User talk:Qq1122qq

Welcome

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Welcome

Hello, Qq1122qq, 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:

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) 04:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)Reply

Rawdump OCR.

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Please don't do this. It makes it harder for other contributors to track actual progress and to repair files when missing pages are encountered. ShakespeareFan00 (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Hopefully I've been doing a little more than just dumping the OCR - each page is now linked to cleaned and extracted illustrations, which can be a big barrier for people proofreading these illustrated periodicals (there are 124 of them in issue 3, and 114 in issue 2). If no one else proofreads these, my plan is to do them myself over the next month, anyway - I'm currently working through issue 2. Qq1122qq (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

As a follow up - all of Issue 3 has now been proofread (with images), and issues 4 and 5 are now being worked on. Qq1122qq (talk) 23:38, 12 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Already Transcluded Parts of The Strand

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Thank you so much for working on The Strand. It's really wonderful to see this periodical proofread. I've noticed that for some of the sections of Volume 2 that have already been transcluded, you're transcluding them again to put those stories in the appropriate issue. The correct procedure would be to move the transcluded sections. So, The Strand Magazine/Volume 2/A Scandal in Bohemia would need to be moved to The Strand Magazine/Volume 2/Issue 7/A Scandal in Bohemia. Otherwise, an administrator has to delete the double transclusions. Languageseeker (talk) 11:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the pointer - I've been avoiding moving pages that have already been done as I didn't want to tread on any toes, but if moving is the 'done thing' then I'll try to do that in the future. In particular, I didn't want to mess up the work that has already been done on organising The Adventures of Sherlock Holmes - or get involved in the discussion I noted about deleting it!

I've been a big fan of The Strand Magazine for a worryingly long time - one of the first 'vintage' books I ever bought was Volume 10 of The Strand Magazine almost 20 years ago, and it's great to have found a place where it can be properly proofread and preserved. Qq1122qq (talk) 18:25, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Authors under full real names

Latest comment: 2 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi. We create authors under their full real names. Pen names, and shortened versions of author's names would typically be redirects to the full author's page. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:06, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

I have been noting with awe and pleasure the work you and others put into finding birth and death dates for some of the author pages I have created. I'm slowly creating these as I find them referenced in The Strand Magazine, but this is definitely not an area of expertise. I will definitely do my best to create them with full names in the future. One issue is that for some authors they may only have one or two credits, and not with their full names. Is there a recommended procedure in this case? Qq1122qq (talk) 18:31, 19 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Oh late response. If you are looking for attention then it is useful to use the template {{ping}} => {{ping|billinghurst}}.

In further utterance of my PoV. I will often create the pages at the shortened version or redirect, and move them to the full name, as it can just be easier. We are not asking for your perfection, and do not hesitate to put notes on the author talk page, or even drop it inside the page and wrap it inside an html comments field  which can be seen when someone drops into edit mode. It is a wiki so ... do what you can as it is all helpful and the next person past will hopefully take it further. Never be afraid to add pings in places, or drop me a note and if I have a chance I will get to it. — billinghurst sDrewth 23:17, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Strand articles

Latest comment: 2 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

As I see you are working on The Strand, I've created a Category:Articles in The Strand Magazine to match other categories for articles from periodicals.

Note also that {{Strand Magazine link}} does accept a year= parameter. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2023 (UTC)Reply

Naming hierarchy for Punch

Latest comment: 2 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

I would like to understand the naming hierarchy used in Punch as it doesn't align within itself, nor with how we have set up other periodicals. Hence it being non-standard, it makes it difficult to use the existing templates we use to link to articles from author pages, and from work to work.

You have some aspects as dates, and other aspects as articles in vol. 147. then other volumes differently.

I would like to look to reorganise these to something that is more robust and that aligns with one of the existing patterns. To better understand it often helps to see how the available scans have been done just to make some of that part of the plan. We can then look to set up {{Punch link}} that will also make things somewhat easier and uniform. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:57, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

As an example of elsewhere Special:PrefixIndex/The Strand Magazine/ — billinghurst sDrewth 22:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the interest in my work on Punch (and for letting me know about @Billinghurst: - I am not a fan of Wiki-style 'message boards' so don't know all the reply tricks). As you can probably tell, I'm focusing on Volume 147 (July-Dec 1914) and have done my best to leave all the pre-existing Punch content alone - there isn't much of it, as you can see from your list above, so it can easily be moved around (or removed) as required. My interest is in WW1 era Punch so I doubt I'll ever go earlier than 1914 in the work I do on the periodical.

