain translations can be made, information written about them can be found, and, perhaps because of you, a public domain translation could be made through Wikisource. I would like to help with further proofreading of Bohemian literature; however, I would prefer the files to be in .djvu form. If you’d like, I can upload some further literature, of your choice. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 15:53, 25 February 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
As for the authors, Wikisource:Style guide#Author pages states that "An author, in this case, is any person who has written any text that is included in Wikisource."
Thanks very much for the offer of help, I will keep it in mind a probably will tell you after I am finished with a larger part of what has already been uploaded from my To Do list. The reason why i prefer PDF: I believe we are not downloading the documents to Commons only for Wikisource, but for a more general use. When somebody wants to open a document from Commons, PDF documents can be opened in full resolution directly in any internet browser without the need of downloading them and opening them in an external viewer. Unfortunately internet browsers like Firefox, Chrome and others do not enable reading djvu documents. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I do understand your point. WS:PotM requires all of their works to be in .djvu format, which generally has a better and more accessible text layer. Are there any on your list, preferably shorter works, that you would prefer to do before the others? (In addition, could you validate this page? It’s the last of the book.)TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:32, 25 February 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: I have validated the page. As for the help: I do appreciate your offer, althought in fact I enjoy proofreading these works. However, it would be a great help if you could validate some of those on my list of added works. One of the shorter ones is Songs of the Slav, if you feel like validating some poetry :-), but you can choose any if you want. Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:05, 25 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I’ve already validated a few pages, and the collection seems very nice already. Would you mind proofreading or validating some of the works that I’ve uploaded or proofread? I try not to upload too many works, as, if the number of pages in Category:Index Not-Proofread is any indication, there are already a large number of works already uploaded. I’ve proofread a number that I’ve found there; however, I would like it if some other interested editors, such as yourself, were to help me in my endeavour, or to commit to the same goal. I don’t want to pressure you in to working; I just want to have some help. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC).Reply[reply]
Why not, if you have anything particular in mind, give me a link. I'd prefer something shorter too, as I have got a long to do list as well :-) But I will be happy to help with something. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jan, I was about to add your information from yesterday's discussion to the guideline Wikisource:Multilingual_texts as an option for side-by-side texts, but you reverted the information I added yesterday, indicating it's premature to work on this. Can you suggest another location where users can find information about how to create multilingual texts on Wikisource? Maybe a multilingual help page somewhere? The guideline page is the only page I could find. Thanks, -- Outlier59 (talk) 23:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. You are right that contributors should have a possibility to find some guideline and Wikisource:Multilingual_texts is a good place for such info. If you are willing to work on it, I suggest to prepare a draft e. g. on the discussion page and ask other contributors to express their opinion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:17, 2 March 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
We normally order chronologically. There is some leeway on versions pages, but Shakespeare's play is probably the one people will be looking for, and since its also the oldest, it makes sense to list them that way. --EncycloPetey (talk) 13:39, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I am not sure whether chronological ordering is preferred, I come accross alphabetical ordering by author very often. I would even say that alphabetical ordering seems preferred for disambiguation pages containing independent works of different authors.
I understand that Shakespeare should be highlighted somehow, though it can be done in other ways as well, e. g. by bold letters. However, if you want to have him on the first place, I won't revert it.
Generally, chronological ordering has big disadvantages:
Many (most?) disambiguation pages do not contain the years of publication of the listed works. When listed chronologically, it is very difficult to add a new work among them, going through all the items of the list and exploring them to find out the individual years.
Some links listed at disambiguation pages go to a version or translation page which list several editions of the work published in different years. Thus it is not clear, which year should be preferred for ordering at the disambiguation page. We may choose the oldest one, but translation pages do not always contain the very first translation and that would mean a) difficult searching for the year of the first translation or b) taking the oldest one from the list, which would mean that the disambiguation page has to be reordered always when an older translation is added to the linked translation page.
For these reasons alphabetical ordering for pages containing works of different authors seems to be the best solution. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Chronological ordering is preferred. Please see Wikisource:Style guide. There should usually not be links to multiple editions of the same work from a disambiguation page. When we have more than one edition of a work, there should be a separate versions page listing the editions. Yes, sometimes we ink to a translation, which may have a different year than the original work. In that situation, I would recommend using the year of the original work on the disambiguation page, if we have only the one edition, or else create a versions page (and again use the date of the original work). --EncycloPetey (talk) 15:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ad "Chronological ordering is preferred": I am afraid the current practice seems different. I tried to go through a couple of pages from [1] and it really seems that the alphabetical ordering is preferred by contributors in the lists of works by different authors, including such prominent cases as Song, which contains really a large number of links divided into sections by letters of alphabet and not e. g. by decades.
Ad Style guide: There is nothing about ordering lists at disambig. pages. It gives The Raven as an example, which is a very bad example: the last item does not belong there, as it is a version of the Poe's Raven and should be at the version page instead. Before it was added by an anon contributor the page was accidentally ordered both chronologically and alphabetically, so it does not help us, which ordering is the recommended one. So we should have a look at the practice instead.
Ad "There should usually not be links to multiple editions from a disambiguation page": Of course not. That is why I wrote "Some links listed at disambiguation pages go to a version or translation page which list several editions of the work published in different years." E. g. Disambig page A Mood contains list of 2 poems. One of the two links goes to the translation page A Mood (Březina), containing 2 translations of the work. Which date should serve for ordering the Březina's poem at the disambiguation page? Should the disambiguation page be reordered when some earlier translation is listed at the translation page? These complications are not necessary, alphabetical ordering is clear and easy. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:14, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If you disagree, you should participate in the Scriptorium. I recently launched a thread upon updating the Style Guide. Established editors have used chronological ordering as the Community norm for a very long time. Unfortunately, our Style Guide recommended alphabetical listing during this time, so you may be seeing the results of newer editors following the Style Guide recommendation. We've just brought the Style Guide into line with Community preference.
You might think that alphabetical listing is straightforward and simple, but it isn't. Names transliterated from other languages, such as Chinese, can have more than one spelling when converted to Roman letters. There are also many, many authors who go by pseudonyms, or who have published under more than one name. So alphabetical listings are not without severe problems of their own, in addition to the issue I mentioned before of hiding important works. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just checked all pages, but I left this one unvalidated in case you wanted to do the honors of finishing the project up since you proposed it. I can't say whether or not another editor will do it in your stead, but here's the opportunity. Cheers! –MJL‐Talk‐☖ 02:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MJL: Thanks a lot for all the work done! Unfortunately I cannot validate any of the pages, because I have proofread them all and so the software does not allow me to perform the validation :-( I think you are the best person to validate the very last page :-) Thanks again very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I have asked Level C, who has proofread most of the pages, to check if everything is OK after the transclusion, and then I will list it as a new work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:32, 21 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It looks great, beautiful. I just have two observations. 1) the name here is https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Index:Pictures_In_Rhyme.djvu - has a capital I in the word "In" and I'm not sure if that's an issue that needs fixing. 2) Same page, the Table of Contents has red links. Not sure if I did something wrong there or if / how to fix. Thanks again! --Level C (talk) 01:24, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Level C:. I do not think the name of the djvu file needs to be changed. If we did it, we would have to move all the individual pages, which IMO is not worth the trouble. It is enough that the name of the page with the work is correct.
As for the links in contents. I linked all the chapters from the contents with relative links. They are displayed correctly at the page of Pictures in Rhyme. The advantage of the relative links is that they work correctly even when the work is moved to a different name, in fact they work independently of the actual name of the work. The disadvantage is that they do not work when displayed outside the work, e.g. at the index page. I chose this way because I think its advantage is bigger than the disadvantage. Changing it is quite easy. Let's take e.g. the following relative link: {{namespace link|''La Marquise de Pompadour''|La Marquise de Pompadour}}. To display it correctly at the index page we can change it for {{namespace link|''La Marquise de Pompadour''|La Marquise de Pompadour|Pictures in Rhyme}}, but we would lose the above mentioned advantage. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:10, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
However you want to do it-I'm in a novice here, learning as I go. Thanks for working on this "little poetry book". It all started with At Kassassin, a "war poem" I found on archives.com Thanks again. --Level C (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have adjusted the page numbering in the Index. It is possible to start the counting at the Half-title page, allowing for a Frontispiece image (with blank side) inserted among the numbering.
Using long page labels such as "Colophon" can create problems in transclusion, as the page "name" will appear in place of the page number, and long names can overlap into the text. The margin allowed for display of page numbers only allows space for up to about 4 digits on the assumption that we will never have 10,000 pages transcluded on a single Mainspace page. This is also why "Img", "Cvr", and similar abbreviations are used. Five-letter page names can overlap into the text as well. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:33, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Czechoslovakia was life+50, but I can't figure out when the Czech Republic went life+70. I know it was by 2000, but there's some early 1990s law changes that I'm having a hard time getting the details of, not speaking Czech and everything. If it was life+50 at the start of 1996, various works by Czech authors who died prior to 1946 could be PD, which may open up some Karel Čapek translations. If it was life+70, then it would only be authors who died prior 1926, like the UK and many other parts of the EU.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:10, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good point, I was already thinking about it too. The new copyright law came into effect on 1 December 2000, which is good for us :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I am not an expert in the US copyright, so I am not sure, if I understand it well. An obstacle I see is that works published between 1924 a 1977 outside the U. S. are public domain in the US if: 1) they were public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 and 2) they were never published in the US prior to that date. The second point can be a problem, imo. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:29, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Actually looking at English translations of Čapek, most of them are from the UK and would have been restored based on that. There is a 1927 edition of The Absolute at Large that should be PD, but it's not on HathiTrust or Archive.org.
I'm not sure where you're getting the second point. The URAA restored works only if they weren't published within 30 days in the US. After that, publication in the US is irrelevant.--Prosfilaes (talk) 21:48, 29 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Seems that Money and other stories and Letters from England could be free based on this, other translated works such as Macropoulos Secret, Ad Infinitivum were published in the US.
