Talk:Blackwood's Magazine

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

@Inductiveload: I am trying to understand and implement your advice regarding transclusion and naming conventions from a previous post.

QUESTION 1: In anticipating the Blackwood Magazine items on my horizon, would THESE be valid names and comply with your strategy? (I am not asking that you confirm volume or issue data... only whether my syntax and composition violates any rules.)
QUESTION 2: When I link a Blackwood's article to Ferrier's Author page, must the naming convention match these or can I entitle so as to provide for chronological sort? e.g. 1838-02 An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness (Part I)

Klarm768 (talk) 19:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: These names look about right. I would tend away from Roman numerals in page names, just because they don't parse as quickly in my head (quick: CXLVII! - shows my lack of culturing, perhaps). When used like "Volume 1", "Book 6", etc parts of subpages, Arabic numerals are preferred I think, as it's easier to maintain. Note, page titles don't have to be the complete work title if it's too unwieldy, they're just unique identifiers - the header template is where you put the "full" title.
As for the author page, you can use a template like {{article link}} to link the article directly along with a complete citation-style entry:
{{article link
 | periodical = Blackwood's Magazine
 | article = An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness, Part 1
 | volume = 42
 | issue = 268
 | month = June
 | year = 1837
 | p = 100
 | pp = 106
}}
An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness, Part 1,” in Blackwood's Magazine, 42 (268) (June, 1837), pp. 100−106
Now, this can look "dense" when you list 7 almost-identical entries together on an Author page.
You could also make a interposer mainspace page at An Introduction to the Philosophy of Consciousness where the parts are listed, and just a line like this on the author page:
On the "interposer" page, you then have the list of parts, perhaps without having to repeat the magazine and title on each line. This is useful when you want to be able to link to the collection from other works or from Portal pages. This is probably how I would approach it, as I like the single-point-of-contact for linking to the collected work, and it save repeating the list of parts on both an Author page and a Portal.
With respect to "chronological" sort, that should be handled by the Volume/Issue/Part naming? Author pages are plain text, there is no way I know of to enable re-sorting of Author page entries by date or otherwise. It's certainly not something I've ever seen to use special naming on the Author page entries to indicate dates. Normally, the title is followed by the date in brackets and that's it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:38, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: I agree to use arabic numerals. I am itching to get my first transclusion under my belt. I have read the help sections numerous times but always hang up on this recurring sentence: Start a new page at which you want the final version of the text to appear. I'm missing the context. It must be somewhere that starts with "https://en.wikisource.org/" but beyond that I don't understand. "Start a new page" under what directory? by means of what device? [I must be the only person who finds it cryptic... but my high school English teacher would have given me an "F" for that sentence... e.g. new letter-sized page in your homework folder, typed, single spaced, entitled...]
I will gladly start a new page at that locus where your recommended naming convention works to best advantage, but I'm stuck. Klarm768 (talk) 13:22, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
To start a new page (in any namespace), simply follow a red link and start writing in the text box. You can also enter the page title you wish to create in the search box and when the page is naturally not found, choose the red "Create the page" link on the results page. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 14:51, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

@Inductiveload: I uploaded a file pulled from archive.org. I should have named it File:Blackwood's Magazine volume 046.djvu but instead created it with this name: File:Blackwoodsmagazi46edinuoft.djvu. Klarm768 (talk) 17:38, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

I think it has already been dealt with at Commons. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 17:54, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Volume uploads[edit]

@Klarm768: FYI, I've uploaded what I can from the IA up to v74 (1853) to Commons. There are a couple of gaps, but I don't think it affects your project. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 21:25, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload:Thanks. You've been very accommodating. I really enjoy it when I figure something out on my own, but I am disturbed when I mess something up and can't instantly fix it. I whine and get impatient too readily. Overall, this site really satisfies me in a number of ways... lots of learning, discoveries, admirations of elegant design. Getting a DJVu viewer has opened up a new world, and rescued my love of TIFFs. Too early to say for sure, but I predict I'll outstrip OCR accuracy by converting DJVu to TIFF and running my old method. Klarm768 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2017 (UTC)
Glad you're enjoying yourself - I thought as I had a way to send to Commons automatically with a script and the IA-upload tool, I'd save you a few GBs of uploading!
If I were you, I would attempt to avoid using DjVu files from the IA as a source for anything automated. They are very heavily compressed and in quite a lossy way. This is OK for "normal" books, but for such long, dense, works as Blackwood's, the DjVus are actually not brilliant source material. From the IA, you can get more original JP2 images which are much less compressed and much higher quality. For example: this is the first text page of v.52 from the IA JP2. Compare to the image the you get from the same page of the DjVu and you can see the difference. If you're going to produce your own TIFFs for OCR, I'd start with the images with the most information content, otherwise it's a losing battle with entropy. The downside is, each volume is about 700MB of JP2s, so it may strain your phone line! To get these files, look in the box under the main image on the item's IA "details" page, in this case: https://archive.org/details/blackwoodsmagazi52edinuoft Inductiveloadtalk/contribs
@Inductiveload: I suppose I am stuck in my dinosaur era... when fax WAS electronic communication. TIFF was king. JPEG was lossy. Anyhow, my DJVu viewer permits exporting to multipage B&W TIFF... which is NOT lossy. Of course images/photos are trashed; but for OCR I want clean text and for that it's excellent. So for an archive.org Blackwood's the prices run something like this: DJVu 40Mb vs PDF 950Mb. But I can export DJVu to TIFF (600dpi-monotone) for 65Mb. Pages mount instantly. Plus I can manually separate the columns and vastly improve the OCR. You've probably seen lots of Blackwood's OCR where the columns are run together... nightmare. Would you care to challenge me to proof all the text in ONE particular Blackwood's? I would kind of like the dare... but only if I live long enough to finish my Ferrier project and my off-line-surviving-WindowsXP machine holds up. Start shopping for the target volume.Klarm768 (talk) 11:59, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: - if you can get better results from DjVu->TIFF than JP2->TIFF, then that's a very good result. DjVu compression isn't designed to enhance OCR-ability, but if you can get it to work acceptably, you've saved a lot of bandwidth, disk space and any time needed to process the JP2s for OCR. The TIFF might not be lossy, but DjVu was very lossy, and once lost, you can't get the information back. The JP2s are lossy too, but they are encoded with a high quality. As you say, partitioning the pages is probably more important when the IA has failed to recognise them.
I think I won't challenge you to a volume - that way lies stress, which is not why we're here. Take your time and do what you find interesting! Nothing worse than forcing yourself to proofread 500 pages of something in which you have no interest, especially if there are tables. ;-) Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 12:25, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
Oh, also :: With respect to "chronological" sort, that should be handled by the Volume/Issue/Part naming? Blackwood articles account for the majority of the author page entries but not all. Any target audience is presumably small, but I would prefer that author page appeal to the Scottish Philosophy buff accustomed to bibliography style entries, multiple sources, chronological order. Your Article Link above appeals to me.Klarm768 (talk) 12:33, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Blackwood's Magazine Articles Published to Main Space[edit]

