User talk:RaboKarbakian/Archives/2019

sheet music (cont.)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: The David C. Cook Publishing Company image.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

• Would you mind uploading the images from here? TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:39, 8 January 2019 (UTC).
• From here, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:34, 16 January 2019 (UTC).
• From here and here, the latter the current WS:PotM, if you wouldn’t mind. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:07, 22 January 2019 (UTC).
• In addition, there are a number of images from here, which is a very interesting read, personally. However, not all of the pages which contain images have been created yet. In addition, I finally got back to work on The Riverside song book, beginning here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2019 (UTC).
• The images on this page, as well. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2019 (UTC).
• The images from here, preferably those not from advertisements. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2019 (UTC).
• The image from the title-page of here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:59, 2 February 2019 (UTC).
• The image from the title-page of the Medicina de Quadrupedibus, here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:57, 9 February 2019 (UTC).
• The images from this book of poems. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:04, 10 February 2019 (UTC).
• I’ve been thinking of uploading some more works that were illustrated by Rackham, if you would like to provide the images for them. There is a list here, with a number of plates and in-line illustrations given. I would be able to proofread the text, if you would like to create the images. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 22:09, 14 February 2019 (UTC).

Motoring Magazine and Motor Life

I can correctly format the advertisements, but the edit that you referred to (1) was not heavily consequential to the outcome of the page, except in changing the position of the image. I will attempt to format the advertisements very soon. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 19:57, 5 February 2019 (UTC).

The changes were fine, it is just that I did not make them and I was wondering who did. The history says that I did it.

As requested, I did not "worry" about the ads but I did enjoy them.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 20:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

• It appears that you (?) had forgotten to close the table (on this page), and that was causing the formatting issue. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC).

Rackham

The Hawthorne does sound rather nice. Whilst I do enjoy the music of Wagner, and not the least his Ring cycle, the formatting for those works seems rather complicated, and that I would prefer to avoid. It seems that there is an earlier version of the Wonder Book here, which is definitely in the public domain and contains a greater number of illustrations. It seems that the Wagner is already uploaded here. I also have a copy of Hawthorne’s Tanglewood Tales, illustrated by Mr. M. Winter, that doesn’t appear to be on Internet Archive; I’ll upload it if I have time in the future. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:38, 15 February 2019 (UTC).

• I’ve created the pages for the plates in A Wonder Book; could you add the images? I’m not very experienced in image formatting. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC).
• Could you validate this page? It’s the last proofread page from Undine. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 12:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC).
• I’ve finished proofreading A Wonder Book, and have started this shorter work, with a number of plates by one Frank C. Papé. Could you create those images? In addition, are there any other works of Rackham’s that you would like to begin? I would be happy to start proofreading one of them. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:47, 10 March 2019 (UTC).

I thank you, hamsters thank you

thank you from hamsters

Thank you so much for fixing the images at The Golden Hamster Manual.

I had started this project on my holiday in December 2016, did more on holiday in December 2017, and you fixed all the images in December 2018. I had been wondering how this work would ever be completed. Thank you so much! The images in Commons:Category:The Golden Hamster (1949) look so much cleaner than the original scans!

I am going to first share this with the newsletter of the British National Hamster Council then I will begin to integrate this work into Wikimedia projects elsewhere. I am excited to have this published! Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Wayside and Woodland Blossoms is proofread

FYI. Waiting for the lovely pictures to be done. The only thing unresolved with the proofreading is the 3 or 4 double-headers; marked problematic. Cheers, Zoeannl (talk) 07:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)mmm

My computer died. It will be sometime before I can do image work.

In the meanwhile, I was going to try finding times for paragraphs for matching audio with text.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 00:17, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu

I notice you ran into some problems with Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu, but I'm not entirely clear on what you're trying to achieve here.

It looks like you've tried to split out two volumes published together into separate DjVu files and run into problems with the OCR text layer? If that's the case, that is neither necessary nor recommended: when we transclude the work to mainspace you can transclude the relevant pages into whatever layout makes sense from a single Index:/File:. If that's the case I would suggest just deleting the extra Index: (tag it with {{sdelete|Author request}} and someone will be along shortly to delete it).