Help:Public domain is not a great summary. C:COM:US says "Works which were first published outside the US (and not subsequently republished in the US within 30 days) on or after January 1, 1924 may be copyrighted in the US by virtue of the URAA (Uruguay Round Agreements Act) even if the work's US copyright previously expired due to a failure to comply with US copyright formalities (copyright renewal and inclusion of a copyright notice.)[2] In general, such works had their US copyright restored if the work was out of copyright in the US due to noncompliance with US formalities but still under copyright in its country of origin on the URAA date. (For most countries, the URAA date is January 1, 1996.) Works first published in the US are not affected by the URAA."
Note that Selver did renew several books in the US: "One, Two, Three", "The Good Soldier", and "Thirty Days in the Golden North". The only other thing noted as being by Capek renewed in the US is The Insect, but that was 1922 and fair game now.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:01, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: I see. Speaking about the Insect, is there really a 1922 translation? I found only a 1924 translation of this play. Although it is not a big thing, as it is going to be free in a short time too... --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:38, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I doubt it's a great translation; that doesn't look to have been its main goal. Or necessarily one easy to find. But it apparently exists.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Thanks. I really like Čapek and so I am going to enjoy adding other works by him :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Another problem is, where to get the scans of these works... What I have found so far is not available to download, at least not from the Czech Republic :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:59, 1 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You can always go old-school and buy or borrow a copy of the book and scan it. Amazon has a scannable copy of Krakatit for a low $100 right now, for example.--Prosfilaes (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I see, but I am affraid $100 = CZK 2350 is too expensive for me :-(. (For comparison, 1925 edition of the same book in Czech language can be bought in my country for about $5, most books are below $13). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:36, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind. I guess Hathi will make the Insect available in January (as they have done with R.U.R. this year) and other books should follow each year. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:47, 5 June 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the reminder - to correct any possible errors, I'm currently searching through Wikidata for his poem, but so far I don't have success - is there a general page there where I can find all his works? Thanks again! Orlando the Cat (talk) 08:14, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Google Books also contain a lot of stuff, but most of it is not available for people outside the U. S. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the quick reply - I've been looking through the Internet Archive for Erben's poem's Wikidata page, but I can't find it. Would it be wiser to simply leave it? Thanks in advance! Orlando the Cat (talk) 09:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Orlando the Cat:I do apologize, I did not read your question properly and missed that you were asking about Wikidata and Erben, so my answer was completely confusing.
Also, in case a similar occurrence happens again, could you inform me how the page was found? Thanks again! Orlando the Cat (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Orlando the Cat: The original translation page looked almost the same as the current page The Willow (Erben). In the top right corner of The Willow (Erben) there is a link Sister projects: Wikidata item. If you click on the Wikidata item, you are there. Another possibility is to find the Wikidata item among the tools in the left column. The current page The Willow does not have it, because it is not connected to the Wikidata item anymore. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm uncertain whose criteria you are using, but Shakespeare's Julius Caesar and his Antony and Cleopatra, while based loosely on historical events, are generally not considered to be historical plays. They are instead categorized as "Tragedy" plays. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am aware of the information given there, but I am confused by your choice of which plays to categorize as "historical" and which you did not. You did not follow any system laid out in the article you linked. --EncycloPetey (talk) 12:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I chose those plays from the given page which are based on real historical characters. I excluded those based on legendary or fictitious characters. However, I do not consider that crucial, so you may change the selection as you consider it best. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
To be fair the layout should be re-examined anyway, for Lint concerns, feel free to tweak if you feel appropriate. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 15:32, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00:: I came there just by chance and saw that the page behaves strange, but could not find the problem, until you corrected it. Unfortunately, I do not feel competent to correct the lint problems. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:28, 17 September 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
As enWS is only needs to be concerned with US-copyright to host works, as such we only need to have that US-focused license on a work. So, other licenses are complementary and informative, and can be added by others. If creating, please utilise template:license and template:license scope and add it to Help:Copyright tags and categorise as appropriate; referencing commons: template during creation as source is useful. — billinghurstsDrewth 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. This template not my area of speciality, however it would seem that it has a span/div switch within it, such that if having it inline then we need to specify inline=yes to get away from the lint error. Haven't dug further, just can see an immediate solution to a problem. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Hi. I am not an expert in this field either, but the documentation says that the parameter inline=yes is set by default, so I assumed it is not necessary to set it (inline usage is is absolutely prevailing, so it would be really tiresome if the parameter had to be used). The parameter was added a couple of months ago by @Mpaa:, so he may probably make a better comment about it… --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
<shrug> adding it gets rid of the lint error. I will leave it to someone with the time and inclination. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Just wishing to draw your attention to Template:article link for use on author pages which gives us the fine control to create specific journal templates in a standard and (hopefully) easier. Used widely — billinghurstsDrewth 01:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for the link to the template. I will consider its usage. It seems slightly more complicated than the system I am used to (I simply copy the full name of the page several times, e. g. The Czechoslovak Review/Volume 3/Foltýn's Drum, deleting some of its parts depending whether I am making a link to the periodical, or to the volume, or to the article, which is quicker than searching for the code of a template for me), but I understand some of other advantages of the template, such as standardization. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is better to follow standard Wikisource editing conventions, rather than establishing your own. I will leave you to it and edit elsewhere.George Burgess (talk) 20:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@George Burgess: I am very sorry if you take it badly: I did not want to drive you off, I just asked for keeping the transcription of the journal unified. I have not established my conventions, all things I have mentioned follow Wikisource conventions. Wikisource also sometimes leaves some issues up to the editors who just have to take care that the chosen way is applied throughout the whole work (see for example the convention of the curly quotes which reads: Use a consistent style of quotation marks ("straight" or “curly”) within a given work.) As I explained, I already started using the curly quotes because I did not expect anybody to join. Because I do not want to rewrite my previous contributions and because I plan to work on the magazine until all issues are transcribed, I simply asked you if you could do it in the same way. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
This bibliography has just made its way to Project Gutenberg. I did the original scans, but don't plan to upload them here unless you want to work on them; the bibliography might be useful even if not copied to Wikisource.--Prosfilaes (talk) 07:45, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: Yes, I do plan to work on it, it is on my list of works to do :-) There are multiple volumes available at HathiTrust, but if you think that your copy will be better, it will be really good if you upload it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)Reply[reply]
They are not disambiguation. What are we disambiguating? I know that there are others, however, they are all rubbish and we should stop doing what a few did. We also cannot have disambiguation pages of the same name in the main ns and other nss. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:I just wanted to remove them from Author:Emerson where they definitely do not belong, and so I created another page for them. If you think it is useless, you can delete it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't check the histories of the two pages. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Is this normal? I saw that EncycloPetey marked the work as 'featured'. Maybe they'd like to comment also? Shenme (talk) 11:45, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Thank you very much for another proofreading round and identifying 6 more typos/mistakes (I am mentioning 6 instead of 7, as using the SIC template is not compulsory, so I do not count it as a mistake, although its placement is definitely helpful). Five of these six were overlooked both by me as the initial proofreader and by the validator, and one of them was added by the validator (who otherwise did a good job). Six typos/mistakes in a 54-page work is not ideal, but I do not think it is particularly bad either. It would be great if all validated works reached such ratio of missed typos. But you are right that it would be much better if the typos were not missed and I do appreciate your involvement thanks to which they were found and corrected. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Shenme: We nominate works and usually have them listed for several months as candidates before featuring them. During that time, the expectation is that the community will check for errors and either correct them, or will comment that a large number of errors were found and oppose their featured status. But the sad truth is that the community seldom checks the candidate texts for errors. They typically wait until it's on the main page and then point out the errors. If you find an error, then it was not caught by either of the two people who previously proofread the page on which it occurs. Works are not considered for nomination until they have had every page proofread by at least two community members, so that the entire work has been validated.
The rate of participation from the community members in checking featured text nominations is extremely low, with only one or two people making any comments. We had only six featured texts in the whole of 2019, and only one so far this year. If you would like to volunteer to help, then you are welcome to do so. We could use the help. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:23, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@EncycloPetey: I am sure you know that PGDP have three review stages, but even with that there is also the same problem that pages are scanned over, not necessarily scrubbed. It absolutely does depend on the reviewer's expended time and motivation for success.
(And I lost faith completely in PGDP years ago when I found someone spoofing stage 2 reviews of 40 pages per day, every day, for many many months. In 10+ days I reviewed, 'they' only fixed one goof, a leading space on a page. *That's* an automated script. In reporting this to the (then) PGDP overseers all I ever got was "everyone has their own pattern of editing." Yeah, right.)
Me, I'm actually surprised when I don't find goofs, even on validated pages. (I come from programming, thus the attitude.)
Recently, I tried doing advanced searches for scannos/typos frequently found within a project, like "lie" vs. "he". I was not much surprised to find at least two overlooked occurrences in pages *I'd* validated. I wonder if that might be a motivational reinforcement for reviewers - a self review?
I'll try to go back and review the first 30 pages of the above mentioned project, to get a more complete, if singular, picture of the eternal problem - we aren't done, ever. Shenme (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I can see you found there more mistakes. Thanks for both pointing it out and correcting it. Next time I will definitely check the work that I would suggest for featured better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I _think_ I've now checked every page, now including the start to page 29, and the last couple at end. In those additional, I think there are 13 pages that have 'real' fixes, along with a few {{SIC}} that are arguable. The stray curly quote could be looked at (p.14). Also peek at the comment "is "župa" singular and "župy" plural? (wondering against misspelling)" (p. 9 and elsewhere) - when it could be a misspelling but also just a language thing it needs someone who knows. Thus my happiness over something like "lang|la|contentieux a priori et a posteriori changed to lang|fr" (p. 17) - what I can't speak I still can recognize as different.
Maybe I will go poke at another featured work, perhaps a nominated one as EncycloPetey artfully suggested. It is not any _one_ work that is of interest, but rather how well the process functions. This work was short and all text, making me 'brave'. That it made me wonder if I knew my own land's constitution well enough to compare was nice. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you very much for all the effort.
As for the curly quote: all quotes are curly in the original, but this one is different by its placement at the bottom of the line. I decided to change all the quotes and apostrophes into curly ones not to make this one even more odd than it is.
As for župa x župy: yes, the first one is singular and the other one is plural in Czech.
As for lang|la x lang|fr: Another mistake of mine I have to be careful about. I very often work with pieces of texts that have some Latin expressions and so I probably automatically added "la" instead of "fr".
