User talk:Beleg Tâl/Archives/2023

entirely turned around

Is {{rotate2}} still needed for anything? If not, could you G7 speedy it? Xover (talk) 08:57, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

@Xover I don't remember, but it's not being used, so I deleted it :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 19:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Xover (talk) 05:00, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Parnassus on Wheels

Is this supposed to have headers on the individual pages? Currently, the page numbers and page headers have not been included, at least on any of the pages I looked at. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Last I heard, page headers and numbers (and other stuff that isn't transcluded) were considered optional. I haven't been around as much lately, has this changed? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:50, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure myself, as I've nearly always seen them in, and haven't seen an explicit statement either way. Hence, the reason I asked rather than making a statement about the need / lack of need. I wanted to be sure that the status was deliberate, rather than accidental. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I used Match and Split on this text, which (understandably) doesn't include page headers. I didn't think it worth the bother of adding them in afterwards. If I had been proofreading from scratch, I would probably have included them. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

--In other words, yes it was a deliberate choice to exclude the page headers and proofread only the text itself —Beleg Tâl (talk) 16:58, 7 July 2023 (UTC)

I Loved You Once

Hello. You deleted the page I Loved You Once with the comment "Copyright violation of translation: translation by R. M. Hewitt published 1927, copyright in USA until 2022". Thus, please, could you restore it in this year? --AKA MBG (talk)

Done —Beleg Tâl (talk) 04:16, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

LaTeX

{{LaTeX}} (that you created back in 2016) ran across my path while I was in cleanup mode. It's entirely unused and appears pretty frivolous (and the name is ripe for confusion too). Would you mind if we G7 speedy it for now, and if there's a need for it at some point we can resurrect it under a less confusing name and using templatestyles and so forth? It'd save me a bit of time and effort (but no biggie if you still need it for something). Xover (talk) 14:35, 30 October 2023 (UTC)

@Xover: For sure. Took me a bit of digging to figure out why I made it in the first place - looks like it was for Free as in Freedom 2.0, which is long since deleted. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:23, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

Heh, yeah, I figured it wasn't just for funsies, but with no remaining links... Anyways, thanks; and done. Xover (talk) 06:11, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

The Golden Ass of Apuleius

It looks as though you used match-and-split to create the pages of this text, resulting in countless discrepancies in the text. See Page:The Golden Ass of Apuleius.djvu/102 for example, where multiple words appear in the transcription that are not in the text at all, and multiple words are spelled differently between the two. These do not appear to be the same edition. --EncycloPetey (talk) 20:35, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is the correct edition (the literatim reprint of the 1639 edition). I am not sure how our text got corrupted though. Good thing there's a scan now so that the corruptions can be removed, I guess? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:12, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Proofreading the page you linked, I'm almost inclined to suspect the initial transcriber of introducing a few "corrections" of their own —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:22, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If the initial transcription came from Gutenberg (which is likely) then all sorts of errors were introduced. Gutenberg proofreaders work independently, each in their own sections of a text, and not all the the same norms. This is why we prefer not to split-and-match anymore. The Gutenberg copies are often full of such errors. --EncycloPetey (talk) 02:25, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Aha, looking at the Gutenberg edition, it claims to be the edition I just matched and split against. You're probably right about it being Gutenberg in origin.

Honestly, it's a lot closer to the actual text than OCR (probably because it's based on a single original edition rather than a composite) so I don't see it as a problem at all - but I can treat it as a separate edition if you feel strongly about it —Beleg Tâl (talk) 02:28, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

If it is the Gutenberg edition, then we would delete it. We no longer accept secondhand transcriptions. The quality of OCR varies wildly depending on the quality of the scan and manner the OCR layer was created. For the Yale Shakespeare it's actually very good. --EncycloPetey (talk) 03:26, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Here is a page with OCR, it's much worse than the Gutenberg transcription. Do you want me to delete The Golden Ass of Apuleius as a Gutenberg transcription? Do you want me to delete the pages created using Match & Split, and recreate them using OCR instead (which is a worse transcription that needs more effort to edit)? I will do it if you want me to, but I really think that this particular Gutenberg transcription is Good Enough for our purposes (though I agree that most are not, and of course like most M&S efforts it's not up to Proofread standard) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:32, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

(PS, do we really have community consensus to delete Gutenberg transcriptions, rather than grandfather them in until a better version is available? because I will happily nuke most of them :D ) —Beleg Âlt ^BT (talk) 14:49, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

No, no mass nukes of extant texts proposed, and I suspect would not have found support either (I could be wrong). I am ambivalent as to whether this is mostly a good thing or a bad thing. Getting rid of old cruft, yes, definitely in favour; but mass-nuking anything is extremely likely to lead to strife and bad blood in the community. In any case, it'll probably almost always be best to raise standards and then wait a while to see how much can be saved by cleanup, before starting to prune the old stuff. Xover (talk) 14:58, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: the OCR page. The quotation marks are certainly bad, but the words / spelling are accurate and reflect the scan better than match-and-split text. And it is far easier to spot / correct quotation mark mistakes than to spot the fact that the source text has mariage (with one r) instead of marriage (which the match-and-split has and which is the "correct" spelling). --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:00, 13 December 2023 (UTC)