Please do not post any new comments on this page. This is a discussion archive first created in , although the comments contained were likely posted before and after this date. See current discussion.
Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
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)
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
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.
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)
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
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Some background. I uploaded a few field guides, first because the images were beautiful, second because they were useful where I live, and third because I wanted them for my device. I expanded beyond the one author Edward B. Knobel to include guides for weather, stars, etc. Another person (not the uploader listed, btw) took over these star images which I was glad for, because those images are very uninteresting to renovate. Several people contributed. Since that time, that project manager has disappeared from wikimedia projects -- but it was that person who suggested that these images were better as SVG. I agreed.
not to be SVG
better as SVG
I know next to nothing about making SVG. So, I took the 50 images from the book and requested an artist. I got a volunteer for this! A well-behaved Swede, and these Northern hemisphere images work for Europe as well as USA, as does the content of the book. My problems with this book globally have been about hemispheres and seasons.
About "correct", correct behavior and professionalism made this mess. Innovative means making good changes, traditional means the way things are always done. Innovation can lead to isolation on a few pricey devices. Tradition can lead to dogma, where "we just do things this way but can't remember the reason.
Two movies:
Innovation: the old 1960s Star Trek on bluray. You can flip between renovated old footage of the ship and new a cgized ship. I confess, I watched the rennovated version. Pricey bluray player and screen required.
Tradition: Back to the Future. The mad-scientist made a complicated contraption that would open a can of food and empty it into the dish for his pet. The pet moved away, but the machine kept working, making a toxic pile of unconsummed food. The machine had been clever and accomplished its task elegantly while the pet was there.
Feel free to question my tastes for what is beautiful whenever it occurs to you on my talk page. Good innovation and good traditions (and good phraseology) can only come from less stifled chats away from public forum, at least it is true for me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)
@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
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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
Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments3 people in discussion
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?
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 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.
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 [1]. 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)
Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
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. — billinghurstsDrewth11:15, 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!
Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
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.
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.
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)
@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
Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
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.
@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. Inductiveload—talk/contribs09:13, 12 April 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)
Jan Zizka Film
Dobrý den,
jsem line producentem filmu Jan Žižka Petra Jákla. Všiml jsem si, že přispíváte na stránku AJ verze o Janu Žižkovi. Rádi bychom některé informace doplnit ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Jedná se především o zbojnická léta, mládí příbuzenstvo ve vztahu k připravovanému filmu. Chtěl bych vás poprosit o pomoc se přípravou obsahu a editací wikipedie. Rádi související náklady uhradíme. Prosím kontaktuje mne na čísle 00420 724809247.
Děkuji,
Viktor Krištof
PS: Omlouvám se za tuto formu, ale kontakt jsem nikde nenašel.
The da Vinci Barnstar
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
That was just a trifle. Other people have to correct similar mistakes of mine too often and so I am happy when I have a chance to help somebody too :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
please help with creating a page list
Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Hello Jan, thank you for welcoming me to English wikisource. First time I import a text and don't know how to : Create a pagelist for the source file before commencing proofreading (to verify file is correct). As seen on :Index:Rambles in Germany and Italy in 1840, 1842, and 1843 - Volume 1.djvu. I have been participating to french wikisource for several years, proofreadinging and validating texts. --Stamlou (talk) 21:45, 30 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello. I am every sorry, I am going to be offline for some time beginning now and have no time to answer, but I am sure that at WS:Scriptorium/Help or just WS:Scriptorium somebody will help you too. I do apologize. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 05:35, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Thank you very much for your help. I would like to know how to add page list, I have read instructions on this subject and did not understand instructions. --Stamlou (talk) 14:19, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
math problems
Latest comment: 2 years ago12 comments3 people in discussion
Those borderlines that you are collapsing are math problems. The line indicates that the number below them is a solution.
If there is a "rule" allowing you to remove those lines, perhaps you have a better way to show that there is math occuring below where the line used to be....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Also, I used xml because my first "text" symbols were drawing as "emoji" in some browsers.