As for the featured text process: EncycloPetey is absolutely right that the process is as good as people make it. Validations are not being done properly and almost nobody cares about checking FT candidates, and so the texts are often only little improved after the initial proofreading. Next time I will rely less on the validator and check my work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I recently set up this template for use on author pages. It takes the same form for other link templates based on {{article link}}. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
H. I am wondering why we have transcribed the indents in this work. It is not normal for us to do so, and I don't see anything particularly in this work that takes us outside of the Wikisource:style guide#Formatting. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. I know that indentation is not really encouraged here, but in this particular work is seemed to me that it underlines visually how it is structured and enables the reader to find a particular paragraph they are looking for more easily. Keeping indentation seems to me helpful and reader friendly in works which are not read line by line but which are often just searched for a specific thing. So unless it makes some tangible harm, I would prefer to leave it there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Perfect! I am not sure what you mean by second pass, but it can imo be transcluded into main namespace. Thanks very much for proofreading it! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:12, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@ShakespeareFan00: Ah, now I got it: the second pass means validating :-) Sorry, I am sometimes quite slow to understand :-) I will see later, but now I have got some other things ahead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Jan - I started validating some of your pages on this book on which you have been working recently, but notice some namespace links on page vi which don't seem to be working properly (they don't appear on the face of the page), so I haven't validated this page. I am not knowledgeable enough to fix the links.PeterR2 (talk) 21:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@PeterR2: Hi Peter, that is great, I am very grateful for your work and I would really love if this work were validated! As for the namespace links: that is OK, the template {{namespace link}} provides the link only after it is transcluded in the main namespace, i. e. the link is not visible in the page namespace. The reason why I decided for this solution is that I prefer relative links (which for example do not get broken when somebody later decides to move the work to a different name), and relative links would not work in the page namespace anyway. However, I understand that you need to check the links during the validation process, so I suggest the following: I will finish proofreading the work and transclude it into the main namespace (it is of no use to transclude it before the pages with the contents are finished) and then I will let you know that you can start validating. What do you think? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just a bit worried about what I have done with Palasky's accent over the "y". I put it how it was (consistently) in the book, i.e with a dot. I didn't know it was wrong when I did it. But Wikisource Beginner's Guide to Proofreading says "Do not correct spelling". However I won't be offended if you decide to change it back.PeterR2 (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think your solution is more faithful to the original (I did not even know that it is possible to type ẏ with a dot and thought that it is ý with badly printed ´ above y), so it is absolutely OK with me. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm not sure I understood clearly. Is it OK for me to continue validating, but just leave pages that have namespace links as "proofread" for now?PeterR2 (talk) 22:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Of course you can validate pages without relative links now, but I am not sure how many there are: I am afraid not many… Or, you can validate all of them, checking only the text and ignoring the links, because I am going to double check all the links after the transclusion anyway… --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I was puzzled by the red print you did on the title page as it doesn't appear in the Wikisource page image; I'm guessing that you have the physical book! If so that makes both of us, as, after I started working on your book, I discovered we have one for sale (I'm a seller of second-hand Christian books). Our copy was once in the reference department of a UK public library (accession 1908), but I brought it from Germany back to the North of England 3 years ago as part of a large-ish collection. It's now about 100 km from where it was once a library book. PeterR2 (talk) 09:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I@PeterR2:t is not working because I returned the change. Unfortunately, authors of the book were not very systematic and so it is difficult to link the chapters from the contents systematically. The words "WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS" etc. refer to the text that follows after the Letter II (text from pages 17–19) and so they are linked to this text, while the words "EARLY LIFE OF HUS" etc. refer to the same text that has already been linked to from "LETTERS WRITTEN BEFORE THE DEATH OF ARCHBISHOP ZBINEK" (text from pages 5–12), and so they are not linked again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:07, 6 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: Validated. Any chance of "The Reformers before the Reformation" being uploaded for proofreading? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That is really great, thanks very much! Just to explain one minor misunderstanding, it is not the book I have been discussing above with PeterR2, it was the book The letters of John Hus, while you have validated Letters of John Huss Written During His Exile and Imprisonment. However, I am equally very thankful for this one as well!!! The edition validated by you contains slightly fewer letters and the translation is not as good and even contains some errors and misinterpretations, but it is valuable because it is older and also contains the preface by the Martin Luther. The problematic translation of the Bonnechose’s edition is the reason why the Workman’s edition is probably more suitable to be nominated for the featured work, but I am not sure whether you would be willing to help with its validation too, especially after the exhausting work you have done with the older edition :-)
"The Reformers before reformation" is definitely on my long list of works to do, although not on the short list of books I am going to do soon, as there are really many interesting works that attract (or distract?) my attention :-) I will definitely let you know when I get to it.
Why taking trouble to delete wikipedia links?[edit]
Hello Jan,
I am wondering upon which guidelines exactly have you taken the trouble of removing links to biographies on Wikipedia?
My logic was that without such links, the story is full of obscure characters with misspelled or unpronounceable names. With the links, for example, Muravyov becomes the guy with a backstory that says he rioted against his superiors and then shot himself at the same time period where the narration takes place.
First I would like to thank you for validating some of the pages. As for the links: there are many people and also many topics in our works that could be linked to Wikipedia, but I find it disturbing. If somebody needs more detailed information, there are many different sources and it is imo not a good idea to choose one of them (e. g. Wikipedia) for readers, who would otherwise look for explanation by themselves and could find even better sources. Sometimes I also know better sources than Wikipedia, but I do not link them either. It is also quite common here to link people to their author pages if they have them and that is what readers expect when they click a link. I personally find it quite annoying when the link unexpectedly drives me outside Wikisource to another project instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh, I hadn't seen the request, was looking at the title page as I came to it via other means. I have moved them over, and that now makes sense. Wherever the move request is located can now be marked as done. — billinghurstsDrewth 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst:Ah, now I see :-) Thanks very much for the moves and I apologize once more for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Meh! about mistakes. Involve humans and they are inevitable. — billinghurstsDrewth 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Portal and year at basepage, rather than all subpages[edit]
Wondering why special:prefixindex/The letters of John Hus/ subpages have a year and portals. We typically would only tag at the base level, and then note where there are specific differences on subpages where there is something significant and different to the parent.
What do you see as the value for further tagging? The plan was always to keep the headers tidier. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Similarly, when I have done works, I would put the editor on the top page, and where the editorial aspect kicks in, not on every page unless it is pertinent. There should be a balance. — billinghurstsDrewth 00:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: I do not have strong opinion on this, but it seemed better to me to list those with every chapter, as people may not always start with the title page (unlike with paper books) and search engines can bring them directly to a chapter. The header does not look untidy to me.
And have you considered t that the individual letters may be worthy of individual itemising in Wikidata? Personal opinion is that would have more value than other components. — billinghurstsDrewth 06:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I consider this to be a good idea, in fact I have founded an item for one of the letters, Lounským, in order to connect it to the Czech version of the letter hosted at Czech Wikisource (the other letters have not been hosted there yet). However, I do not really feel like spending so much time at Wikidata as would founding of more than 90 items (82 letters of J. H. + several preserved answers) require… But I do not reject it definitely, maybe later. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:03, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Small correction: I did not found the above mentioned item, it had already existed, I just connected it with our page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Done :-) I have just removed italics from numbers which do not seem to be italicized in the original. If you disagree, feel free to return it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Do you really think that this page and its contents are disambiguation? Seems to me to be more a page that identify the use of the word, rather than a page that assists to resolve conflict of the use of the word. — billinghurstsDrewth 09:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
cf. phab:T228594. I've tried to modify the gadget (the javascript that runs locally here) to fix the one-word-per-line problem. Could I persuade you to do a bit of testing of it? Just try it out on various pages (ones that don't have the "doesn't work at all" problem; I'm working on that separately) and see if the results look reasonable compared to your expectations. If you see any obviously broken results it would be useful to know details of the web browser you were using.
(talk page lurkers: the more testing the better if you feel inclined!)
To test it you'll need to disable the original OCR gadget in your preferences, and then add my modified copy in your common.js: importScript('User:Xover/Gadget-ocr.js'); (on a separate line). --Xover (talk) 14:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Coincidence that we were both looking at this at the same time. I've been hoping someone would take on completion of the play for quite some time. Glad to see it was finished. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I've closed your nomination as successful, and granted you the bit. Thanks for taking on the extra responsibility, and please speak up if you need support or advice.
Thank you very much for both closing the nomination and for the offer of support. I will be learning step by step and will definitely ask whenever I will not be certain about anything. Thanks again.--Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:51, 23 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Oh … you are already an admin, I had this brilliantly concise proposal to make you one. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, the community was so kind to lend me the rights, but thanks very much for expressing your trust anyway, I do appreciate it :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:44, 23 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Some background. I uploaded a few field guides, first because the images were beautiful, second because they were useful where I live, and third because I wanted them for my device. I expanded beyond the one author Edward B. Knobel to include guides for weather, stars, etc. Another person (not the uploader listed, btw) took over these star images which I was glad for, because those images are very uninteresting to renovate. Several people contributed. Since that time, that project manager has disappeared from wikimedia projects -- but it was that person who suggested that these images were better as SVG. I agreed.
not to be SVG
better as SVG
I know next to nothing about making SVG. So, I took the 50 images from the book and requested an artist. I got a volunteer for this! A well-behaved Swede, and these Northern hemisphere images work for Europe as well as USA, as does the content of the book. My problems with this book globally have been about hemispheres and seasons.
About "correct", correct behavior and professionalism made this mess. Innovative means making good changes, traditional means the way things are always done. Innovation can lead to isolation on a few pricey devices. Tradition can lead to dogma, where "we just do things this way but can't remember the reason.
Two movies:
Innovation: the old 1960s Star Trek on bluray. You can flip between renovated old footage of the ship and new a cgized ship. I confess, I watched the rennovated version. Pricey bluray player and screen required.
Tradition: Back to the Future. The mad-scientist made a complicated contraption that would open a can of food and empty it into the dish for his pet. The pet moved away, but the machine kept working, making a toxic pile of unconsummed food. The machine had been clever and accomplished its task elegantly while the pet was there.
