User talk:Jan.Kamenicek/2018

Article number is not our usual approach

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 indentation

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 link

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)

Template:Sfrac

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)

Translations

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 pages

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.org

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

Work based categories

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 poets

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 Poetry

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 redirects

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)