User talk:Mathmitch7
Add topic Archives | |
| |
Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by wikisource-bot. |
Shouldn't this and its subpages be at Chicago Tribune/1859/10/20 instead? Nighfidelity (talk) 21:39, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- I can move them, sure. I was under the impression that it didn't matter as long as it was roughly consistent within a work. But I would actually prefer the 10/20 notation to the October/20, personally. Mathmitch7 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! Nighfidelity (talk) 21:43, 24 January 2026 (UTC)
Amazing!
[edit]For the Chicago Press and Tribune, how long did it take to transcribe and format a whole page? --RAN (talk) 21:33, 31 January 2026 (UTC)
- Oh I don't even feel like I'm done with it yet! Took me maybe a few days, off and on. Mathmitch7 (talk) 01:32, 1 February 2026 (UTC)
Subpages of Elements (Euclid)
[edit]I saw that you were creating translations pages for subsections of Elements (Euclid). Is there a reason why they need separate translations pages, rather than treating them as merely subsections of the translations already listed at Elements (Euclid)? —Beleg Tâl (talk) 00:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- It's mostly about linking to the work. Right now, I'm proofreading (among other things) Index:A History of Mathematics (Cajori 1919).djvu, which in several places cites the Elements -- often to a specific book and proposition. Because the work is not originally in English, there's not a definitive version in Wikisource to link to the subpages. For example, if Cajori cites Elements, Book 3, I can link to Elements (Euclid), and the reader would pick a translation and then find Book 3. But if I want to link Book 3 specifically, I'd have to pick a translation for the reader first, which is not ideal IMO. By creating subpages, I can link to Elements (Euclid)/Book 3, where the appropriate section pages that are available on Wikisource can be organized. For Elements specifically, this is extra useful, because many of the translations available are not translations of all 13 books (and only one, so far as I can tell, includes a translation of the apocryphal 14th and 15th books). Let me know if you don't think this is appropriate, and I can avoid doing the same in the future. -- Mathmitch7 (talk) 01:36, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do think that the best thing would be to link to Elements (Euclid) directly, and let the reader navigate to the translation of their choice. I won't say that creating subpages is inappropriate necessarily, but I will say that this is not the way we generally do things (except in some cases where specific subsections are explicitly published as standalone works), so I'd suggest that you pass it by WS:S if you want to establish this as a regular practice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- Sounds good, thanks! -- Mathmitch7 (talk) 02:11, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
- I do think that the best thing would be to link to Elements (Euclid) directly, and let the reader navigate to the translation of their choice. I won't say that creating subpages is inappropriate necessarily, but I will say that this is not the way we generally do things (except in some cases where specific subsections are explicitly published as standalone works), so I'd suggest that you pass it by WS:S if you want to establish this as a regular practice. —Beleg Tâl (talk) 01:54, 15 March 2026 (UTC)
which edition of The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses should we use?
[edit]you created Index:The sixth and seventh books of Moses ... the wonderful magical and spirit arts of Moses and Aaron (IA sixthseventhbook00dela).pdf, and i created Index:The sixth and seventh books of Moses ... the wonderful magical and spirit arts of Moses and Aaron (IA sixthseventhbook00dela).pdf. which edition do you think is better for proofreading? ltbdl (talk) 09:53, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- You meant to link Index:The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses.pdf, right? They appear to be different editions (1880 and 1910), with at least different paginations. The one I uploaded seems to be a better scan, the one you uploaded is earlier. I think either are fine, and eventually it will be fine if both are proofread. I would probably say we should do the one you uploaded first due to its earlier printing. But when we transclude them, we should create an editions page (ie, The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses) with links to both, and name each of them something consistent like The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses (1880) and The Sixth and Seventh Books of Moses (1910). -- Mathmitch7 (talk) 11:56, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, after some somewhat more careful comparison, it seems to me that they're just two different printings of the same underlying text. The pagination diverges around page 27, but as far as I can tell that's only because the 1910 edition has smaller print. I think preferring the 1880 edition makes more sense since it's earlier. I don't necessarily think we should delete the 1910 edition's pages, but it seems generally unnecessary. Mathmitch7 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- d'oh, yes, i meant to link to that. thanks for the response! ltbdl (talk) 13:00, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
- Actually, after some somewhat more careful comparison, it seems to me that they're just two different printings of the same underlying text. The pagination diverges around page 27, but as far as I can tell that's only because the 1910 edition has smaller print. I think preferring the 1880 edition makes more sense since it's earlier. I don't necessarily think we should delete the 1910 edition's pages, but it seems generally unnecessary. Mathmitch7 (talk) 12:17, 3 April 2026 (UTC)
Hello. I just noticed that in February you've replaced the language of this translation to Ukrainian, but this is not quite correct. Although the original text is available on the Ukrainian Wikisource (hence the link), the letter is written in the Russian language. What I've done was the only solution I could think of to both accurately reflect the language and provide a correct link. However, I don't edit on Wikisource often, so I might have missed something and I will be happy to know if there's a better solution. Shwabb1 (talk) 18:46, 26 April 2026 (UTC)
- Thanks! I reverted my change to your version. It's a bit confusing but I agree it seems like the best solution, at least for now. -- Mathmitch7 (talk) 13:49, 29 April 2026 (UTC)