Feel free to question my tastes for what is beautiful whenever it occurs to you on my talk page. Good innovation and good traditions (and good phraseology) can only come from less stifled chats away from public forum, at least it is true for me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for explaining the background, I have never had any doubts about your good will. In fact we both agree with many things and I also have nothing against your innovations. They only need to be saved separately as an annotated version, and then everything will be in accordance with WS policy. I can help with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:12, 10 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello, thanks for writing me. The Anthologia is a very interesting book, but is huge and obscure. I do not think I will be able to add more sections regularly, I was thinking that maybe everyone interested could add his/her snippet when needed. Let me know if this approach is acceptable. --FabioDiNinno (talk) 18:36, 14 February 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That both wikis were "doing the right thing" according to the available guidelines. I thought that my example for the need of wikisource guidelines at the commons was as good as it was innocent.
Another helpful thing there would be guidelines for the differences in license use. I like the Berne agreement and we (the U.S.) have Gutenberg for fuzzy copyright.
But, on a personal note, some warning that you were going to exercise your enabledness and a deadline so I could download the project as it was would have been "community minded" and "nice" and not "mean spirited and abusive", don't you think?
Burying a problem without fixing it doesn't keep the "fun" in dysfunctional.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. As for the guidelines, I have unfortunately not seen any so far that would forbid black and white images in Commons or any other guideliness that would be an obstacle for placing the images we need to Commons. If you know of any, let me know please. In such a case the needed pictures can be hosted directly at Wikisource, but I do not think it will be necessary.There is no need for Wikisource guidelines as there already are good ones, see WS:Annotations and Help:Annotating.Wikisource guidelines can be in a specific case overruled by community decision if other contributors come to the conclusion that some rule should not apply to that case. So I started a discussion on the topic, but no overruling took place there.Despite the fact that you were warned that these annotated images are against our rules on the 10 February, I have noticed today that you kept changing the images afterwards too, e. g. on 15th or 23rd February and so changed all the remaining pictures without any support for such an action. So that is why I have decided to revert it.The version you have linked above is a different edition. What you were trying to "improve" was the 1911 edition, while the link above goes to a 2007 edition. If the other edition is free, it can definitely be added here as well and you will have my full support. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:55, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: Now I had a detailed look at the Gutenberg link and I can see that the 2007 edition is just a reprint of our (1911) edition, so it would probably not make any sense to add it here. However, if you want to make a new version with the coloured images, you can start an annotated version according to the guidelines linked above. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I seem to remember a good deal mentioned about your "tastes" in that discussion. My problem is that I requested an art project for a wikimedia foundation project from an artist at a wikimedia foundation project and this is what happened from that. Everybody followed the existing guidelines. The hours of good faith work and the clear example of the communication problem apparently does not suit the "taste in images" you expressed.
When this happens again, which it will for several technical and scientific work here, and new books -- will you keep burying the problem and be so heartless to this and other contributing artists?
Artists will need to guess or magically understand the needs of wikisource, do sourcerers need to guess the needs at commons? Because that should be addressed also.
The gutenberg version was provided to help fill your personal non-SVG tastes, which you have completely expressed now.
SVG is the best format for simple line-drawings and maps and graphs, it is not the best for engravings or most color images. There needs to be guidelines at the commons, there needs to be patience and tolerance until that happens. This time, it is required from you if you are like me and not so good at the writing of such things. --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:42, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is not about forbiding, it is about guidelines that artists follow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It has nothing to do with my tastes, I am arguing only with WS rules. Before I mentioned my tastes only in reaction to you mentioning yours, and the intention was to show that tastes in fact do not matter.You still talk about some guidelines of Commons, but I do not understand why we should care about them. This is Wikisource. It is absolutely OK if artists in Commons follow some guidelines of theirs. They can create the pictures. They can upload them to Commons. However these pictures do not belong to Wikisource. You cannot take a 1911 edition of a work and replace all pictures there by images drawn in 2021 and still convince the readers that it is the 1911 edition in the book’s title page, as happened with A Field Book of the Stars. If we were doing this, we would be lying to our readers and Wikisource rules do not allow it.As for "When this happens again…" I am afraid it must not happen again unless such an action is approved by Wikisource community. If the problem is created again, I will definitely not bury it, but I will fix it the same way I did now.Artists do not need to guess the needs of Wikisource, because we usually do not need any artists here. We need original pictures and not new ones. Having a picture in the .svg instead of .jpg format can be useful, but for this we need just somebody technically skilled, we do not need an artist.I absolutely do not understand the sentence "It is not about forbidding, it is about guidelines that artists follow." Either the guidelines forbid something or allow it. If they do not forbid what we need, it can be done the way we need it.I have no non-svg tastes and I have never expressed anything like that, so please do not put into my mouth what I have not said. I agree that svg is a good format for simple line drawings, but that does not mean that the original black and white drawings have to be coloured, the lines changed, position of text labels changed, and other information that was not in the original picture added and so on. This has absolutely nothing to do with the svg. I do not care very much if the picture is in the .jpg or .svg format as far as it is still absolutely the same picture as it was in the original book.In addition to what I have written above I will point out some more rules:
WS:What Wikisource includes#Multimedia talks about published illustrations or photographs from the book itself, not about new unpublished illustrations.
WS:Image guidelines#Criteria for inclusion talks about "an image used to display part of a document: a diagram, illustration, photograph and other content of an original work", again not about a new version of the picture which is different from the original work.
I think I have already explained everything and I am willing to continue discussing the matter only if you come with some arguments based on Wikisource rules, not on any irrelevant guidelines of artists. Thanks for understanding. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I don't understand. You have claimed that English is not your first language.
The pages that you deleted were at a crossing of wikifoundation project paths. Please verify that you understand this statement.
I have stated in many varieties that the guidelines for contributing artists at the commons were followed, quite precisely. Please verify that you understand this.
You stated that the images were not forbidden at the commons, which makes me think you do not understand what I have been saying. Please verify or clarify this.
In your attempt to close this discussion, you stated that you don't care if artists want to contribute, and you personally don't want them to contribute. Please verify and/or clarify this.
Thank you for your understanding, and it might help me to know what your first language is and what brings you to en.ws?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:34, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: You're coming across as pretty confrontational and discourteous here. Perhaps if you took a step back and tried to understand what Jan is saying, instead of arguing so emphatically for your point of view, communication would be easier. For example, Jan has been addressing the local policies on Wikisource and the ways in which your contributions on Wikisource have been problematic relative to these. You, on the other hand, have been mainly focusing on the local policies on Commons. If the point you are trying to make is that the policies on the two projects interact in a way that is not desirable, and that there is a need for new inter-project guidelines that explain the differences, then that is not coming across clearly. --Xover (talk) 20:06, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: I won’t take this offendedly, we simply had a bad start and I understand that you feel disappointed that what you wanted to achieve is not possible. Meanwhile I have also received quite a nice message of yours at my talk page in Commons which I appreciated. I would also like to express my general respect to your work here. Unfortunately, the above discussed changes are really not possible, I am sorry. If you have any specific idea for some potential inter-project guidelines and what they should contain, feel free to sugest it e. g. at WS:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:26, 5 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: I looked up the definition of "confrontational" and many of those definitions include the word "aggressive". I have no tools of aggression here or at any wmf project. So, by definition, the confrontation is the weight on the back of the administrator, the person with the tools or the privelege.
I was angry and took a day of productivity and very little interaction to cool off in, but it was truly in anger that I went to commons and reviewed Jan's uploads. Also it is when I cooled down.
@Jan.Kamenicek: and @Xover: I took the commons side here with this project. I have some understanding of how much time is spent making and uploading images. Making good images even more so. I have a software and a method that makes the best cleaned up engravings I have seen so far (when I have a computer, I build it for that software -- that my recent installations failed to boot but gave me a commandline, I don't know what to do about that or why).
So, this project was at a crossroads. I used to grow weary of en.w use of their little catch phrase "assume good faith". Its use seemed to allow aggressors to win. Assumptions in the world of science demand a proof before they are fact.
The project was there in good faith, the proof being that the artist accomplished the task following all of the available guidelines. Not having a computer, I requested the image work from the right place, meaning I made a friend, not used an existing friend. No aggression from me or the artist, here or there.
My edits were reverted, not Jans. SIC could have been changed to tooltip, but my guess is that Jan wanted me to feel punished rather than taught -- but, I haven't actually looked at the text beyond the watchlist. I have learned most things here from thoughtful or knowledgible edits to my works.
Asking the aggressor (the person hitting the revert button) to clarify their intentions is not aggressive as much as it is a good review for everyone. I am still angry, but not aggressive. So, another word or call out the real confronter? --RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am really sorry you feel it that way and if I can do anything to make you feel less distressed, I will do it if it is not against Wikisource rules. I did not want to "punish" anybody, I just wanted to put things right according to our rules as well as common sense. As I wrote above, you cannot have a book which says that it was created in 1911 in its title page, and change original 1911 pictures for "modern ones" from 2021. That would be falsifying history. I am sorry, but it is not possible in Wikisource.
If you wished to be taught, you should have read carefully everything I wrote on the topic in Scriptorium and you should also read what I have written here. Not only you did not disprove my points concerning WS rules, you did not even try to address them.
If you wished to be taught, why did you ignore warning that replacing the pictures is against WS rules and continued as if nobody told you anything? How can I discuss with somebody who does not listen and continues, ignoring all advice? I did my best to explain everything in detail, but you did not try to take anything from it.
As for the effort to make the pictures: nobody deleted the pictures and they are still available in Commons to anybody to whom they may be useful. Somebody may for example decide to create an updated edition of our book, using the old text and updated images from Commons. You can do it as well. It just cannot be done in Wikisource. I do not know much about Wikibooks, but it might be worth asking there.
