User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2024

File:Emil Filla, The Chess Players.jpg
Ahoj, dnes vypršela autorská práva, mohl bys to přenést na Commons? Já nemám oprávnění. Je tam už založena kategorie Paintings by Emil Filla. Díky, Gumruch (talk) 14:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Jan Kameníček (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Older copy
The “older copy” is that PDF; a newer copy was released later, with fewer redactions. (The underlying file is the same, however.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * And do we have the newer copy? If so, can you provide a link, please?
 * Pinging also who created the index. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 00:40, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The new copies are here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. The index has been apparently abandoned anyway. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 10:56, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Data in tables

 * (Continued from Proposed deletions since this is sort of irrelevant to the works being discussed).

I was referring to us (as Wikisource) using mathematical proof as a source. Think of it like this... All the newbie editors who came from Wikipedia, made one edit called "The numbers of pi", with a list of a thousand decimal digits, and it got deleted.

In order to come up with something like what numbers contain pi, on their own that is, that newbie editor would have to rely on some logic, hypothetically. So when challenged, the newbie would say "But, the numbers of pi exist! They're real!" But my argument against them would be something like "Well, we know it because of math. It's not a document of any kind, so should be excluded as out of scope."

But, on the other hand, a document, like "The Numbers of Pi Up to a Million Numbers, by the US Department of Departmentation", with the text: "Here are the numbers of pi:" (continues for 100 pages). If we were transcribing that document, it'd be different, because we (as Wikisourcers) aren't citing math, but a print document that we can back with a scan.

The Pi Document is a hypothetical document that I (marginally) think should be kept in the circumstance of its existence. I don't think it's that useful, so I understand if it sounds a bit absurd, but I'd argue it to be kept out of principle.

On a more practical note, with a non-hypothetical example, there are loads of important historical documents containing weather data going back to the 1800s. It's often just in the form of purely numbers and data in thousands and thousands of pages of tables. These, in my opinion, would be great to have hosted online, since it can put those records directly in the hands of people looking for that very kind of obscure information. And we could source it with the original documents, putting to use our own authentic sourcing approach (scan-backing) to the weather data, that other sites that might list the same data simply wouldn't think to use.

But, unfortunately, the principle of "no raw data allowed" might lead to a deletion outcome of that very type of scan-backed weather data from a year like 1903, which I think would be sad. I would be impressed by an editor taking the time to transcribe those, and would be glad they did, and objectively think it would do some good for researchers. So for documents like that to be deleted based on this principle is worried about (and some editors have already expressed the sentiment that they should be excluded, in a recent discussion about such weather documentation).

So things like that are the worry I have with the slippery slope of table exclusion. PseudoSkull (talk) 01:56, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the detailed explanation of your opinion. I do understand what you mean and it is definitely a valid point of view, though I quite do not share it. For me the value of such "works" is just little, with a potential to flood Wikisource with countless standalone tables, lists etc. The downloaded PDFs are often not scans in the usual meaning of the word, they are files of purely electronic origin, made in some PDF creator of even in Word by a government employee within a few minutes, without any time to accompany them with any context, detailed analysis or whatever, as there are many more lists and tables of other raw data waiting in the queue to be "published" on the Internet. -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:29, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf
There are a number of orphaned pages that were linked to the Index:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf which you deleted.


 * 1) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/1
 * 2) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/2
 * 3) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/3
 * 4) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/4
 * 5) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/403
 * 6) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/404
 * 7) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/405
 * 8) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/406
 * 9) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/407
 * 10) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/408
 * 11) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/409
 * 12) Page:Heidi (IA heidi00spyri).pdf/410

Should I go through and mark each for speedy delete ? Or can you do that from this list ? -- Beardo (talk) 16:45, 9 January 2024 (UTC)


 * ✅, thanks for notifying me! -- Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:14, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:numbered div
This template is being deprecated. A simple list like the one you reverted should be using *!/s with a CSS class setup in a pagestyle. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 17:46, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Well, if it is to be substituted, it has to be done in such a way it does not affect the outcome. BTW, I failed to find any official deprecating discussion besides Proposed deletions/Archives/2019, whose result was "not deleted". --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:54, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could reformat the relevant pages to use newer templates? I've tried to use CSS lists but cannot currently match the formatting in the page. You may have to abandon an exact match to the scan, in favour of a semantic match to the intent of the page. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 19:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Adventures of America, 1857-1900: A Pictorial Record from Harper's Weekly
Thanks for deleting that page. There is the page Talk:Adventures of America, 1857-1900: A Pictorial Record from Harper's Weekly associated with that page, which should also go, shouldn't it ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:49, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * ✅. Of course, I am sorry I have forgotten about it. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 21:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)