Template talk:Integrate pages

A fantasy?

@ShakespeareFan00: I notice I seem to be a guinea pig for this fantastic idea of yours. The two projects of mine you have chosen both had defects in the original scans that I think I rather gracefully fixed by introducing some JPEG scans into the indexes. Once transcluded, the order of the pages is not really an issue as far as appearance is concerned. I admit that a reader may find it a bit of a challenge to thumb through the pages of the original if they decide to do so: in this case they will have to return to the index to get to successive pages. But I tremble when I think of someone trying to repair things so everything is in sequence. Do you have an example where this has been done successfully? Certainly I cannot with my meagre tools, but I see no reason not to proofread, or in the typical case, not to continue proofreading, when one of these problems has been found. I just patch it up and continue. Your template seems like some sandbox idea you have inflicted on my two projects, and I find it hard to take seriously. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:57, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

It's not a sandbox idea, just a pragmatic response to try and filter 'problem' files a bit. Carry on proof-reading :) and someone else will figure out the technical challanges eventually. :) ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 18:03, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Will do. I have a fair number of projects with one or two pages patched. I suppose it might be a good idea to track them anyway. I do plan to advance the project status (beyond "needs fixing") when all the pages are proofread. Library Guy (talk) 14:45, 28 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: I think you are right about it not being a sandbox idea. Classifying projects according to their deficiencies could have a lot of potential for improving the offerings on Wikisource. I think restricting activity on a project has to be more carefully considered, and I'm glad you have backed off from requesting people not proofread a patched work. I think the Progress value can be advanced normally on these projects, and just a category flag the problem. The worst case I have had to deal with is Manual of The Mother Church. The only set of scans I could find at the time was bilingual, and the English part was missing ten pages of consequence. In this case I referred to scans available on Google, and transcribed into dummy pages which just show the back cover of the book for an image. I think if I were better at screen snap shots I would grab substitute images and use them as I did with Miscellaneous Writings. Anyway with all its problems I finally ended up with a reasonable transcription for Manual of The Mother Church, and someone has even validated a portion. Other problems I have run into which deserve categories (maybe they already exist?): some of the scans for EB1911 volumes are very poor and leave out many details like punctuation and diacritics, and if I am serious about proofing a page I need to refer to better scans at archive.org; and in one (or more?) cases I found scans which had visibly been altered: all the instances of one character being changed to another, and the OCR echoing the problem. I think the latter problem has been handled though since I haven't run into it in recent years. The poor scan problem at EB1911 is ongoing though and occasionally I make a remark on the discussion for a page. Thank you for your efforts in regard to the patched works, but please be cautious about restricting activity on the works. I'm not sure repairing the DJVU is the best way to proceed as it could lead to integrity issues. Its nice to have a set of scans that can be referred to an external provider. Maybe just a change in the Wiki software would allow the patches to be integrated more gracefully. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:13, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

Today I find myself dealing with a clipped scan at Page:Farmers of forty centuries.djvu/40. I got the missing text from another copy at archive.org. I ran into this problem somewhat recently in another work. See Page:Sikhim and Bhutan.djvu/314. But I can only recall running into the problem rarely before that. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:51, 29 June 2019 (UTC)

@ShakespeareFan00: @Xover: And now I see this "fantasy sandbox idea" has become reality now that Xover has fixed the DJVU for Index:The Homes of the New World- Vol. I.djvu. I had to redo the transclusion for The Homes of the New World/Letter X., but things are much simpler now. I wonder if archive.org has picked up on this fix? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

@Bob Burkhardt: I'm not quite sure of the context of this discussion, but, no, IA does not pick up fixes at Wikisource. IA is in general really poor at taking advantage of crowdsourcing: see the atrocious state of their bibliographic metadata for example. PS. ShakespeareFan00, this template has no documentation. --Xover (talk) 08:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)