User talk:Χ

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search



Hello, Abjiklam, and welcome to Wikisource! Thank you for joining the project. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

Carl Spitzweg 021-detail.jpg

You may be interested in participating in

Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{CotW}} to your page for current wikisource projects.

You can put a brief description of your interests on your user page and contributions to another Wikimedia project, such as Wikipedia and Commons.

I hope you enjoy contributing to Wikisource, the library that is free for everyone to use! In discussions, please "sign" your comments using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your IP address (or username if you're logged in) and the date. If you need help, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question here (click edit) and place {{helpme}} before your question.

Again, welcome! Beeswaxcandle (talk) 20:44, 29 March 2013 (UTC)

Dotted TOC page listing[edit]

Hi, I see you've added a new field to this template for changing the "dottext". This is already covered by the "symbol" field. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 00:45, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Hi, it actually does something a bit different. It replaces the series of symbols by one instance of the text that is entered. See Page:A dictionary of the Sunda language of Java.djvu/15. Regards Abjiklam (talk) 00:47, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
I'm aware the example I've given you is not a TOC, but it was such a simple change to add to the code that I figured it would be acceptable. Abjiklam (talk) 00:50, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

Moving Your Files to Wikimedia Commons[edit]

Don't worry. He's watching your back. And yes, he's hosted on Commons.

Hello Χ!

First, thank you for your contributions to Wikisource. Any contributions are always very much appreciated. While searching around, I noticed that you have some files that you uploaded to Wikisource that would probably serve the community better if it was on Wikimedia Commons, a media file repository. You can view your files to see which ones I'm referring to. See the Image Guidelines for more information.

Why should you do this?

As an example, let's pretend you extracted a hard-to-find image from a book written in 1870. If you upload it to Wikisource, only Wikisource users can use it. What if a user from Japan is writing an article about a similar topic? If your file is on Wikisource, it's unlikely he'll find it, and if he's lucky enough to find it, he still won't be able to use it easily. However, if you uploaded it to Commons, it's much more likely he'll find it and be able to use it. (Files hosted on Commons are accessible from any sister project) The same goes for any PDF or DJVU files you upload as well.

Note: To "move" a page from Wikisource to Commons is simple, but somewhat confusing if you don't know how to. First, upload the file to Commons with the same file name as you did here. Add the same information, making sure you put in the correct license. I suggest adding the {{Wikisource image}} template to its Commons page. Then edit the file's page at Wikisource and add the template {{Now Commons}}. Soon an administrator will complete the "move" by deleting the Wikisource copy (as it's no longer needed). You don't need to change any tags on Wikisource as they'll automatically point to the new file. Awesome!

If you have any questions or concerns, don't be afraid to ask.

The Haz talk 04:02, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the Arabic[edit]

Not that they were my works, I appreciate that you have given some time to come and fix up those arabic characters in our works. smileybillinghurst sDrewth 04:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

No problem! I’m no longer as active as I was before, but sometimes I like to check in on Category:Problematic language. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:14, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Dot and macron symbol[edit]

Hello, thanks for helping fill in the missing symbol on those couple pages in the New International Encyclopedia. I noticed however that you replaced a couple of them with the explanation "the diacritic is actually a dot over a macron", replacing the precomposed symbol with a combining character replacement. (For example, replacing "ȱ" with "ō̇".) Is there is a functional difference between the two? Unless I am mistaken the final presentation of either depends entirely on the reader's font rendering. For me it changes even just between my browser's serif, sans-serif and monospace fonts. Going by the official Unicode names of the characters, (EG "latin small letter o with dot above and macron") it seems that which is above the other doesn't matter to the specification.

NEI has a pronounciation key which could probably use updating, currently it is edited to suggest shoehorning a few Unicode characters to make up for some that aren't precomposed in Unicode. Thanks for helping figure out the ē̇!

(PS when you made your changes, you changed the page from "Problematic" to "Not proofread". I had fully proofread the page but had to mark it problematic due to the missing symbols...usually when correcting a problematic page you can mark it as proofread, but I suppose that does mean you'd have to decide if the previous editor actually proofread or just spotted an issue and marked it as a problem.) djr13 (talk) 19:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi. I actually wasn’t aware that the presentation changed with the font. I know combining characters are not well rendered in all fonts, but from what I can see, the precomposed character consistently has a macron over a dot whereas a combining dot over ō is closer to the source image. However you’re right about the Unicode description. It doesn’t specify which diacritic comes on top. If you think using precomposed characters are more useful in this case I have no objection. My only concern is about the ē̇. If we use precomposed characters for a and o, the diacritics might not be consistent.
Could you have a look at Page:The New International Encyclopædia 1st ed. v. 11.djvu/11 and tell me if you agree with the symbols I used?
About the proofreading, I don’t mark it unless I myself have proofread it because I assume whoever placed the problematic tag will see the change and decide for themself. Should I assume that it was proofread? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:04, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
I briefly tested a few fonts and the only instance I ran across in that very brief check was Cambria, which oddly renders (precomposed) "ǡ" and "ȱ" differently....