@Inductiveload: These titles are now functional:

If there are remedies/links needed, I would like to know.Klarm768 (talk) 16:17, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: Great work! Normally, the {{article link}} templates go on the Author page (and perhaps a Portal). That template is designed to link to the mainspace page from elsewhere, not for use on the article itself (that's why the "link" is so bold - the page is linking to itself). Information about a work that's not in the original generally belongs in the header. The only exceptions are usually the licence template and {{authority control}} if used, which go at the end of a mainspace page.
If you really want to put the bibliographic data on the mainspace page, you can put it in the "notes" field of the header. See for example The Universal Postulate. This is often done to indicate the publication details when the work is not in a proper subtree (Work/Volume 1/Issue 1/Title), but there's nothing to stop you repeating it explicitly in the notes.
For a (very?) long term view of this, IMO the bibliographic data for every article should be centralised in its own item at Wikidata and displayed automagically. I've just had a thought about that this minute, I'll get back to you if it comes to anything! Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 16:43, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: the {{article link}} templates have been removed and the header fields have been modified. Interestingly, in The Universal Postulate the players (authoring or cited) were relevant to Ferrier's writings. Of that list the only from J.S. Mill have I so-far ever read a remark favorable to Ferrier. I should read it in earnest. Another curious item is that there is another WS translation of Tiek's Pietro von Abano, oder Petrus Apone: Eine Zaubergeschichte, Pietro of Abano, and wherein use of the header "notes" field was also illustrated.Klarm768 (talk) 22:45, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Klarm768: Funny how things line up like that - I found it by pressing "Random Work" until I got a page I could use as an example!
I made a "versions" page for Pietro d'Abano - this is how the same work is listed when we have multiple copies of it, e.g. different editions, forms or translations. I suspect there will be a few more cases in Blackwood's where there is overlap with existing works at WS. In this case, I chose to use "Pietro d'Abano" as the version entry point, but an alternative would have been to move "Pietro of Abano" to something like "Pietro of Abano (tr. Hare)" and then use "Pietro of Abano" as the versions page. That would have needed a bit of care to ensure no broken links in the move. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:35, 12 November 2017 (UTC)
@Inductiveload: Titles published.
Deinhardstein is not in the category of Authors at https://en.wikisource.org but he is in the German wiki https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Johann_Ludwig_Deinhardstein Kategorie: Autoren.
That "Picture of Danäe" article is my most format-intensive project. I think the text is correct but layout is unsatisfying. It's hard to figure out what to change until it's on the screen in continuous pages.
Somebody revised my first page layout on "Poetical Translations of Faust" which I regard as an adverse change. When last I checked, he had not responded to my questions or justification of original layout. Klarm768 (talk) 20:43, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
It's quite common no to have Author pages for authors, especially when they are not English writers. You can create the page if you wish. It's not a strict requirement. However, when you have a work by an author, it's a good idea to list it on the author page so that it's not just lost in a corner of WS forever, and you need an author page to do that!
Take a look at {{block center/s}} and {{block center/e}} for block centre tags that can span pages (you need to use the header and footer fields).
Actually, reviewing that text more carefully, it might be better to leave it as it is as the original is basically just left aligned with centred headings. Layout in the mainspace is actually partly under user control - check out the "Layout 1" button in the left sidebar. This is called "Dynamic Layouts". Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 23:01, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
As for the edit, looks like the intention is to use Labelled Section Transclusion to "re-order" the sections. See Help:Transclusion for details (basically: use "fromsection" and "tosection" when transcluding with <page> tags). I don't see any questions from you about the other editor's work, but it looks somewhat sane to me - ideally you wouldn't re-order a page's content if you can avoid it. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 22:22, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate Page Numbers, Best Practices, e.g. Blackwood's VOLUME 50[edit]

@Inductiveload: The pagelist for volume 50 Indexing involves duplication for pages numbered 17 to 32. I was pleased that the Index displays them accurately. Does this have any "clinical" relevance? Klarm768 (talk) 12:51, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

@Klarm768: the pagelist has no effect on anything except the numbers that appear in the margin when transcluded. There's no harm if multiple pages have the same number in the original, as they are essentially just "friendly names" for the pages in the scan. When you use the "from" and "to" fields when transcluding, you use the page number in the file, not the pagelist. This always starts at 1 and is not affected by the pagelist. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 13:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)