If the issue is something else, please explain and I'll see what I can do to help. --Xover (talk) 09:02, 23 October 2019 (me I

I think the word published is not being used correctly here. The scans are of a rebinding of several publications. A years subscription of the journal was rebound into one book.

The earlier volumes lacked the original covers which included the index for the index (later volumes include these covers). I was making new indices using existing indices as a model. I was unsure how to indicate my remodelling effort and left them marked as blank pages. Index:Bird-lore_Vol_01.djvu is what I was trying to do here.

I don't remember the OCR being missing from this scan. Maybe I am confused about what you are asking. I certainly would welcome assistance with the OCR! Maybe your questions could be answered more easily by looking at the first volume?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

The original scan at IA appears to contain Vols. 1 and 2, for 1899 and 1900, bound together. Index:Bird-lore Vol 01.djvu appears to reflect this, with both Vol. 1 and 2 covered.

The file behind Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu is described as being extracted from File:Bird-lore Vol 01.djvu (and in turn thus from the same scan at IA). Index:Bird-Lore 02.djvu is also tagged as lacking an OCR text layer (which appears to be correct), and on its talk page is noted This is a home-spun djvu file. It is off-by one. I am remaking the file in hopes of fixing that..

Based on this I assumed that you had tried to split Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 into separate DjVu files and Index: pages, but had trouble with the OCR text in the extracted file (Vol. 2). My advice above was based on that assumption: Index: pages are primarily a technical facility to aid proofreading etc. and presentation together, or apart, or per chapter, or… happens in mainspace when the pages are transcluded. There is thus no need (and it is generally not good practice) to split files in this manner. In other words, if my assumptions are correct, the best course of action is to just delete the extraneous Index: page.

I do have tools for manipulating DjVu files, including generating OCR text, and would be happy to help where needed. But in this particular instance it looks like that would be redundant. --Xover (talk) 18:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your time explaining/reminding me of my past actions here. Bird-lore was one of my earlier attempts. I am also greatly handicapped from further work as my computer died and this small device is not something I am going to migrate real work to.

It is humbling to be reminded of how broken my djvu making script was and you can probably see from my first reply here -- the memory had been tucked well out of harms way. My only defense is that I was unable to find much documentation.

I did write some scripts that worked. Again. It takes more time to back track over messes than it takes to make them and I thank you.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Heh. I can barely recall what I had for breakfast this morning, much less the details of why I took a particular approach with something on here years ago. :)

In any case, do I take it then that you confirm my above assumptions to be roughly correct and that you agree this index is redundant and can be deleted?

PS. Sorry to hear about your computer. My own main laptop just went in for repairs with a battery that had started expanding and, though I was lucky enough to still have the ancient one it had replaced as a backup, even just migrating between those two is a right royal pain. Hope you get your computer issues sorted out soon! --Xover (talk) 05:04, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Delete it, for sure! -- RaboKarbakian (talk) 14:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

More image collaboration?

If you’re computer’s fixed, or even if it isn’t, I’m glad to see you back! In case you hadn’t already heard, curly quotes are now approved! As WS:PotM has been floundering about quite a lot recently, this is a great time to take a break, and what better way than with some beautifully illustrated works? If not some longer works of Papé (cf. external scan), perhaps The Romance of King Arthur, &c. (external scan) or English Fairy Tales (external scan). Regardless, or even if you are unable to work on this, I am glad to see you working again at the project (although it has been more than a few days, I’ve been far too distracted). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 13:59, 11 November 2019 (UTC).

Thanks for the heads up about the curly quotes. I divined its approval from my watchlist but it is good to know beyond inference.

Those three works are like a mirage for the extremely thirsty crossing a desert. Yes to all of them but not yet as I don't have a computer. If my box is like Tovalds House of Fine Art and its Tools, the local library allows me some few minutes everyday with their boxes of large crayons. As near as I can see in this box for the kinder, they don't even have a simple text editor.

My plan was to do text so that when I get a computer, it will be easier to just drop images into place.

The Spenser book looks like format fun and the other two have images faded such that I am anxious to see the color that can be dug out of them.

I have no timetable regarding a computer, but I am about 2 weeks away from completing a project for my mom (that became a lot more than either of us anticipated).

