Article number is not our usual approachEdit

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 indentationEdit

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 linkEdit

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)


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)


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 pagesEdit

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.orgEdit

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

Work based categoriesEdit

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 poetsEdit

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 PoetryEdit

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 redirectsEdit

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)


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 independenceEdit

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 TextsEdit

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)


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)
  • 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 validatedEdit

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 RhymeEdit

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 - 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 Thanks again. --Level C (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

R U REdit

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
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? 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 WillowEdit

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 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 EditionEdit

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 PragueEdit

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 playsEdit

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 boxEdit

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 HymnalEdit

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)


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=yesEdit

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 linkEdit

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 ReviewEdit

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) BibliographyEdit

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)


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 RepublicEdit

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 linkEdit

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 introducedEdit

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.pdfEdit

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 HusEdit

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 :-) --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)

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 <-> 1920Edit

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 subpagesEdit

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)