Removing the math parts of the text for me would be like if someone collapsed all of your stanza's into paragraphs. I would never do that, but that is the feeling here.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:58, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@RaboKarbakian: First, thank you very much for adding these kinds of books! As for the collapsing: I did it because I did not consider it controversial at all. I did not think about the problem which you have now raised and I admit it is an interesting point. However, it is the way in which the author of the book decided to do it. If he was not afraid of confusing the readers, why should we? Imo, we should make the work as close to the way of the original author as possible. Besides that, non-collapsing the lines does not solve anything, look e. g. here to the bottom of the page. It is not collapsed (before I collapsed it) and it resembles two maths problems (2+17=14 39+55=44) much more than after collapsing. However, it is just my opinion and I am not going to fight for it, so if you feel really strong about it, you can revert the collapsing :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:14, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Second thing first! Those -tards and their emoji. I decided that I was going to "call" them by their xml name, leaving the unicode name to the emoji stylers. They are not even emoji!! That is for whoever styled them to look like emoji, not you. It should not be difficult to paste them one way or the other. To divide xml and unicode the way that I did makes sense. My answer to everyone whose browser opts to style them is "fix your browser". That being said, thank you for replacing them, but they are like that throughout the book and in several tables, one of which is 31 columns wide....
I have not looked at the first thing yet. Is there a tradition here for not discussing changes with the sole contributor to a book? Because, it seems to be without couth.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:45, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
Your changes were great, weird thing about tables here. Borders were not working (not collapsing) when I used table styles {{ts}} so I went back to straight css. Then they started to do that with the css. It seems wrong that an extra "command" needs to be made for wiki tables to work when comparing them to tables that have been pasted here from gutenberg. So, more whining, but not directed at you, more at the multi-personality of the wiki interface. Thank you and sorry I felt like killing you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 21:52, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
If a character is showing up as emoji, you can use & #65038; after it; so ♈ (default) and ♈︎ (should definitely not be emoji).--Prosfilaes (talk) 23:44, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
@Prosfilaes: It works as intended on my computer (first one looks like a purple emoji, the other one like a symbol) but not on my mobile where both look like red emojis :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:36, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: This is for sure the point where the browser on the mobile needs to be fixed. I wonder if there is a way to tell them that this is happening? The UCC really should create Pictograms for these, that is a more universal fix, but if I understand this correctly, it is instructions to use text. Here is a url that does not say much https://util.unicode.org/UnicodeJsps/character.jsp?a=FE0E and a pdf for the proposal https://unicode.org/L2/L2016/16361-vs-for-96-symbols.pdf (Roozbeh worked on gtk text handling. rtl was initially a pain...). It is like "fix the bug, don't accommodate it." Do you know the name of the mobile's browser?
@RaboKarbakian: I use Chrome in my mobile, but in fact I do not bother about my personal browsing experience because adjusting only my personal browser does not solve anything. We should at least try to address the problem as generally as possible, because we cannot expect that all our readers would search some hidden possibilities of adjusting their browsers. They just need to see everything properly immediately after opening the work. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:41, 4 September 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek: I recommend a screenshot of the page, a screenshot of the page source and maybe that unicode link I provided, with the list of textified and emojified eh, dingbats... The browser should work for this. Someone would be glad to know it there, I think. https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/95315
One Hundred Poems by Kabir (1915)
Latest comment: 2 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion
Hi Jan. The 1915 version printed in India does have the original Hindi poems as well, which in my opinion add a lot of value to the translations. Unfortunately, I cannot find a soft copy of the Indian edition anywhere on the web, but I do have a print copy. How do I use it to add the Hindi text? Can I scan and upload it? Thanks!
@Wikilover407: Hello. If you have a different edition, you can scan it, upload it to Commons (if it is not subject of copyright, which probably is not), and then it can be transcribed here as another version. This is quite common that one work has several versions (editions) present in Wikisource, for an example see Romeo and Juliet (Shakespeare). If you need any help, feel free to write me, or you can ask for more help at WS:Scriptorium/Help. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:35, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
Got it, thanks!