It is nice to here hear from you and follow your links.... --RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:47, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• I should have some more time to work around then, as well. For my longer-term project, I can work on uploading a scan of my copy of Hawthorne’s Tanglewood Tales, illustrated by Mr. M. Winter, that I mentioned some time ago. I had forgotten about the length and formatting issues that would involve Papé’s work, but any of his illustrations would be welcome (from other works). If you want to work on digging up image colour, I saw Rackham’s illustration of Hansel & Gretel, & Other Tales (external scan), but I thought that it would be much harder to extract the image colour from them. If there are any works that you want help with proofreading, just ask; the PotM works for last month is (nearly) finished, and that for this month is rather dull. Separately, I also found these other scans: Snowdrop, and Other Tales (external scan) (Arthur Rackham, illustrator); and Hansel and Gretel, and Other Stories (external scan) (Kay Nielson, illustrator). I found more interesting works, but I’m really just getting too ahead of myself here. Thank you for your continued work, and I hope your computer situation improves. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:32, 11 November 2019 (UTC).

The school law of Michigan

@Billinghurst: (I am unable to leave a message on your talk page. Sorry for the rude ping here....)

I wanted to tell you of my reasoning for putting the date into the name of the document. I spent a lot of time here sorting through various publications of the same works. Putting the date into the upper level name was a way of differentiating between duplicates. This publication, in particular, (since laws are more liquid fluid than other publications) I have great hope that another "updated" publication (from the 1900's or even the 2000s since it is a government document) of the same will surface.

If you can tell me the problem with my reasoning, it will help me to free you from such a great cleanup in the future.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:51, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Not certain why you cannot edit my user talk page, you are an autoconfirmed account so should be able to do so. I don't see that you are caught by an edit filter.

I am sorry, I read the message and assumed that because I still need to be patrolled (the red exclamation mark on my edits) that I was in this other category. What are those who need patrolling called?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

<shrug>

We generally do not disambiguate prior to a requirement, and the capacity still exists to move it when other works are there and convert to disambiguation page. The name as you originally used is still active, it just redirects back. None of that sort of maintenance is an issue, in fact it is an expectation with the existing practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:11, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I looked up the word "practice" at wikitionary. I suspect you are using the 6th definition which is something like custom or "we always did it this way." I spent some time trying to clean up the main namespace for several items some few months ago by now, mostly for wikidata purposes. This clean up was a pain in ways that I would not have imagined before having worked at it. So when I put the date on that one publication (and not on several others), it was to prevent a future bad experience.

@Beleg Tâl: I wonder if you have some thoughts about the removal of the date in this legal publication's mainspace name.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:27, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Use of Template:Indent (Template:Text-indent)

In The Book of the Aquarium, you have used Template:Text-indent (which I have, for ease of cross-page usage, changed to Template:Indent) for paragraph divisions. Would you like it to be used in The Amateur’s Greenhouse and Conservatory as well? They are both written by the same author. I would be willing to change the formatting on the pages as I proofread the work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC).

I prefer indented text when reading. I had some discussion about this when I first started editing here. The outcome of that discussion was to put text-indents into the style of the Main space transclusion bits. But this book has unindented first paragraphs. So, I was putting them in at first.

Then, upon my return, I thought it was too much to leave them in, in the case that someone would start to edit it before I get another computer (etc). So I was removing them.

So yes! Indents and outdents. Your preference is better researched here than mine!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:46, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I will add those to the remainder of The Amateur’s Greenhouse and Conservatory, then. When proofreading other works, or continuing to proofread these current works, it would be helpful if you could use it as well. Thank you. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 16:59, 3 December 2019 (UTC).
• I’m sorry, I hadn’t noticed your comment. (I don’t check my talk-page very often.) Whilst I think that is interesting, I usually replace all templates and ASCII–XML modifying characters to the final XML form; thus, “a” replacing “a ”, and — replacing —. I do this because it makes the text file easier to read. However, I understand your goals, and will not replace those characters in the future. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:43, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