If you disagree with Wikisource rules, you can also suggest their change. That is the last advice I can give. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The example of the problem was buried by a person who was saying "those images are not forbidden at commons" and who has so far not provided the clarification of reasoning I requested. This exchange is proof that words are failing. The project, as it was, showed the problem between wikis. That it was buried before it was used to fix that big problem is a very very little problem that might be easily fixed once you provide the clarification I asked for.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:11, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am definitely not going to react to this [2]. If you need some more clarification, you can try asking for it again but in a different way, although I am quite affraid I will not be able to explain it better than I did so many times before. However, if you tone down, I can try. I would also like to ask you to re-read what I wrote in the previous discussions here and at Scriptorium, because the reasons why the pictures cannot be replaced were given there repeatedly. It would help if you did not keep asking about things explained many times before. It would also help if you focused more on Wikisource rules and their relation to the usage of pictures in old works instead of focusing on my person. It is not evil me who does not want to allow you to do what you wanted. It is Wikisource rules. Above I suggested you can try to change them. Before you succeed in this, there is nothing to be done. If you have considered all this and still have any question, ask, I will answer.As for the alleged inter-wiki problem: There is absolutely no problem between Wikisource and Commons. Wikisource needs to have original images in the transcribed works. Commons enables to upload original images and also enables Wikisource to use them. No problem, everything is OK. If somebody told you that Wikisource has any problems with Commons or vice versa, they were not right. The only problem was created by your attempts to replace the original images. Commons does not require to replace original images in works hosted at Wikisource. No clash.Unfortunately, you do not try to understand the point, sometimes it seems you just want to offend me. I have to say that I have already experienced so much in so many wikiprojects that it is not so easy to upset me. However, if you really want an answer, do not address me as "a person", otherwise I will interpret it as a sign that you only seek controversy.Let me also ask you one question: After you were explained that replacing the pictures is not possible including the reasons why it is not possible, what exactly do you want to achieve now? If it is possible, I can try to suggest some way how you can achieve it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:18, 8 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. Wondering why we don't have active wikilinks and an author page for the translator, Charis Enns. Typically we would have such a page. — billinghurstsDrewth 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Hello. I wanted to found the author page and I asked Charis Enns to direct me to some source which would tell us something more about her occupation and so on, but she expressed her wish not to have such a page here. I decided to comply with the wish as a courtesy to her cooperation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 11:26, 6 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Share your feedback on the OCR improvements![edit]
Hello! We (the team responsible for the Community Wishlist Survey) have launched the project for OCR improvements. With this project, we aim to improve the experience of using OCR tools on Wikisource. Please refer to our project page, which provides a full summary of the project and the main problem areas that we have identified.
We would love if you could answer the questions below. Your feedback is incredibly important to us and it will directly impact the choices we make. Thank you in advance, and we look forward to reading your feedback! SGrabarczuk (WMF) (talk) 02:46, 9 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your edit at Wikisource-Statement of Mutual Understanding[edit]
Someone had inserted an "unlinked" tag atop this article, complaining nothing linked to it and so it was a candidate for deletion. This "Statement of Mutual Understanding" is an important document from the investigation of the No Gun Ri massacre. Hence, I placed a link to the Wikisource article within the No Gun Ri massacre article at WP, and inserted the reciprocal link to No Gun Ri massacre at this Wikisource article. Why now remove the link at Wikisource and subject an important document to deletion? Thank you. Cjhanley (talk) 19:16, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Cjhanley: Hello. External links are considered annotations which are not supported in transcriptions of original works in Wikisource. As for the template {{unlinked}}, adding the link to a Wikipedia article would not help anyway, as the template directly says:
Add links to this page from other pages (i. e. not links from this page to some other page)
Links from other Wikimedia projects, such as Wikipedia, do not count.
Although the template suggests a possibility of deletion of the work, current practice is different and the work definitely cannot be deleted for this sole reason. A more serious problem is that there is no source of where the text was taken from but this can be fixed. If the text is authentic and if it is not copyrighted, there is practically no danger of its deletion. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:46, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for the very clear explanation. Cjhanley (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload:. Well, what is surprising for me is not the fact that the word comes from 1920, but that the author of the article states that originally it was thought that it comes from 1923 :-) I can understand that the author did not know the date, but I cannot imagine that it was generally necessary to wait for such a "discovery" in the IA. Not only that Czech National Library offers the 1920 copy to borrow to anybody with the library card, but even English Wikipedia article gives the date of the play as 1920 (and in fact there are several more editions between 1920 and 1923).Maybe the author did not want to discuss the origin of the word as such, but only its first appearance in English language. The play was first translated into English in 1923 and so it is logical to assume that the word got into English on that year, while Caralee Adams "discovered" the word used in English text (Rossum’s Universal Robots) in the subtitle of the original 1920 Czech book. The reason is that the fictional company was a multinational company and so even in the Czech original it has got an English name. This is no surprise to anybody who knows the Czech original, but it can be surprising to other people. However, it is doubtful if this can be considered as the date of the entry of the word into English language. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 31 March 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Apropos phab:T279873, you might like User:Inductiveload/jump_to_file, which, amongst other things, allows you to load the (nearly) original high-res images from IA (or Hathi) directly into the ProofreadPage image pane.
Disclaimer: good for the eyes and soul, bad for the bandwidth cap (if you have one). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload:Oh, that looks extremely interesting, I will definitely have a closer look at it, thanks very much! However, it probably solves only a part of the problem. Profreading the files at Wikisource is only one of the reasons why they are being uploaded to Commons, another one is to make them accessible to other Commons users, and so it would be good if other people not possessing the script could enjoy good quality scans too. Now they are accessible from the IA, but will they be there tomorrow?
BTW, after the image is loaded from the external source, will other WS contributors see it as well, or only those possessing your script? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:48, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Only you will see it, as it's loaded directly to your browser from the Internet Archive's servers.
Uploading the images direct from IA to Commons is possible, but it's a lot of data and a lot of individual files (= a lot of time spent uploading). Alternatively, the high-res files can be packaged into a PDF losslessly, but the PDF will be really big (in this case it's "only" about 90MB, but in longer or denser works, it can be 10x that, which is unfriendly for, say, mobile use of the file, like reading the PDF on a tablet). And whoever does the upload will have to download all the data from the IA, process it, and re-upload to Commons. I guess you could talk to commons:User:Fæ, since they probably have a better handle on that kind of thing.
A middle road is to regenerate the PDF (or DJVU) from the source images, but with less compression. Again, that's a lot of bandwidth and processing time.
We can even have "image-only" indexes which ready directly from the images, but they're a little tricky to set up (pending building more logic in the the extension) and have the downside that managing n image pages at Commons is much harder than a single PDF/DjVu and nearly always needs a bot to handle.
If the images existed on Commons, and there was a robust way to reference them from an Index (or File), there's no reason "Jump to File" couldn't pull from there. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 09:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: I have just added the script to my common.js and it is awesome! It is one of the gadgets that should definitely be available by default! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:40, 12 April 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Czech and Slovak literature in English, second edition[edit]
@Prosfilaes: Great, I will be happy to start working on it. I have had this book in my mind for a long time, only waiting until I add more works that the book deals about to Wikisource. I guess there are quite a lot of them now so I will go ahead :-) Thanks very much for uploading it! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
jsem line producentem filmu Jan Žižka Petra Jákla. Všiml jsem si, že přispíváte na stránku AJ verze o Janu Žižkovi. Rádi bychom některé informace doplnit ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Jedná se především o zbojnická léta, mládí příbuzenstvo ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Chtěl bych vás poprosit o pomoc se přípravou obsahu a editací wikipedie. Rádi související náklady uhradíme. Prosím kontaktuje mne na čísle 00420 724809247.
Děkuji,
Viktor Krištof
PS: Omlouvám se za tuto formu, ale kontakt jsem nikde nenašel.
For customizing the {{rvh2}} template to include Tamil numerals for use in Tamil wikisource eventhough you dont know the language. Thanks. Balaji (Let's talk) 02:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
A good thing you were all there to help, correcting my appalling sloppiness, I hope there are not too many other examples of my overlooking so many obvious things. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 07:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
That was just a trifle. Other people have to correct similar mistakes of mine too often and so I am happy when I have a chance to help somebody too :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello Jan, thank you for welcoming me to English wikisource. First time I import a text and don't know how to : Create a pagelist for the source file before commencing proofreading (to verify file is correct). As seen on :Index:Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842, and 1843 - Volume 1.djvu. I have been participating to french wikisource for several years, proofreadinging and validating texts. --Stamlou (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I am every sorry, I am going to be offline for some time beginning now and have no time to answer, but I am sure that at WS:Scriptorium/Help or just WS:Scriptorium somebody will help you too. I do apologize. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: Thank you very much for your help. I would like to know how to add page list, I have read instructions on this subject and did not understand instructions. --Stamlou (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Those borderlines that you are collapsing are math problems. The line indicates that the number below them is a solution.
If there is a "rule" allowing you to remove those lines, perhaps you have a better way to show that there is math occuring below where the line used to be....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, I used xml because my first "text" symbols were drawing as "emoji" in some browsers.
Removing the math parts of the text for me would be like if someone collapsed all of your stanza's into paragraphs. I would never do that, but that is the feeling here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: First, thank you very much for adding these kinds of books! As for the collapsing: I did it because I did not consider it controversial at all. I did not think about the problem which you have now raised and I admit it is an interesting point. However, it is the way in which the author of the book decided to do it. If he was not afraid of confusing the readers, why should we? Imo, we should make the work as close to the way of the original author as possible. Besides that, non-collapsing the lines does not solve anything, look e. g. here to the bottom of the page. It is not collapsed (before I collapsed it) and it resembles two maths problems (2+17=14 39+55=44) much more than after collapsing. However, it is just my opinion and I am not going to fight for it, so if you feel really strong about it, you can revert the collapsing :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Second thing first! Those -tards and their emoji. I decided that I was going to "call" them by their xml name, leaving the unicode name to the emoji stylers. They are not even emoji!! That is for whoever styled them to look like emoji, not you. It should not be difficult to paste them one way or the other. To divide xml and unicode the way that I did makes sense. My answer to everyone whose browser opts to style them is "fix your browser". That being said, thank you for replacing them, but they are like that throughout the book and in several tables, one of which is 31 columns wide....