@Jan.Kamenicek: Hi Jan, I had created the new project at One Hundred Poems of Kabir. I am trying to use the <poem> tag to format the poems. Unwanted new lines between transcluded pages on Mobile website. The <poem> tag has to followed by </poem> on the same page, and when a poem spans across multiple pages I use the tag again. On the Desktop browser, it renders fine but on the mobile website, it adds new lines. I've tried following Help:Page breaks but nothing has worked. In the screenshot, the newlines after "go not there;" are unwanted and added by Wikisource on the mobile website only. Looking for your help on this. Thanks!
@Wikilover407: As I do not read Wikisource in the mobile view (I have even my mobile switched to desktop view) I have never noticed this problem. After I asked about it, I was told that it is a known issue and nothing can be done about it. So if you want to have the stanzas correct in the mobile view too, the poem tags cannot be used and the poem lines have to be divided by <br /> I have done it here and here, and it works well. If you disagree, you can revert it.Besides that I also wrapped the poems using {{block center}} (or {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} when the poem spans across two pages) because there is a custom to have the poems in the center of a page in Wikisource. I also used {{hin}} to solve indentation.
BTW, do not forget to sign your comments at talk pages with four tildes ~~~~, it will produce your username and the time. Alternatively, you can use the signature button .
Last but not least I want to thank you for scanning the book and starting the transcription, its great! Hope you will enjoy the work here :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:33, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Why are these pages being marked as “problematic”? It is standard to practice to include higher-quality images where the images in the original scan were only of a lower quality because of technological limitations (see, e.g., here). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
@TE(æ)A,ea.: Hello. Higher quality (as for resolution etc.) is OK, but changing pictures for their different versions is not. The most visible difference is colour. The original publication did not use coloured pictures, it used their black and white versions. If you change them for coloured, the impression of the reader changes.However, it is not only the colour which makes the pictures different. If you take e. g. the picture from this page and remove its colour on your computer, you will still not get the version from the book. The version in the book was obtained by different processes and we should keep it.Another difference is here: while the book does not have any text in the bottom left corner, our picture contains plenty of text there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 20:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion
Hi. When using {{al}} would you please substitute its use. Most especially note that its use is an issue on Template:New texts as it doesn't feed into the json page well. The reason for asking is that templating the author link makes disambiguation and the like difficult for most of the available tools. Thanks. — billinghurstsDrewth03:03, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Hi. The main advantage of {{al}} is that it makes links to author pages easier and quicker to type for me, because it is shorter and I also do not have to type colon (I have to keep switching between English and Czech keyboard layouts because of Czech diacritics when typing and colon is a different key in those keyboards which really drives me crazy as I always hit the wrong one :-) ). I am afraid that substituting the template removes this advantage. Would it help if I just did not use the template on Template:New texts? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 07:20, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Definitely would help on "new texts". There are lots of ways to build a little means to do this. We have the author construct component in the CHARINSERT gadget "Wiki markup" drowdown. You can write stuff for keyboards or toolbars. If use TemplateScript gadget then we create a sidebar link to do this or you. Lots of options to not force us to run a bot through. — billinghurstsDrewth08:00, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
Save/load actions and the following pattern will achieve the "less typing" thing.
There are also various typing expanders like AutoHotKey, AutoKey, etc., (as well as Xcompose on Linux if you want to go old-school!) Specifically, none of these actually end up saving the labour-saving code into the DB, it's done on your end and the Wikitext saved is "standard" and doesn't need further processing.
@Billinghurst, @Inductiveload:. I see. I will go through these suggestions and definitely try some of them, especially those which do not require mouse work, although at the moment I am not sure I understand everything suggested :-) But I will try. Thanks! --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:26, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
"symbols" at wikidata
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
symbol for Lyra
My watchlist is kind of beautiful at wikidata today. Property 367 is "astronomical symbols" and all of the constellations are getting them, not just the zodiac. See d:Q8849 and d:Q10468 (Cancer, zodiac and Cepheus, not on the suns path). They are SVG so they will always look like that.