Template:dq is easy to proofread. The Template:sq has been dumbed down but can be upgraded. Perhaps templates — and ’ would make everyone happy?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@TE(æ)A,ea.: I needed some time to remember.... Consider waiting until transclusion and including the indentation formating within divs surrounding the pages. Template:Nodent exists to prevent indents on special paragraphs (like the first paragraphs of the chapter). I ended up preferring this because (in this case) the exclusion is less work than the inclusion. And I am sorry for stumbling through this explanation, but I like less work for the same outcome. I also like lighter weight texts (which might be moot because the images are so much more than a few style dictates), but still.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:23, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

• • I have used a modified system for indents; I have implemented it here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 18:07, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: So, these are my priorities while I am without a personal computer. I want to make pages ready for images. I have a few projects that were left in various stages of undone, but without the tools found on my computer (and not available on library boxes) -- I am really just doing things that are equally difficult on both os. No image work for me on Windows. Those futsy book advertisements at the end of the aquarium book are an example of equally difficult.

Stories from Old English Poetry. I will be making a header for it that will pull in the navigation from wikidata, so please don't start to make the main space sections/chapters yet. I am making the image pages so that when I drop an image onto them, I can toggle it to yellow. If you start to proof the rest of it and put any text indents in, I will mirror your work on the image pages I proof. I am fine with the person doing the majority of the proofreading also making the call on the futsy things like indents and such. The wikidata work is time-consuming especially as the minor works covered in this book do not necessarily have their own data item yet (like Chaucer).

Any questions, warnings or better methods?--RaboKarbakian (talk) 19:13, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

• • • Nothing sounds out of place; I hate working with Wikidata, and am glad that you are willing to do that work. I will, in the mean-time, work on the proofreading. I will adjust the formatting as appropriate. I do have one question: Do you think the main-space sub-pages should be numbers (as they are now) or names? I usually use the former, but the latter may seem more appropriate here. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 21:02, 6 December 2019 (UTC).

I just put the toc on Index:Stories from Old English Poetry-1899.djvu, at least from here, the djvu page link goes to the pages that need editing. I have found this useful for making interlinks and also for working on the chapter/song/poem/story that I wanted to. The same links, in the main space (Stories from Old English Poetry), are just unlinked page numbers. If these page numbers are not useful to you, at least they are not a problem in the main space--RaboKarbakian (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Stories from Old English Poetry

There is a .djvu file available, by the way. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:06, 3 December 2019 (UTC).

I think I tried to fix by uploading the pdf, way back when.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:15, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

• I created the index page, but the text layer is offset. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 17:17, 3 December 2019 (UTC).

Yes, I notified an admin of this. It gets worse, one page off at 4 and 5, two pages off at 10 and 13. I did not check farther than this.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:21, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

More Chaucer

The woorkes would likely be nigh-impossible to complete, as black-letter text (what the collection is rendered in) cannot be received of by OCR, which leads to text that looks like this. I could try to render the text separately, but I presume that you would enjoy an illustrated edition more than an early edition. I see no edition of Rackham, alas, but I see some (1, 2, both low quality) of one Goble, who seems to have also been a prolific illustrator. When you may so desire, I would recommend perusing his work. TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 20:01, 9 December 2019 (UTC).

@TE(æ)A,ea.: They have a Canterbury Tales that they are not ashamed of, so the daunting task of proofing the woorkes is much lower a priority to me (maybe the Sourcerer's as well). I suggested it before doing my homework.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Suggestion: Given the importance of Chaucer's writings in the history of English literature, you might consider making a Portal for the writings of Chaucer. A Portal has the advantage of being more flexible in format, so that you could index complete and partial collections, individual tales, and even literary analysis or other writings about Chaucer's work. --EncycloPetey (talk) 00:59, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

@EncycloPetey: Well, the same with Hawthorne and all of those poets. I did a lot of tidying here for The Riverside song book and other poetry collections. There are a lot of poets here and some with a lot of poetry.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I was surprised at the namespace that @Billinghurst: moved the individual poems to. It is classic Foroa commonscat namespace scheming but not how they name things here. Here they would be more likely to name it The Knight's Tale (Chaucer).