I have not looked at the first thing yet. Is there a tradition here for not discussing changes with the sole contributor to a book? Because, it seems to be without couth.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Your changes were great, weird thing about tables here. Borders were not working (not collapsing) when I used table styles {{ts}} so I went back to straight css. Then they started to do that with the css. It seems wrong that an extra "command" needs to be made for wiki tables to work when comparing them to tables that have been pasted here from gutenberg. So, more whining, but not directed at you, more at the multi-personality of the wiki interface. Thank you and sorry I felt like killing you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If a character is showing up as emoji, you can use & #65038; after it; so ♈ (default) and ♈︎ (should definitely not be emoji).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Prosfilaes: It works as intended on my computer (first one looks like a purple emoji, the other one like a symbol) but not on my mobile where both look like red emojis :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: This is for sure the point where the browser on the mobile needs to be fixed. I wonder if there is a way to tell them that this is happening? The UCC really should create Pictograms for these, that is a more universal fix, but if I understand this correctly, it is instructions to use text. Here is a url that does not say much https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=FE0E and a pdf for the proposal https://unicode.org/L2/L2016/16361-vs-for-96-symbols.pdf (Roozbeh worked on gtk text handling. rtl was initially a pain...). It is like "fix the bug, don't accommodate it." Do you know the name of the mobile's browser?
Also, thanks for finding those two I missed....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: I use Chrome in my mobile, but in fact I do not bother about my personal browsing experience because adjusting only my personal browser does not solve anything. We should at least try to address the problem as generally as possible, because we cannot expect that all our readers would search some hidden possibilities of adjusting their browsers. They just need to see everything properly immediately after opening the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: I recommend a screenshot of the page, a screenshot of the page source and maybe that unicode link I provided, with the list of textified and emojified eh, dingbats... The browser should work for this. Someone would be glad to know it there, I think. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95315
Hi Jan. The 1915 version printed in India does have the original Hindi poems as well, which in my opinion add a lot of value to the translations. Unfortunately, I cannot find a soft copy of the Indian edition anywhere on the web, but I do have a print copy. How do I use it to add the Hindi text? Can I scan and upload it? Thanks!
@Wikilover407: Hello. If you have a different edition, you can scan it, upload it to Commons (if it is not subject of copyright, which probably is not), and then it can be transcribed here as another version. This is quite common that one work has several versions (editions) present in Wikisource, for an example see Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare). If you need any help, feel free to write me, or you can ask for more help at WS:Scriptorium/Help. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Got it, thanks!
@Jan.Kamenicek: Hi Jan, I had created the new project at One Hundred Poems of Kabir. I am trying to use the <poem> tag to format the poems. Unwanted new lines between transcluded pages on Mobile website. The <poem> tag has to followed by </poem> on the same page, and when a poem spans across multiple pages I use the tag again. On the Desktop browser, it renders fine but on the mobile website, it adds new lines. I've tried following Help:Page breaks but nothing has worked. In the screenshot, the newlines after "go not there;" are unwanted and added by Wikisource on the mobile website only. Looking for your help on this. Thanks!
That is strange, but you are right, I have checked it with other poems as well. Looks like a bug in the poem extension. I have asked about it at Wikisource:Scriptorium. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:34, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Wikilover407: As I do not read Wikisource in the mobile view (I have even my mobile switched to desktop view) I have never noticed this problem. After I asked about it, I was told that it is a known issue and nothing can be done about it. So if you want to have the stanzas correct in the mobile view too, the poem tags cannot be used and the poem lines have to be divided by <br /> I have done it here and here, and it works well. If you disagree, you can revert it.Besides that I also wrapped the poems using {{block center}} (or {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} when the poem spans across two pages) because there is a custom to have the poems in the center of a page in Wikisource. I also used {{hin}} to solve indentation.
BTW, do not forget to sign your comments at talk pages with four tildes ~~~~, it will produce your username and the time. Alternatively, you can use the signature button .
Last but not least I want to thank you for scanning the book and starting the transcription, its great! Hope you will enjoy the work here :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek: Thank you so much Jan, for your guidance, support, and for those modifications. I'm absolutely loving the work here! Wikilover407 (talk) 08:53, 13 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Sorry, I deleted the index page and then had to leave the computer for a moment, but after I returned I forgot what I was about to do… Now it should be OK :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:27, 12 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Why are these pages being marked as “problematic”? It is standard to practice to include higher-quality images where the images in the original scan were only of a lower quality because of technological limitations (see, e.g., here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Hello. Higher quality (as for resolution etc.) is OK, but changing pictures for their different versions is not. The most visible difference is colour. The original publication did not use coloured pictures, it used their black and white versions. If you change them for coloured, the impression of the reader changes.However, it is not only the colour which makes the pictures different. If you take e. g. the picture from this page and remove its colour on your computer, you will still not get the version from the book. The version in the book was obtained by different processes and we should keep it.Another difference is here: while the book does not have any text in the bottom left corner, our picture contains plenty of text there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi. When using {{al}} would you please substitute its use. Most especially note that its use is an issue on Template:New texts as it doesn't feed into the json page well. The reason for asking is that templating the author link makes disambiguation and the like difficult for most of the available tools. Thanks. — billinghurstsDrewth 03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Billinghurst: Hi. The main advantage of {{al}} is that it makes links to author pages easier and quicker to type for me, because it is shorter and I also do not have to type colon (I have to keep switching between English and Czech keyboard layouts because of Czech diacritics when typing and colon is a different key in those keyboards which really drives me crazy as I always hit the wrong one :-) ). I am afraid that substituting the template removes this advantage. Would it help if I just did not use the template on Template:New texts? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Definitely would help on "new texts". There are lots of ways to build a little means to do this. We have the author construct component in the CHARINSERT gadget "Wiki markup" drowdown. You can write stuff for keyboards or toolbars. If use TemplateScript gadget then we create a sidebar link to do this or you. Lots of options to not force us to run a bot through. — billinghurstsDrewth 08:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Save/load actions and the following pattern will achieve the "less typing" thing.
There are also various typing expanders like AutoHotKey, AutoKey, etc., (as well as Xcompose on Linux if you want to go old-school!) Specifically, none of these actually end up saving the labour-saving code into the DB, it's done on your end and the Wikitext saved is "standard" and doesn't need further processing.
@Billinghurst, @Inductiveload:. I see. I will go through these suggestions and definitely try some of them, especially those which do not require mouse work, although at the moment I am not sure I understand everything suggested :-) But I will try. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
My watchlist is kind of beautiful at wikidata today. Property 367 is "astronomical symbols" and all of the constellations are getting them, not just the zodiac. See d:Q8849 and d:Q10468 (Cancer, zodiac and Cepheus, not on the suns path). They are SVG so they will always look like that.
Not sure how to make them smaller though, (yet). Good night!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 04:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also it's okay to not understand keyboard regexp, maybe even good. just paste it and don't look too long at it. You might lose some of your humanity.... Sorry for peeking at not my business stuff here...
As someone who actually uses non-English OCRing, would you mind outlining your thoughts on a useful UI for what you do? I'm planning on adding to the OCR implementation since there are clearly glaring UX issues that stem from the CommTech project running out of time for whatever reason.
The menu currently is like phab:F34713328. What controls do you think would help you achieve what you want? A language selector, I guess, but what would you find to be a fluent UX? And do you normally select multiple languages, or one at a time?
@Inductiveload: Currently I do not select multiple languages at all because it is too impractical. However, from time to time I come across an English language work which includes some Czech expressions, and so the possibility to add Czech (i.e. not to switch from English to Czech) directly in the page namespace would be helpful. It is not too often (in the last two months I was transcribing two or three works where I missed such a feature), but I guess I am not the only one who would use it..Solving the problem with columns would be even much more helpful. Originally I thought that the OCR tool would enable selecting the region directly in the page namespace and OCRing the text directly to the edit window on the left, then selecting another region and adding it to the previous text in the edit window etc. Now I am not sure whether my expectations were too naive or whether they are really possible to be put into practice. However, such a feature would make the work easier for really many contributors who transcribe various newspaper, journal or magazine articles. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Jan.Kamenicek, @Inductiveload: Before CommTech took up the OCR wish I was experimenting with my own OCR tool (I still use it myself for various reasons), and for that tool I mocked up a (completely non-functional) UI for tweaking settings. If you temporarily add mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Xover/ocrtoy-prefs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); to your common.js you'll get a "OCR settings" link in the left toolbar. Clicking it will pop up what I came up with as a first draft of UI for this. Not sure whether it's useful for anything, but figured I'd mention it since you were discussing the topic.Incidentally, I am toying with the idea of developing my own OCR tool further so I can have various hyper-specialised tweaks to its behaviour and UI that the main new CommTech tool will never support (catering to the few users who use the 2010 editor, for example). It's pretty buggy right now so I don't tend to mention it anywhere, but if anyone wants to play with it it's entirely functional and I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on it. I don't think its features will currently be of interest to anybody but myself, but… Xover (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Xover: Hm, the OCR setting looks interesting and it can be a useful tool once it gets functional. I will try the OCR toy of yours too. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: That looks absolutely great! You wrote that you are blocked on that. What exactly does it mean? Is there any way to help with, like expressing support to the idea anywhere…? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No, not really, everyone knows it's wanted. Basically the person who was working on it is MIA, so the question is if they're planning on finishing it, or if I can swoop in. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 15:43, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Inductiveload: OK. However, that sounds like the old story we already had here many times: the tool looks great, but everything depends on one single person. That is what I expressly demanded not to happen in the 2020 wish when I asked for a tool fully integrated into Mediawiki environment and what the Wikimedia community confirmed by their votes. :-( I really cannot consider the result to be a fulfilled wish. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm totally with you, I'm only doing it because someone clearly has to. This will go into the extension, so at least it's not just (more) JS floating about locally. But fundamentally WS does have an incredibly low w:bus factor: only 1 user really maintains the whole thing and they are a volunteer. