Index talk:Roman History of Ammianus Marcellinus.djvu
Missing pages[edit]
FYI...
Doug has pointed out that scan pages 498 & 499 are missing and are populated by dupes. Fwiw.. I hunted down the same 1894 edition on GoogleBooks and uploaded the missing pages (now linked in Doug's note) for possible replacement. The Page: namespace content has been swapped even though the thumbnails are still of the dupes.
I trimmed the watermark and left it as a PDF for both. If further conversion &/or insertion needed - just ask. I went this route to solicit suggestions on how best to proceede this time (i.e. my fix may not be the optimal fix in these situations). -- George Orwell III (talk) 22:40, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
- George Orwell, Thanks! I hadn't even thought yet about where to look for them. I think this proposed fix is fine (I'm not sure what other/better options might even exist). It would be great if you could convert these to DjVu and insert them, if you have time. If you don't, I'll eventually get around to it after I get the rest of the work organized. Thanks again for finding these and extracting and uploading them.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I only went about this long drawn out way this time because I'm having real headaches with matching DPI and resolution from one stage of conversion to the next. The end product always looks somewhat worse than the original (PDF in this case) and I don't know what else to do but see how other folks are approaching something like this. Insertion, deletion, etc. is not the issue (my crappy system probably is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- OK, so long as there is a link to the "original", we can go there to reference it if we need to. I've got another work that I am very slowly working on that has some really crappy pages. But I know where the upstream versions are and can go there when I need to for clarification. (Unfortunately, some idiot (not on here) made them as GIFs which is really not suited to the scans, particularly in this case, and that made for a very mediocre DjVu with really crappy OCR - but this is just an aside and has nothing to do with this work here. The point is upstream files can be referred back to if we know where they are and the on-WS content doesn't have to be the best, we're only talking about two pages.) I'm just glad you took the time to track these down and extract them. Who knows how long it would've taken me to consider that Google might have the same edition but with the missing pages.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:52, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- I only went about this long drawn out way this time because I'm having real headaches with matching DPI and resolution from one stage of conversion to the next. The end product always looks somewhat worse than the original (PDF in this case) and I don't know what else to do but see how other folks are approaching something like this. Insertion, deletion, etc. is not the issue (my crappy system probably is). -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:40, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
N.B.: pages 498 and 499 are missing, pages 496 and 497 repeat thus
/507 p. 495
/508 p. 496
/509 p. 497
/510 p. 496 p. 498 PDF source: http://books.google.com/books?id=hh8NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA498
/511 p. 497 p. 499 PDF source: http://books.google.com/books?id=hh8NAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA499
/512 p. 500
A careful search of the file shows the missing pages are not anywhere in the file.
Done -- George Orwell III (talk) 06:12, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
A note about the edition[edit]
The text that we had at Roman History stated that it was from Tertullian.org which says it's transcribed from the 1862 edition of this work. This scan is is the 1894 edition. However, a comparison of the text during Match and Split has confirmed that the body of the text is identical. The Tertullian.org version omits the footnotes an the preface so there is no way to compare them (and no need). If someone feels there is a need to also have the 1862 edition or that it would be better, the works can be fairly easily migrated; although not having looked at scans of the earlier edition, I do not know (and highly doubt) that the page numbers match up.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:22, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
- Further, the text from Terullian.org has a date of 1802 in the preface. This is clearly erroneous as it says it is based on the Wagner and Erfurdt's edition, published at Leipzig in 1808. The scan of the 1894 edition preface has a date of 1862. Most likely the 1894 edition is really just an 1894 printing of the 1862 edition, otherwise we would expect to find a "Preface to the 1894 edition" together with the original preface along with some differences in the pagination.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 20:22, 31 October 2011 (UTC)