User talk:Jan.Kamenicek

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Article number is not our usual approach[edit]

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? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:01, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

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)
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. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 26 September 2018 (UTC)

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)
@Billinghurst: I have suggested the change at Wikisource talk:Style guide#Titles of compiled works. If you have time, I would appreciate if you could comment it there. Thanks. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:51, 27 September 2018 (UTC)

Paragraph indentation[edit]

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)

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)

Template:Philosophical Transactions link[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)

Template:Sfrac[edit]

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)

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)
@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)

Translations[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
@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.
As for the redundancy: I used The Clouds (Coates) as a model, because it is recommended as such in the documentation of Wikisource:Versions. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)
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)

Licence templates only needed on main pages[edit]

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)

I see, OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:26, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Uploading Files from Archive.org[edit]

I asked this question of mine. --Lo Ximiendo (talk) 06:51, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

Work based categories[edit]

Hi, We don't do work based categories here. Your Category:An Anthology of Modern Bohemian Poetry has nothing in it that can't be got from the Table of Contents. Please decategorise the subpages and then mark the category for speedy deletion. See Help:Categorization for the types of category that we accept. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:39, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

@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)
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)
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)

Authors and poets[edit]

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)

@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)

An Anthology of Modern Bohemian Poetry[edit]

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)

@EncycloPetey: Hm, I will think about it. When I was looking for a model how to deal with an anthology, I looked at the first one in the Category:Anthologies, where the authors are linked in the contents. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:26, 24 November 2018 (UTC)
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)

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)

Thanks, I do appreciate it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:48, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Cross-namespace redirects[edit]

Wikisource doesn't use cross-namespace redirects. They're on the shortlist for speedy deletion. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:20, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I see. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Lint[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
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)
Please note tat the lang block must be closed accordingly to the div hierarchy, see here.— Mpaa (talk) 21:31, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I see. Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Another approach might be to put lang block as first block in the page (untested ...).— Mpaa (talk) 21:38, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Looks like this does not work -> Page:Bedřich_Smetana,_The_bartered_bride,_Die_verkaufte_braut.pdf/10
@Mpaa: Is this better?
@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)
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)
@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)

From Bohemia's case for independence[edit]

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).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: Hi. Most probably it is mistyped, see the book.
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)
  • 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).
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)
    • 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).
@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)
      • 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).
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)
OK, I'll choose something to validate soon. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Multilingual Texts[edit]

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)

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)

Tempest[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
@EncycloPetey:
  • 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)
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)

Last page to be validated[edit]

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! –MJLTalk 02:07, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

@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)

Pictures in Rhyme[edit]

If this is now done, you can list it as a "New" work. This one was never announced. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:26, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Yes, I want to do it, I just had to fix some issues first. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:29, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
@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)
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)
@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)
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)

R U R[edit]

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)

OK, no problem. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:08, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

When did the Czech Republic go life+70?[edit]

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)

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)
@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)
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)
@Prosfilaes: Help:Public domain#Published outside the United States reads: 1924–1977: public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996 and never published in the US prior to that date.
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.
Another thing I was thinking about was Help:Public domain#Published in the United States, which gives a chance for such works published between 1924 and 1963 if there is no copyright renewal. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:07, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
The US Copyright Renewals has an entry:
THE INSECT, a play in three acts with prelude and epilogue, by Joseph and Karel Capek. Adapted and arranged for the American stage by Owen Davis. © 29Sep22, D61693. R60387, 4Apr50, Owen Davis (A)
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)
So, do you think that e. g. Krakatit can be uploaded using {{PD-US-no-renewal}}? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:52, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Yes? Probably? https://www.lwcurrey.com/pages/books/10269/karel-capek/krakatit-translated-by-lawrence-hyde says there's a British edition published October 1925, so it seems likely it was published at the same time in the UK and US to get US copyright, which would mean it is now public domain in the US.--Prosfilaes (talk) 08:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

Re: The Willow[edit]

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)

@Orlando the Cat: I often try HathiTrust, see e. g. the search for Walter de la Mare there. I do not know whether they are all (probably not), but there are at least some. Another possibility is an archive.org search --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:26, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
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)
@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.
You need not worry about it, I have already corrected it. I have founded a new translation page for Erben's Willow and changed the link at Wikidata, so now it is OK. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you! Orlando the Cat (talk) 09:30, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
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)
@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)
Thanks again! Orlando the Cat (talk) 09:56, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Wikisource:News (en): September 2019 Edition[edit]

Wikisource Community Logo globe notext.svg
English Wikisource's monthly newsletter which seeks to inform all about Wikimedia's multilingual Wikisource.