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok. "coördinated" is correct English. Something learned. Thank you. Never again will I fix typos on en-WP. --Castellanus (talk) 22:10, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Castellanus: Well, we all keep learning. However, although it is correct English spelling, it does not matter very much in English Wikisource. What matters is how it is written in the original publication. So correcting typos is an enormously useful activity, but it should be preceded by checking original sources. That is very easy with Wikisource works that are scanbacked, but often quite difficult with works which are not, which is unfortunately also the case of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. I do hope that my revert will not discourage you from further improvements of English Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ok, I checked it (in H. P. Lovecraft: Collected Fiction Volume 2 (1926-1930): A Variorum Edition. Hippocampus Press 2016, ISBN 9781614981695). "coördinated" is a idiosyncratic spelling of HPL, used in the autograph manuscript of the text (which the Collected Fiction edition calls "essentially a rough draft"). The 1964 Arkham House edition (At the Mountains of Madness and Other Novels) has "co-ordinated". Also, the MS has has "coöperating", Arkham House has "co-operating" and the Collected Fiction edition has "cooperating". The WS text has "coördinated" in 2 places and "coöperating". However this may be, as you noted, the WS text is not scan-based, does not name a specific edition, so what was your revert based on? You did not give an edit comment and did not discuss your revert. I therefore do see reason to object to the way you handled this (and presumably other edits by new users). --Castellanus (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Castellanus: When I was checking it, I noticed that some editions use the diaereses and others not. Unfortunately, the contributor who had added the text to Wikisource, had not mentioned the edition, but I assumed that diaereses is not something they would just make up and that it must have been used in the edition they copied it from. However, the best solution in this situation (not only because of the diaereses) would be to find a copyright free scan and proofread the work again based on the scan. If you know of any, I will gladly help you with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There are some scans on IA, but I would rather just use the text of the Collected Fiction e-book. --Castellanus (talk) 10:05, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Castellanus: We usually prefer the original (first) edition of works if available. Scans are also preferred to direct copypasting as they allow other contributors to check the transcription very easily whenever needed. However, any specified copyright-free edition is better than the non-specified text we have now, so if you prefer to transcribe a text without scans, you can do it too. Can you give me a link to the text/scan that you would like to use? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
In the case of HPL I would rather not use first printings. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward for instance was first printed in a heavily abridged version in 1941 in Weird Tales. There is a 1943 Arkham House edition with text differing from the 1964 edition. I have the 1964 Arkham edition but am reluctant to scan it, I could get a scan of the paperback version (Ballantine 1971) quite easily. I think the best HPL edition at present is the 3 volume Collected Fiction at Hippocampus. I could send you that. Do you know how to convert e-book to wikitext? --Castellanus (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Castellanus: I am afraid there can be some copyright problems. Works published up to 1963 can be in the public domain if their copyright was not renewed, which seems to be the case of the early editions of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. However, if the text of the 1964 edition differs from the previous editions, then I am afraid it is still copyrighted and so we cannot use neither the 1964 edition nor any other later edition based on it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Works are in the public domain if the author is more than 70 years dead. Changing spelling does not change this. --Castellanus (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Castellanus: This applies to many countries of the World including EU countries or the UK. English Wikisource follows the copyright laws of the United States.However, you are right that changing spelling does not make a new work, so it should not be a problem. When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant. Collected Fiction contains other texts too and I am not able to say whether they are all copyright free or not and whether it would be OK to upload the scan/copy of the book–most probably it would not. So if you want to use this edition, the only choice would be just copying the plain text of the Lovecraft’s story here, which is the least preferred solution. If you can get a scan of an edition that contains no other text besides the Lovecraft’s story, I would suggest to go that way. Just be careful that there really is no other text, including e. g. a preface dated after 1963. Do you think you could upload the scans in the PDF format to Commons? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I will do neither. I will not upload scans to commons and I will not replace complete texts here, because I do not want to have long discussions with self-appointed experts in copyright resp. philology. I changed two characters in one HPL text and see the resulting discussion. I can send you a scan or the e-books and you can do as you please with it. BTW: "When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant." When changes were significant, the text would not any longer be authentic, or would it? BTW2: The 70-years-rule applies in the US as well. In the US, a work of an author that is not 70 years dead can be out of copyright, but not the other way round. Disney tries this, but has not yet succeeded. --Castellanus (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Now I stopped understanding you. I did not invite you to this discussion, I was only reacting to your posts on my talk page. You did not have to write me. I thought you want to help with replacing a non-specified edition with something better and the only reason why I have spent so much of my time with you here was trying to help you. I am not an expert on copyright, but it seems I know it slightly better than you do: there is really no 70-years rule for pre-1964 texts in the US. US copyright law is very complex. If interested, you can have a look e.g. at Help:Public domain. Do not send me any e-book, replacing one copy-paste with another would be useless. I have lots of other work to do and the only thing that can distract me from it is when somebody else needs help with improving Wikisource. Now I see that it is not your case, so let’s leave things as they are. Have a nice rest of the day. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]
You get this message because you are an admin on a Wikimedia wiki.
When someone edits a Wikimedia wiki without being logged in today, we show their IP address. As you may already know, we will not be able to do this in the future. This is a decision by the Wikimedia Foundation Legal department, because norms and regulations for privacy online have changed.
Instead of the IP we will show a masked identity. You as an admin will still be able to access the IP. There will also be a new user right for those who need to see the full IPs of unregistered users to fight vandalism, harassment and spam without being admins. Patrollers will also see part of the IP even without this user right. We are also working on better tools to help.
We have two suggested ways this identity could work. We would appreciate your feedback on which way you think would work best for you and your wiki, now and in the future. You can let us know on the talk page. You can write in your language. The suggestions were posted in October and we will decide after 17 January.
@175.176.33.211: Thanks very much for all the work done! However, it is not possible to "validate" the individual pages yet, as they have not been marked as proofread. If you register, you will receive the right for marking the pages as proofread too. Only then somebody else may come and validate them. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I just wanted to leave a note thanking you for sorting out a couple of problems and helping our newest addition to the West Coast book project. If you felt so inclined you could add yourself to the project team at Wikisource:West Coast Task Force and make yourself available for technical support for our less-experienced editors (I'm pretty new to Wikisource myself!). But helping from afar is also appreciated. Many thanks. —Giantflightlessbirds (talk) 22:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Giantflightlessbirds: I am always glad seeing new people coming :-) Thanks for the invitation to your team, but I have quite a long list of things to do myself, so I will not join at the moment. However, feel free to ask for help any time it is needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I would like to do things differently, but after you see what is there and how this works, and also after you give me "permission" to do this up differently.
I want to make the English a version of the Czech and put that there so the English names are there.
I "think" Grimm gets the credit, simply for having published first (1812/1846 I think). Even if the Italians maybe did this the very first (as in the Cinderella mess). But, I am more than happy to be corrected. I assumed much from the "retold by". I am so not interested in annoying Cz, more like getting all of the links in one place whenever possible.
@RaboKarbakian: Hello. I think that the versions retold by Grimms and Němcová are not the same, as were probably not the same the "originals" they were retelling. Grimms collected German folk tales and Němcová collected Czech folk tales, and some of these had common roots. I was thinking about this problem for a long time before and it seems to me that the best solution for this (and also other similar cases) would be to have a version page of the folk tale which would be listing two version pages (or translation pages) of Grimms’ version and Němcová’s version. I know that some other people prefer having everything in one single version page, but this attitude is imo not good for cases where the versions of two "authors" differ and at the same time each of them has their own editions. It might be better to have some wider discussion first and to write its result to Wikisource:Versions to avoid potential reverts in the future. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It is, for me, first about linking to the wiki's. It is easy for the wiki sources to reach in and grab their wiki, but it is not so easy for (example) en.wiki or cz.wiki to shuffle through the versions and to find just theirs. But that is about putting it with Grimm. If you think not, then okay.
Making a separate version is not about Grimm or no, it is about the listing. Did you look at how it appears when sharing the cs original, which came from a different publication and also a different date?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:37, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian:I agree that linking to other wikis is important. Current en.wiki article deals only about the Grimms’ version, and so do others which I have checked like German and French, and so these should be linked to the Wikisource page containing the Grimms’ version, not the Němcová’s version.At d:Q87890772 you have stated that Grimms are the authors of the Czech folk tale O neposlušných kůzlátkách which is not true. It is a folk tale of several versions, German version was retold by Grimms in their collections of German folk tales and Czech version was retold by Němcová in her collection of Czech folk tales. This WD item is linked to cs.ws page cs:Národní Báchorky a Powěsti/O neposlušných kozlatech which does not have Grimms as the authors, and the WD item has to be in agreement with this.In The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids you linked to that item where you added some data and the result is that the version page says that Grimms are the authors of the Czech version and Němcová translated it together with William Howe Tolman and Václav Smetánka in Národní báchorky a powěsti (1848). This statement contains several apparent mistakes: 1) Němcová was not translating Grimms, she was retelling what she heard among Czech peasants. 2) Tolman and Smetánka had nothing to do with Národní báchorky a powěsti, they were even born long after this collection was published. They just translated some of the tales from Němcová’s collections into English and published their translations in The Disobedient Kids and other Czecho-Slovak fairy tales (1921). --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:15, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Okay, so I removed most of what I did and made the new record for it. d:Q113560111 which is part of d:Q61951628 and an edition of d:Q87890772 and moved it to its own section at The Wolf and the Seven Little Kids and soon the Grimm will know nothing of the cs variation (I forgot to remove that before typing about everything here).
I did Tom Thumb d:Q571493 at least the Grimm variety, the way I learned to do things while working on Aesop here. I don't know if anyone has dissembled it yet. Leaving the record without a link and putting the link on what is an edition of (in the case of their only being one at the source wiki) is only a little messy and makes the links available. The Disobedient Kids was not really an example of that, however, not being from Grimm. Wikidata has some link serving limits....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 22:56, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Also, it is annoying and problematic to me that when I answer some notifications to talk pages, that it does remove the red notification to me, but other times, like this, it doesn't.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:00, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@RaboKarbakian: Thanks for these changes, that is much better. Although I would still prefer the way I described above, this attitude is also quite possible and I am not going to revert it. I will have a more detailed look later, but now it seems quite OK to me. The only flaw is technical on the side of the {{WD version}} template, which gives e.g. "…translated by William Howe Tolman, Václav Smetánka…" instead of correct English "…translated by William Howe Tolman and Václav Smetánka…" but that is to be addressed somewhere else. Thanks again. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I wrote the bad English. Cygnis had me move those out of my user space and into the public template space. I had wanted to make a new ones for translator and editor, and add editor to the existing WD's. "My bad" English.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 23:13, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for all the work you've put in patrolling recent changes and dealing with the spam and vandalism. Very much appreciated!
