User talk:Jan.Kamenicek

Soft redirects

Policy says two full months before deletion of those that weren't deleted within a week, so probably these end-of-january soft redirects shouldn't have been deleted just now. — Alien  3
3 3 18:50, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

You probably mean the Peutinger Konrad page: yes, you are right. It was tagged to be speedied and I did not notice that it had been too short time since the soft redirect had been created. I think it is not necessary to undelete it for the few remaining weeks, but I will be more careful next time. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree it's not worth the undeletion. (It's always useful to get confirmation of the principles, as you know how wikisource space can stray pretty far from consensus sometimes.) — Alien  3
3 3 20:59, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

Linking to deletion discussions in summaries

Slightly silly question for curiosity's sake: Links like WS:PD#Translation:The poems of Catullus work, as when you follow the link, a popup appears to redirect to the archive. So, I was wondering, why do you always link to discussions with the revid? — Alien  3
3 3 15:21, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Hm, have never noticed this. Yes, when I click the link you provided, a pop up with the link to the archives appears at the upper right corner. It is a bit small and I have never noticed it. I saw others applying such links, such as Xover at https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Index:The_Castle_by_Kafka,_Franz.djvu&action=edit&redlink=1 , so I started doing that too. Probably not so necessary. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 15:37, 26 March 2025 (UTC)

Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Dist.

Hey, just wanted to reach out since you marked that page w/o source and needs standardization.

I can provide the source, haven't done so for every other SCOTUS case I've worked on but I use Library of Congress official copies of the United States Reports.

As to standardization, it's standard with all neighboring cases – I've worked on every case from Volume 405 to 410 and haven't run into this problem before.

I don't want to pick a fight or anything, I'm the only person I know of working on SCOTUS stuff rn and that's just my way of doing it. Just wanted to justify before I took the notices down.

JoeSolo22 (talk) 17:20, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Hi. Your work is highly appreciated, but the texts I saw do not seem to comply with some of our practice. Generally, our standard is to transcribe the text faithfully as for both content and (within reasonable limits) the style too, not changing the original document's formatting and layout unless necessary. Looking e.g. at Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Dist./Dissent Douglas, it is difficult to say anything about the original without the source, but comparing to what I found there are some unnecessary deviations. Supposing that the text I found is the transcribed original:

• our text is missing the lines preceding "MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS, with whom..."
• the original has e.g. "Page 410 U. S. 746" on a separate line, while our text has "[p746]" in the beginning of the paragraph, etc.
• the footnotes in the original do not have any heading like "Notes".

As for the source, it is always necessary to mention it somewhere, preferrably on the talk page, and all texts not having their source given should be marked with {{no source}}. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 17:51, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

On the source, I'll begin going back and marking sourcing properly, it'll take some time though.

On the standardization – you pulled Justia which is an option and I believe what the bot that did these before used to pull. I pull straight from scans of the reports (see here) as I find those to be the best. Justia pulls from the US Reports the same as I do and their formatting can be slightly different.

The reason the text before "MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS..." is missing is because it's the main opinion which is located at Associated Enterprises, Inc. v. Toltec Dist./Opinion of the Court.

I put "[p746]" in the beginning of the paragraph to enhance readability and because others have done so in transcriptions of landmark cases. The same applies for footnotes; the original scans don't mention "Notes" but the footnotes are usually scattered amongst the pages.

I guess to put a long story short, I find that Justia is not really the original but a transcription of the original reports, which I pull from. My formatting is not much different from the landmark cases which have been here for the better part of a decade, and I mean no disrespect at all, but I really don't want to go change every case. Await your thoughts, thanks!

JoeSolo22 (talk) 18:06, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Whoops, sorry, that above link is broken: see here. Thanks. JoeSolo22 (talk) 18:08, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Still broken :-( --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

I see, thanks for this explanation. The problem probably arose from the fact that these law cases started being added here long time ago, when the WS standards and policies were different, and their standards did not evolve together with the rest of Wikisource. It is quite understandable, given their large amount, that contributors focused on adding new texts more than on changing the style of the previously added ones. Maybe the style of newly added works could change to comply with our current standards, applying some sort of grandfather rule to the previously added ones.

As for the notes, it is quite common that the transcribed works (often books) have the footnotes scattered over all the pages, and for technical reasons have to be gathered at the bottom our page. But it is also common that it is done without any special "Notes" heading if such a heading is not present in the original.

However, as I said before, I do highly appreciate your efforts, and I do not wish to discourage you from your work at all. I would be glad if you took these as suggestions to be considered.

As for the sources, I understand that adding them to numerous previously transcribed works will take some time, but it would be really good if they are added.

Thanks for discussing these issues. --Jan Kameníček (talk) 18:32, 31 March 2025 (UTC)

Really appreciate your thoughts on this. This area seems pretty much untouched (since a bot was doing the raw transcription and then suddenly died like a decade ago, from what it looks like). I'll do my best to look into current standards, hopefully it's not too big a change. If anything, I will do the last three cases in Volume 410 the way I've been doing them, to at least maintain continuity. Starting on Volume 411, I'll look into transitioning, specifically page numbers etc. I had done one case a slightly different way (like this) but it's likely not to standard either. I'll look into it.

For notes, I can just take the heading out since you're right, it's not there in the originals.

Will start on sources with this volume and work my way back to 405. BTW, here's the link to LOC for reference (hopefully it works this time, LOC can be fickle and presents 404s very often): https://www.loc.gov/item/usrep410743

Thanks again!

JoeSolo22 (talk) 18:41, 31 March 2025 (UTC)