Also it's okay to not understand keyboard regexp, maybe even good. just paste it and don't look too long at it. You might lose some of your humanity.... Sorry for peeking at not my business stuff here...
Latest comment: 2 years ago9 comments3 people in discussion
As someone who actually uses non-English OCRing, would you mind outlining your thoughts on a useful UI for what you do? I'm planning on adding to the OCR implementation since there are clearly glaring UX issues that stem from the CommTech project running out of time for whatever reason.
The menu currently is like phab:F34713328. What controls do you think would help you achieve what you want? A language selector, I guess, but what would you find to be a fluent UX? And do you normally select multiple languages, or one at a time?
@Inductiveload: Currently I do not select multiple languages at all because it is too impractical. However, from time to time I come across an English language work which includes some Czech expressions, and so the possibility to add Czech (i.e. not to switch from English to Czech) directly in the page namespace would be helpful. It is not too often (in the last two months I was transcribing two or three works where I missed such a feature), but I guess I am not the only one who would use it..Solving the problem with columns would be even much more helpful. Originally I thought that the OCR tool would enable selecting the region directly in the page namespace and OCRing the text directly to the edit window on the left, then selecting another region and adding it to the previous text in the edit window etc. Now I am not sure whether my expectations were too naive or whether they are really possible to be put into practice. However, such a feature would make the work easier for really many contributors who transcribe various newspaper, journal or magazine articles. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:12, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
@Jan.Kamenicek, @Inductiveload: Before CommTech took up the OCR wish I was experimenting with my own OCR tool (I still use it myself for various reasons), and for that tool I mocked up a (completely non-functional) UI for tweaking settings. If you temporarily add mw.loader.load('/w/index.php?title=User:Xover/ocrtoy-prefs.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript'); to your common.js you'll get a "OCR settings" link in the left toolbar. Clicking it will pop up what I came up with as a first draft of UI for this. Not sure whether it's useful for anything, but figured I'd mention it since you were discussing the topic.Incidentally, I am toying with the idea of developing my own OCR tool further so I can have various hyper-specialised tweaks to its behaviour and UI that the main new CommTech tool will never support (catering to the few users who use the 2010 editor, for example). It's pretty buggy right now so I don't tend to mention it anywhere, but if anyone wants to play with it it's entirely functional and I'd be interested in hearing others' thoughts on it. I don't think its features will currently be of interest to anybody but myself, but… Xover (talk) 09:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: That looks absolutely great! You wrote that you are blocked on that. What exactly does it mean? Is there any way to help with, like expressing support to the idea anywhere…? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: OK. However, that sounds like the old story we already had here many times: the tool looks great, but everything depends on one single person. That is what I expressly demanded not to happen in the 2020 wish when I asked for a tool fully integrated into Mediawiki environment and what the Wikimedia community confirmed by their votes. :-( I really cannot consider the result to be a fulfilled wish. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:50, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm totally with you, I'm only doing it because someone clearly has to. This will go into the extension, so at least it's not just (more) JS floating about locally. But fundamentally WS does have an incredibly low w:bus factor: only 1 user really maintains the whole thing and they are a volunteer. Inductiveload—talk/contribs16:12, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Karel Capek, The Injured One
Latest comment: 2 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
@Castellanus: Well, we all keep learning. However, although it is correct English spelling, it does not matter very much in English Wikisource. What matters is how it is written in the original publication. So correcting typos is an enormously useful activity, but it should be preceded by checking original sources. That is very easy with Wikisource works that are scanbacked, but often quite difficult with works which are not, which is unfortunately also the case of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. I do hope that my revert will not discourage you from further improvements of English Wikisource. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 23:01, 27 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I checked it (in H. P. Lovecraft: Collected Fiction Volume 2 (1926-1930): A Variorum Edition. Hippocampus Press 2016, ISBN 9781614981695). "coördinated" is a idiosyncratic spelling of HPL, used in the autograph manuscript of the text (which the Collected Fiction edition calls "essentially a rough draft"). The 1964 Arkham House edition (At the Mountains of Madness and Other Novels) has "co-ordinated". Also, the MS has has "coöperating", Arkham House has "co-operating" and the Collected Fiction edition has "cooperating". The WS text has "coördinated" in 2 places and "coöperating". However this may be, as you noted, the WS text is not scan-based, does not name a specific edition, so what was your revert based on? You did not give an edit comment and did not discuss your revert. I therefore do see reason to object to the way you handled this (and presumably other edits by new users). --Castellanus (talk) 09:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Castellanus: When I was checking it, I noticed that some editions use the diaereses and others not. Unfortunately, the contributor who had added the text to Wikisource, had not mentioned the edition, but I assumed that diaereses is not something they would just make up and that it must have been used in the edition they copied it from. However, the best solution in this situation (not only because of the diaereses) would be to find a copyright free scan and proofread the work again based on the scan. If you know of any, I will gladly help you with it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Castellanus: We usually prefer the original (first) edition of works if available. Scans are also preferred to direct copypasting as they allow other contributors to check the transcription very easily whenever needed. However, any specified copyright-free edition is better than the non-specified text we have now, so if you prefer to transcribe a text without scans, you can do it too. Can you give me a link to the text/scan that you would like to use? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:41, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
In the case of HPL I would rather not use first printings. The Case of Charles Dexter Ward for instance was first printed in a heavily abridged version in 1941 in Weird Tales. There is a 1943 Arkham House edition with text differing from the 1964 edition. I have the 1964 Arkham edition but am reluctant to scan it, I could get a scan of the paperback version (Ballantine 1971) quite easily. I think the best HPL edition at present is the 3 volume Collected Fiction at Hippocampus. I could send you that. Do you know how to convert e-book to wikitext? --Castellanus (talk) 16:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Castellanus: I am afraid there can be some copyright problems. Works published up to 1963 can be in the public domain if their copyright was not renewed, which seems to be the case of the early editions of The Case of Charles Dexter Ward. However, if the text of the 1964 edition differs from the previous editions, then I am afraid it is still copyrighted and so we cannot use neither the 1964 edition nor any other later edition based on it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Castellanus: This applies to many countries of the World including EU countries or the UK. English Wikisource follows the copyright laws of the United States.However, you are right that changing spelling does not make a new work, so it should not be a problem. When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant. Collected Fiction contains other texts too and I am not able to say whether they are all copyright free or not and whether it would be OK to upload the scan/copy of the book–most probably it would not. So if you want to use this edition, the only choice would be just copying the plain text of the Lovecraft’s story here, which is the least preferred solution. If you can get a scan of an edition that contains no other text besides the Lovecraft’s story, I would suggest to go that way. Just be careful that there really is no other text, including e. g. a preface dated after 1963. Do you think you could upload the scans in the PDF format to Commons? --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:14, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I will do neither. I will not upload scans to commons and I will not replace complete texts here, because I do not want to have long discussions with self-appointed experts in copyright resp. philology. I changed two characters in one HPL text and see the resulting discussion. I can send you a scan or the e-books and you can do as you please with it. BTW: "When you wrote that the text differs, I thought that the changes are more significant." When changes were significant, the text would not any longer be authentic, or would it? BTW2: The 70-years-rule applies in the US as well. In the US, a work of an author that is not 70 years dead can be out of copyright, but not the other way round. Disney tries this, but has not yet succeeded. --Castellanus (talk) 17:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Now I stopped understanding you. I did not invite you to this discussion, I was only reacting to your posts on my talk page. You did not have to write me. I thought you want to help with replacing a non-specified edition with something better and the only reason why I have spent so much of my time with you here was trying to help you. I am not an expert on copyright, but it seems I know it slightly better than you do: there is really no 70-years rule for pre-1964 texts in the US. US copyright law is very complex. If interested, you can have a look e.g. at Help:Public domain. Do not send me any e-book, replacing one copy-paste with another would be useless. I have lots of other work to do and the only thing that can distract me from it is when somebody else needs help with improving Wikisource. Now I see that it is not your case, so let’s leave things as they are. Have a nice rest of the day. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
not to be SVG
better as SVG
.
.svg)