One bit of feedback though: I notice that you routinely revdel (hide) revision text, and often also edit summary, for garden-variety spam. Unless the material in question contains personal information or grossly offensive stuff (including insults etc.) we usually do not revdel mere spam and vandalism edits. Revdel should generally be used as little as possible, and only when there is specific need, in order to preserve the open nature of the project. Too many hidden revisions tends to erode the confidence of the community in administrators (they should be able to check the actions we take with the tools as much as possible), and it prevents, for example, researchers from studying things like the types of spam, how wiki communities react to it, how fast, etc. Especially the openness is important: experience from other projects show that whenever admins hide stuff it breeds suspicion in some parts of the community, and having the dumb spam (99% of it) visible in revision history does no harm. It's the LTAs with personal insults (I know you've been dealing with a couple of those lately), attempts at outing, etc. where we need to apply the strongest measures. Anything that we don't want our regular users to see or be exposed to, as a rule of thumb; anything else can just be reverted normally.
And, of course, for actually criminal stuff (links to illegal materials, threats of actual harm, personal information, libel, etc.) we hand it over to the WMF Office for suppression so that not even admins and 'crats can see it.
Anyways… All the work you've put in here has ben very much appreciated. I just wanted to drop a note about the revdel thing before the conspiratorially minded start muttering about "the admin cabal" and breaking out the tar and pitchforks. :) Xover (talk) 08:54, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hello. Yes, I know all this. I will explain the reasons why I have been hiding a lot of specific edits recently by email. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:00, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Let's put it this way: if you had a specific reason for it then I'm talking out of my backside and you should feel free to ignore me completely. :) Xover (talk) 09:18, 6 September 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good catch on this. I'd been ignoring that discussion after it ballooned, planning to get back to it when I find one of those mythical "spare moments" I hear talk about, which was clearly not a good idea.
Incidentally, {{hidden}} is a bit wonky, so you may want to use {{cot}} and {{cob}} for similar needs in future.
This is the title-ish text of the collapsed box
And this is the content.
It works a bit better in most respects, and is less finicky with what goes inside it. Xover (talk) 16:20, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, I will try to remember these templates and use them next time, they look more user friendly :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:28, 23 October 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
then we can write filters to stop the garbage. Sometimes it is better that some vandalism is clearly visible and not in mainspace, then hidden away where it goes unnoticed. Protection often just shifts it, not stops it. So please don't feed the trolls. — billinghurstsDrewth 12:43, 2 November 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I am here to remind you that the Stanford renewals database only contains renewals of books and contributions to periodicals. Other types of works, such as plays and issues of periodicals, were renewed in a different series of CCE and are not indexed at Stanford. The renewal item to which you point me is for a story published in the May–August 1936 issues of Astounding Stories, not for those issues outright. For the three issues which I marked for deletion (including this one), the renewals are in the January–June 1963 periodicals volume, renewals section, first page, top of rightmost column. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 14:53, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
No need to remind anything, it is just enough if you give the speedy deletion rationale properly next time. This is much better, thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:43, 11 December 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I tell you what, I burnt some candy I was making and have to scrub the pan for weeks maybe.... My messes are not just here! I should not have made Index:The Door Unbolted (1906).djvu because I am the one who changed the name, I think, when I moved it to commons.
You know that I don't play games or feed trolls, though I won't allow abuse, so I will wikt:give someone enough rope, and not be afraid to act when needed. I will answer a reasonable question and AGF with an answer that may sits okay in the space, even when I have suspicions.
Yes, I understand about ducks, trolls, etc. I understand about people who like to play, and they think that they are clever, and I know that I would rather be playing a gentle game of toss, than calling up a hard game of brandy. Trolls seek excitement, and I am happy to bore then to death. — billinghurstsDrewth 21:27, 10 January 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thank you for your help with the 1769 King James Bible page. There is so much to fix on that page, but I also don't want to come running in like a bull in a China shop and mess anything up. In particular, for almost the entire Bible, the Wikisource texting is showing much less features than the scanned text: (italic word formatting, pilcrows, marginal notes).
It also looks like the original Wikisource text did not actually originate with the scan, and like the scan is only available for part of the work. In particular, it appears that scans are missing for Lamentations through Malachi. I possess an exact photographic facsimile of the 1769 Oxford KJV, and if it is useful to the project I would be more than happy to share it.
If the Wikisource people in charge of the project would find it useful, I would be happy to provide the other missing parts as well. MPlasky (talk) 13:20, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPlasky: It is quite possible that the originally entered text does not match this particular edition, as it was added by an unexperienced contributor 11 years ago, i.e. in the time when Wikisource policies were not so developed as they are now. If you have a better copy of this edition, it would be best to upload it to Commons as a whole and then create a new index page here in Wikisource. I can help with any phase of this process if needed. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Well, my copy is not so much better as simply more complete. It looks like this project has a perfectly good copy -- that looks exactly like mine -- for Genesis through Jeremiah, but as far as I can tell the project is missing Lamentations through Malachi. First, I will need to get the remaining pages scanned, and then I will try to upload them to Commons. Thank you for the offer of help; I may need to get back to you on that. MPlasky (talk) 13:57, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I have now uploaded the missing books of Lamentations through Malachi to Wikimedia: [3]. Does doing that automatically create an "index page", or is there some additional step I need to take? MPlasky (talk) 15:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPlasky:Well, we need to have one scan of the full edition. If the scan we have were simply lacking some pages, e.g. because they had been forgotten during the scanning process although the physical book contains them, we could simply add the missing pages to the scan and then update the index page. That is something that could be arranged easily. Unfortunately, it does not seem to be our case. May I ask which edition are the newly scanned pages from? Comparing the last page of our scan with the first page of the scanned missing pages, it seems that they do not come from one edition, and so we cannot combine them. In such a case the only thing to be done is to scan the whole book you have (as a different edition), upload the whole book to Commons, and create a brand-new index :-( Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The scan I have is from the folio-sized edition of the 1769 Oxford University edition of the KJV as edited by Benjamin Blayney. The edition I have has exactly the same title-page "Wright and Gill", "1769", etc. as the scan currently being used for Genesis through Jeremiah at Bible (King James).
It is true that there is a visible difference in where the pages start and stop. However, if you look at the beginning and end of each line in both scans, you will find that the lines start and stop at the exact same words throughout the text. So, for example, the Genesis-Jeremiah text has, in it's last four verses, lines ending in "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life". Likewise, in the text I have, those lines end in exactly the same collection: "seven, Je-, twelfth, the, Baby-, up, and, prison, set, kings, Babylon, garments, before, life, con-, Baby-, of, life".
The lines begin and end identically, and all the punctuation and so on lines up as well, including in places where Blayney made mistakes.
I think what we're dealing with here is that Blayney's text came out in 1769 in both quarto and folio sizes. I've got the folio size, which holds more lines per page. My best guess is that Wikisource's text is from the quarto-sized edition.
In any case, Bible (King James) currently has *two* sources, one a 1769 Blayney printing, and another 1772 printing for the New Testament. I'm a bit curious how a project winds up combining two different editions like this, and what the correct next steps are to fix it. If there's any possible way to do it, I would much rather work on continuing to improve Bible (King James) than on starting a separate and parallel project.
In the meantime, I'll get a full scan of my edition, from Genesis to Revelation, produced in case it might be of use.MPlasky (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPlasky:That is great, thanks. Full scan of a particular edition is what we need. Unfortunately, no scan of the full 1769 edition is to be found anywhere on the Internet.
As for differences between our scan and the scan of missing pages: Where the pages start and stop is only the most visible, but not the only difference. Some more differences can be found among the sidenotes, suggesting that they were scanned from different editions.
As for two sources of the current transcription: I do not know much about the situation and I would have to do more research to find out, but if the book was published by one publisher in two volumes, one volume in 1769 and the succeeding one in 1772, then they can be put together as one edition of the Bible dated 1769–1772. Similarly, the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica is also considered one edition, although some volumes were published in 1910 and others in 1911. Otherwise combining two different editions together is a serious reason for deletion, because compilations are explicitely forbidden by Wikisource policy. An alternative for deletion is matching the transcription with one particular edition, preferably accompanied with its scanbacking. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:25, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Just out of curiosity, what differences have you found in the sidenotes? I've seen some differences in placement of the sidenotes so far, but I haven't seen any in wording (yet). In any case, the issue of KJV "editions" after 1769 is very difficult, because almost all of the hundreds of printings since 1769 follow the 1769 text extremely closely -- for example, most of the KJV's printed by Cambridge today differ in something like thirty places (one every thirty pages) from the original 1769 text.
Some people are even under the mistaken impression that all post-1769 texts are identical. My guess is that the original source text used here was an electronic text that often gets mislabelled as 1769, and then multiple editions were pulled in once people tried to find a scanned source to judge the text by. MPlasky (talk) 18:38, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@MPlasky: E. g. Here we can see the note "See verse 29" (or 19???) at the top after the note "Before CHRIST 588", while here we do not see such a note at all. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:48, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Ah, that's due to different material being on different pages. "See ver 29" is a note on verse 12 of the last chapter of Jeremiah, which ends up on the last page of Jeremiah in my scan, but in the second-to-last page of the older Wikisource scan. So that note winds up placed [a bit up the page](https://archive.org/details/screenshot-from-2023-03-04-13-57-50) in the other printing. The "BEFORE CHRIST" notes, which attempt to give dates for all the stories, are always at the tops of pages, so marginal notes have to be moved around them to keep the same sort of layout with the two different page-sizes. Boring trivia to some people, but I've always enjoyed the little differences as books get copied around! If Wikisource had enough volunteers, we could probably do over a thousand different editions of that one translation alone! MPlasky (talk) 19:08, 4 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I ordered a copy of the original through ILL, and I can scan that copy of the original (vs. NonResistance’s digital copy), if you’re willing to wait a week or so. It seems that it should arrive soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:27, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Great! A copy of the original would definitely be much better, I can wait as long as needed :-) Thanks very much. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:36, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Good news: it just came in (about thirty minutes after your comment). Bad news (for me): it’s about 800 pages, so it may be a few weeks (unless I have a lot of spare time all of a sudden). Bad news (for you): the reverend’s “Czech typewriter suffered from a chronic indisposition” and thus he uses very unorthodox characters in representing the Czech. But you’ll Chelc̄icky̍ when I finish my scanning work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:19, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Never mind. 1) I can wait, 2) I will cope with the characters somehow. It should not be worse than the book I am currently working on (small example) :-D --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:32, 20 March 2023 (UTC)Reply[reply]
.
.svg)
Done No problem, mistakes happen :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:51, 28 December 2022 (UTC)