I was going to make a Template:Secondary list so that the list of versions of individual poems would be linked and perhaps an edit link also. 1. Is that okay? 2. Maybe someone is better at writing it than me? 3. I really really liked the tidiness of the Original Collection/Individual work of the existing namespace that I worked with yesterday. With a heavy heart, it would be nice if someone else would mourn the lack of tidy here with me.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:15, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

A template isn't likely to be useful unless you have a very large set of very uniform works. We used a Template to format the pages for Shakespeare's Sonnets because there are a lot of them, and they're published with uniform titles and numbering.

(I think that) A generic Template:slist might be useful for any list whose members might or might not be parts of collections.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

I wouldn't compare Chaucer to Hawthorne or the Riverside collection. Chaucer is significant worldwide, and his works sit at an especially important crossroads in the history of the English language; his works are cited in English dictionaries because they demonstrate the existence, usage, and spellings of words in English at a time during which most documents in England were written in French or Latin. Hawthorne is less known outside of America, and is most remarkable for having written during a period when not much literature was being written in English in the Americas. He is important somewhat in the history of American English literature, but not for the English language as a whole. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:22, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Author from England, C.S. Lewis borrowed heavily from Hawthorne -- but I am hardly qualified to have any thing to do with decision-making about which literature is good for this or better for that. I like the challenge of the mess and see all similar lists as being equal, in a software kind of way. If you want a portal, I can easily paste this list there. I don't think that there should be a portal and not a version page....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:49, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Keeping it simple

Please don't create templates for nesting {{versions}}. It is an unnecessary bloat of templates where there is very limited use of scope, and you can simply use the target template. Versions pages are simply version pages, and users should be able to arrive and edit those pages without having to try and determine what is different or how it works. (This exists as a community practice over a long period.) Also to note that for version there is neither a previous or a next; such pages are standalone when they become a version.

If you are wishing to be building something more curatorial for the work, then please consider building a Portal: namespace page. There we have more scope for contributor additions, comments, etc. It is can be more encyclopaedic or finding aid in nature. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

If the template is so offensive to you, it can easily be sub stringed and disappear once the work is complete.

About the portal: the listing of versions of poems is how I did a lot of this a summer ago. If this should be changed, then let me complete it as is and it can be changed (by all those who agree with you, etc) along with all of those others.

I value your opinions!--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:59, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Substringed? Do you mean substituted? Otherwise, we have a community practice, so best to follow it, and not expect that others can or should have to come along and later and resolve it later. Doing it right the first time is preferable to all. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:46, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Heh, +10 yrs of not knowing what that was a shortening of. Yes substituted. Also, you were completely correct in labeling that template as, well, however you labeled it. It is a sorry excuse for a template, and if you restore it, it becomes even worse. The author portion did not work with wikidata, I assume because of the nested versions template which is probably already a nested header template. And, if you restore it, I am going to make it worse before it has completed its task and is killed in a more timely fashion.

My goal is to make a place to put the chapters of Stories from Old English Poetry. It also involves some clean-up at the commons. And I thought that while I was at it, I would make a wikidata for the chapters of Canterbury Tales (ed. Skeat). Illustrations of a one or a few other versions to follow, if all goes well.

Anything that I left to be resolved later was due to being without a computer. Is there anything that I left to be resolved?

@EncycloPetey: could have made the portal and I would have gladly fleshed that out. I am not at my happiest when others send out decrees for me to do things they are more qualified than me to do, especially when those decrees make me stray too far from my original task (which is to edit and add the already done illustrations to Stories from Old English Poetry.

Please restore the template. I will gladly let you know when to delete it. I have been thinking about the license (should it have one) and seeing if the small scan template can handle being pointed to a page (since I added the table of contents of two or three orphaned versions of Tales to my todo list). It would be cool if the ability to go directly to the exact page that needs to be proofed from these pages....--RaboKarbakian (talk) 16:17, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Two Noble Kinsmen

The disambiguation page for The Two Noble Kinsmen is now set up. Please note that retellings and other derivative works are considered works in their own right, and not "editions" of the original, even if they retain the title of the original work. So Richardson's story is not considered a "version" of Shakespeare's play, but is treated as another work based on it. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:55, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Richardson's story is not a "translation" of Shakespeare. The Two Noble Kinsmen is in English, and so is Richardson's story; the one was not "translated" into the other. Rather, Richardson wrote a story based on Shakespeare's play. It is considered a new work, not a "translation". --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2019 (UTC)