I think that technically a font/renderer is supposed to render a precomposed and a combined character identically, but often don't due to limitations or neglect. It probably doesn't matter much, especially when we end up using both precomposed and combined characters in the same work, but using precomposed characters where possible does seem slightly simpler to handle, and helps limit how often we need to rely on (and inevitably end up blaming when it rarely renders correctly) buggy rendering of combining characters.

As far as whether we should try to force a certain appearance of the symbol, I'm not sure. I think it comes down to a pure matter of whether the different appearing symbols mean different things or if they're just stylistic differences. We don't try to (precisely) match typography here, only content, and the content of the symbols is simply ensuring the correct symbol is coded, even if it renders differently from the design used by the printer of the book 100 years ago. I'm not enough of a language expert to know if they are equivalent or not....

You're right about page status I think, it's a bit too much to expect someone correcting a problematic page to decide whether previous editors had fully proofread it. Even if they had, it's a minor annoyance compared to the benefit of solving the page's problem. So thanks! :) djr13 (talk) 23:15, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

As far as meaning goes, I’m sure which diacritic goes above the other is not important within this work. The only problem that remains is how to render the "e". The two choices are "ē̇", which matches the typography of the book, and "ė̄;", which matches the precomposed "ǡ" and "ȱ". Unfortunately, both options rely on combining diacritics. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 02:17, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Well that's interesting! I notice that one of them actually happens to have an entry in Wiktionary: ė̄. Google searching either character actually works, and provides interesting results. Among them is Collier's pronunciation key, which was contributed by the same person (almost on the same day) as contributed NIE's key. For Collier's they don't seem to have used substitutions like they did for NIE. I've talked with them briefly on the topic as well. I'd be happy to pose the question to the scriptorium if there's no obvious solution. djr13 (talk) 08:41, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
A lot of substitutions in NIE’s key are unnecessary. Also, I thin small-caps should be represented by their unicode symbol instead of rendered through css or capitals. If you don’t have an objection, I’d like to update the key with the symbols I put on this page. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:37, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
No objection, though I suggest double checking with a higher resolution scan to be sure, specifically IA's higher res version.

PS I noticed that I seem to have deleted all other conversations from your talk page...this was not intentional, and seemingly caused by my browser crashing and doing strange things to the editing page it restored. djr13 (talk) 18:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

I had a lot of trouble figuring out how to render dot over macron, and my substitutions were made out of desperation. I prefer something that is a single unicode value, and for me substituting macron over dot doesn't quite make it, but really I can't see much to prefer in my substitutions. The composed characters that have several characters masquerading as one I'd like to avoid as they seem difficult to manipulate and render consistently. If the macron over a dot is available as a single unicode value I would prefer that to a dot over a macron that is a composition of several unicode values. I appreciate the new interest in NIE. Library Guy (talk) 17:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC) (a.k.a. Bob Burkhardt)
An example of my troubles is the u with the dot over macron. In NIE, I made it the single character ǜ. In NSRW, the same item is rendered, and it certainly looks better, but when I go to copy and paste it from the pronunciation guide, I get "ū́ ", which looks right when I exit the edit, but appears as two separate characters on my edit screen. There is obviously some trick here, an embedded "invisible" character, which makes things mysterious when manipulating the character, and I would prefer to avoid it. Maybe with Unicode this can be handled more transparently. Of course this says nothing about the fact that the NSRW transcriber's rendering isn't a dot and macron. Library Guy (talk) 23:31, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

NIE realization[edit]

Hello again! An eternity has passed, yet just now I realized a painful error. Hopefully it will be easy to fix, though it would require looking back and fixing earlier edits. The mistake? We should have created a template to handle these problematic diacritics. And by "handle" I mean, at the very least, put the problematic unicode sequences into a single place that we can transclude from and improve on as-needed. See also: Help:Templates#Character formatting; Diacritic templatesdjr13 (talk) 09:16, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Some Arabic is needed[edit]

@Abjiklam: Greetings. The Palestine Exploration Fund - Quarterly Statement for 1894 is nearly complete, Planning to wikify the Index and there are four pages that require some Arabic text. Will try to do some myself, but still find it difficult to identify correctly the similar characters. If you have the time and the inclination to complete them I would really be grateful. In any case, many thanks for your help. — Ineuw talk 18:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Ineuw. I just finished two pages, I’ll finish the rest a bit later. Cheers! Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
@Ineuw: Yes check.svg Done . Could you have a look at this page? I made a few changes to the table. Before I change the other pages I’d like to know if you’re okay with it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)
@Abjiklam: The choice is up to you. I am guided by the appearance in the main namespace. If you find it's OK, it's fine by me. and again thanks for your kind help.— Ineuw talk 17:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)