Current · Archives · Discussion · Subscribe MJLTalk 23:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

The Acts and Monuments of John Foxe/Volume 3/The Intimation of Jerome of Prague[edit]

Please update the relevant author page accordingly —Beleg Tâl (talk) 22:42, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

@Beleg Tâl: Wow! I will, gladly. Thanks very much! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 06:32, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Historical plays[edit]

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)

@EncycloPetey: I have not excluded them from tragedies either, as they are on the verge, see e. g. Shakespearean history. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:49, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

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)

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)

float box[edit]

Hi. In Page:Charities v13 (Oct 1904-Mar 1905).pdf/221 and similar, {{float box}} has parameters to handle center alignment. otherwise there will be the usual div/span issue. Mpaa (talk) 20:16, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi. Thanks for noticing me, I have corrected it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
{{float box}} is a span template, if you put {{smaller block}} in it, the issue is still there.Mpaa (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I see. Hopefully should be OK now. Thanks for letting me know. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:45, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

The Army and Navy Hymnal[edit]

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)

@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)

Licenses[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 20:17, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, I will try to do it properly. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:20, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

template:lang needs inline=yes[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:31, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

@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)
<shrug> adding it gets rid of the lint error. I will leave it to someone with the time and inclination. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Template:article link[edit]

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 widelybillinghurst sDrewth 01:21, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

Bohemian Review[edit]

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)

@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)

Bohemian (Čech) Bibliography[edit]

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)

@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)

Emerson[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:40, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

@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)
Thanks. Sorry, I didn't check the histories of the two pages. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
OK, no problem :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Because 'featured', reviewed some pages The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic[edit]

I saw somewhere The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic mentioned as featured/current/something and so started looking at it. Reviewing 21 pages (pp. 30 to 51) I found 7 glitches.

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)

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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

Template:Poet Lore link[edit]

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}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Indents in The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic/The law of February 29th, 1920, whereby the Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic is introduced[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

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)

Index:The Kingdom of God is within you, by Leo Tolstoy.pdf[edit]

Text is there, care to give this a second pass? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

@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)
@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)

The Letters of John Hus[edit]

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)

@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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
@PeterR2: No, I do not have the physical book, but I have discovered a coloured scan at https://archive.org/details/lettersofjohnhus00husjuoft/page/n5/mode/2up :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
Re your namespace link change to Page:The letters of John Hus.djvu/19, I'm not convinced it's working. At The_letters_of_John_Hus the words "WHEELS WITHIN WHEELS" etc, have a working hyperlink, but the words "EARLY LIFE OF HUS" etc do not. --PeterR2 (talk) 12:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
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)

@Jan.Kamenicek: Validated. Any chance of "The Reformers before the Reformation" being uploaded for proofreading? Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 03:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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.
Thanks again for the validation. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)
Forgot to add ping @Zoeannl:. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)

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.

BR, --Tar-ba-gan (talk) 06:20, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Hello,
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)

Looks weird 1919 <-> 1920[edit]

Why do we have a pagename, and a header title that differ, a tad confusing. If they need to be different, can I suggest that a note may be helpful.

Evening Songs (1919) 3 revisions since 2020-04-17 (+2 hours), 1 editor, 0 pageviews (30 days), created by: Jan.Kamenicek (28,501) · See full page statistics

Evening Songs (1920) by Vítězslav Hálek, translated by Josef Štýbr

billinghurst sDrewth 14:25, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: I am afraid I do not understand the question. I made a mistake when I founded the page Evening Songs (1919) and requested to move it to Evening Songs (1920), because the work was published in 1920. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:32, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
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. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@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)
Meh! about mistakes. Involve humans and they are inevitable. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:48, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:50, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
@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. — billinghurst sDrewth 06:34, 5 May 2020 (UTC)
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)
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)

A favour...[edit]

Could you do me a solid and validate the last remaining page on Index:Battle of Bannockburn.pdf? --Xover (talk) 19:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

@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)

Emerson disambig?[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Hello, we have already discussed it, see #Emerson above. I do not insist on keeping the page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Up for some extra testing?[edit]

Hi Jan,

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)

Hi, I’ll be happy to help :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:05, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Prometheus Unbound[edit]

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)

@EncycloPetey: So am I, but it is not me to be credited for it, it was Chrisguise who finished it :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I know.  :) --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Admin[edit]

Hi Jan,

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.

If you wish you may add any language or extra access data to https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource:Administrators#Current_administrators.

Cheers, Hesperian 06:43, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

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)
Oh … you are already an admin, I had this brilliantly concise proposal to make you one. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 16:22, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
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)

my SVG project[edit]

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.

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)

@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)

Anthologia Palatina[edit]

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)

interwiki communication[edit]

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)

Project Gutenberg the version you wanted already exists.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:37, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
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)
@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)
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)
It is not about forbiding, it is about guidelines that artists follow.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:44, 5 March 2021 (UTC)
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)

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)

@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)
@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)
@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)
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)
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)
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)

On The Spiritual Battle translator[edit]

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. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:15, 6 March 2021 (UTC)

@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)

Share your feedback on the OCR improvements![edit]

Magic Wand Icon 229981 Color Flipped.svg

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)

Your edit at Wikisource-Statement of Mutual Understanding[edit]

Hello. I'm unclear on why you removed the external link I had just inserted at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Statement_of_Mutual_Understanding_on_the_No_Gun_Ri_Investigations&diff=next&oldid=11025878 .

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)

@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.
What is more, the link which you added was broken.
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)
Thank you for the very clear explanation. Cjhanley (talk) 21:31, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

One for you[edit]

Saw this and thought of you and R.U.R.: https://blog.archive.org/2021/03/24/major-scifi-discovery-hiding-in-plain-sight-at-the-internet-archive :-D Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 19:23, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@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)

High res images[edit]

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). Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 07:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@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)
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. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 09:13, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
@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)

Czech and Slovak literature in English, second edition[edit]

In a quest to downsize my library, I am considering getting rid of this book. Thus I uploaded the HathiTrust scans to File:Czech and Slovak literature in English.djvu while I still had a copy I could compare to.--Prosfilaes (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

@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)