User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2020

Emerson
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)
 * I just wanted to remove them from Author:Emerson where they definitely do not belong, and so I created another page for them. If you think it is useless, you can delete it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:44, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Sorry, I didn't check the histories of the two pages. — billinghurst  sDrewth  12:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem :-) --Jan Kameníček (talk) 12:53, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Because 'featured', reviewed some pages The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic
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)


 * 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)


 * I am sure you know that PGDP have three review stages, but even with that there is also the same problem that pages are scanned over, not necessarily scrubbed. It absolutely does depend on the reviewer's expended time and motivation for success.


 * (And I lost faith completely in PGDP years ago when I found someone spoofing stage 2 reviews of 40 pages per day, every day, for many many months. In 10+ days I reviewed, 'they' only fixed one goof, a leading space on a page. *That's* an automated script. In reporting this to the (then) PGDP overseers all I ever got was "everyone has their own pattern of editing." Yeah, right.)


 * Me, I'm actually surprised when I don't find goofs, even on validated pages. (I come from programming, thus the attitude.)


 * Recently, I tried doing advanced searches for scannos/typos frequently found within a project, like "lie" vs. "he". I was not much surprised to find at least two overlooked occurrences in pages *I'd* validated. I wonder if that might be a motivational reinforcement for reviewers - a self review?


 * I'll try to go back and review the first 30 pages of the above mentioned project, to get a more complete, if singular, picture of the eternal problem - we aren't done, ever. Shenme (talk) 19:57, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I can see you found there more mistakes. Thanks for both pointing it out and correcting it. Next time I will definitely check the work that I would suggest for featured better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 22:33, 15 February 2020 (UTC)


 * I _think_ I've now checked every page, now including the start to page 29, and the last couple at end. In those additional, I think there are 13 pages that have 'real' fixes, along with a few SIC that are arguable. The stray curly quote could be looked at (p.14). Also peek at the comment "is "župa" singular and "župy" plural? (wondering against misspelling)" (p. 9 and elsewhere) - when it could be a misspelling but also just a language thing it needs someone who knows. Thus my happiness over something like "lang|la|contentieux a priori et a posteriori changed to lang|fr" (p. 17) - what I can't speak I still can recognize as different.
 * Maybe I will go poke at another featured work, perhaps a nominated one as EncycloPetey artfully suggested. It is not any _one_ work that is of interest, but rather how well the process functions. This work was short and all text, making me 'brave'. That it made me wonder if I knew my own land's constitution well enough to compare was nice. Thanks. Shenme (talk) 05:06, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for all the effort.
 * As for the curly quote: all quotes are curly in the original, but this one is different by its placement at the bottom of the line. I decided to change all the quotes and apostrophes into curly ones not to make this one even more odd than it is.
 * As for župa x župy: yes, the first one is singular and the other one is plural in Czech.
 * As for lang|la x lang|fr: Another mistake of mine I have to be careful about. I very often work with pieces of texts that have some Latin expressions and so I probably automatically added "la" instead of "fr".
 * As for the featured text process: EncycloPetey is absolutely right that the process is as good as people make it. Validations are not being done properly and almost nobody cares about checking FT candidates, and so the texts are often only little improved after the initial proofreading. Next time I will rely less on the validator and check my work better. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:22, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Template:Poet Lore link
Hi. I recently set up this template for use on author pages. It takes the same form for other link templates based on article link. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:22, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Indents in The Constitution of the Czechoslovak Republic/The law of February 29th, 1920, whereby the Constitutional Charter of the Czechoslovak Republic is introduced
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 style guide. — billinghurst  sDrewth  03:28, 18 February 2020 (UTC)


 * Hi. I know that indentation is not really encouraged here, but in this particular work is seemed to me that it underlines visually how it is structured and enables the reader to find a particular paragraph they are looking for more easily. Keeping indentation seems to me helpful and reader friendly in works which are not read line by line but which are often just searched for a specific thing. So unless it makes some tangible harm, I would prefer to leave it there. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Index:The Kingdom of God is within you, by Leo Tolstoy.pdf
Text is there, care to give this a second pass? ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 10:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * Ah, now I got it: the second pass means validating :-) Sorry, I am sometimes quite slow to understand :-) I will see later, but now I have got some other things ahead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:46, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

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

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)

Why taking trouble to delete wikipedia links?
Hello Jan,

I am wondering upon which guidelines exactly have you taken the trouble of removing links to biographies on Wikipedia?

My logic was that without such links, the story is full of obscure characters with misspelled or unpronounceable names. With the links, for example, Muravyov becomes the guy with a backstory that says he rioted against his superiors and then shot himself at the same time period where the narration takes place.

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


 * Hello,
 * First I would like to thank you for validating some of the pages. As for the links: there are many people and also many topics in our works that could be linked to Wikipedia, but I find it disturbing. If somebody needs more detailed information, there are many different sources and it is imo not a good idea to choose one of them (e. g. Wikipedia) for readers, who would otherwise look for explanation by themselves and could find even better sources. Sometimes I also know better sources than Wikipedia, but I do not link them either. It is also quite common here to link people to their author pages if they have them and that is what readers expect when they click a link. I personally find it quite annoying when the link unexpectedly drives me outside Wikisource to another project instead. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 08:01, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Looks weird 1919 <-> 1920
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)
 * 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)
 * Ah, now I see :-) Thanks very much for the moves and I apologize once more for the mistake. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Meh! about mistakes. Involve humans and they are inevitable. — billinghurst  sDrewth  16:09, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

Portal and year at basepage, rather than all subpages
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)
 * 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,, 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)
 * --Jan Kameníček (talk) 13:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

A favour...
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)
 * 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?
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)
 * Hello, we have already discussed it, see above. I do not insist on keeping the page. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 09:20, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Up for some extra testing?
Hi Jan,

cf. 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:  (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)