I believe the standard is to have <journal title>/Volume <num>/Issue <num>/<article name> (as I have tried to follow with the Strand Magazine issues I've worked on). Through my work on the Punch volume I have deviated from this in two ways - I had what felt like good reasons but they can both be squished back into the standard if you think it would be useful.

1) Issue Titles

The main problem with following the format /Issue <num>/ with Punch is that I have no simple way to find the issue number. Punch was generally released every Saturday, and each issue *did* have a number (for example September 10th 1859 was issue 948, and [[1]] June 10th 1931 was issue 4692), but I haven't found a good mapping from dates to issue numbers - when I took the naive approach of putting some known issue numbers in a spreadsheet and extrapolating I found gaps which must correspond to extra issues, but I don't know when they were. So I just used the date as the issue identifier, July 1, September 9, etc. This has the advantage of being a unique identifier for each issue within a volume, but does make programmatically moving to the next/previous issue difficult.

Alternative: We could just impose a 'fake' issue number for each volume, so it starts at /Issue 1/ and continues to /Issue 26/ (or 27). That looks like what was done with the single article from Volume 79 that has been put on the system. At the time I found that distasteful as those aren't the actual issue numbers, but it doesn't seem *that* bad looking at it now. Let me know if that's your preferred system.

2) Articles

I think it's quite important that you should be able to open an issue of Punch in your browser and see the whole issue. This is the case at the moment, for example, if you go to Punch/Volume 147/August 5 you see the whole issue on one page (along with a generic title page). That said, there's also a good argument for being able to isolate out individual contributions (for example, if there is a specific poem you'd like to link to, or if you'd like to isolate the contributions of a particular author for use in the Author:... pages). Enabling this content splitting involves quite a lot more formatting work on my part - in particular it involves lots of section labelling. I have currently only done this for the July 8th issue, and almost all of the content you can see above in the /Articles/ section comes from that single issue.

The motivation for having an /Articles/ section comes from the way that Punch categories its content. This is divided by Punch into four categories, as you can see from the Index:

Articles - titled content which appears in the index under the 'Articles' category.
Cartoons - titled full page illustrations. Generally two per issue. Appear in the index under the 'Cartoons' category.
Pictures and Sketches - illustrations which are not titled in the index (as they might not have a title, just a 'humorous' caption)
Miscellanea - small content fillers such as quotes from other newspapers. This is not indexed by Punch.

Potentially we could have a Cartoon with the same title as an Article (although admittedly that doesn't happen in this Volume), so I decided as a first attempt to put all the Articles in an /Articles/ section, so I could then also have a /Cartoons/ section - thinking about it now, though, there's no real reason to have a separate page for each Cartoon - we could easily have a single /Cartoons page with all 52 Cartoons in it, and a /Pictures and Sketches page similarly.

Alternatives:

Placing all content directly under the volume, as /Volume 147/<article name>. I don't generally like this approach - it feels like a category error to place whole issues and individual articles in the same place in the heirarchy.
Placing all content under the individual issue, as /Volume 147/Issue <issue>/<article name>. This is a good approach, but does have the downside of making linking to articles from the index much more of a manual effort than it would be if everything is placed in a non-hierarchical structure. Some automation should still be possible but it will involve me creating a table matching page ranges to issue numbers when I create the links (that'd be an after-my-summer-holiday project). I imagine this would be your preferred approach?

Qq1122qq (talk) 08:06, 20 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

@Billinghurst

Potential good news on the issue number front - I've been trawling through ebay sales and Google images and have managed to find enough 1913/1917 issues to reconstruct the issue numbers - it looks like 1st July 1914 is issue 3808, and it continues in sequence until at least 1st August 1917 which is issue 3969. That'll be enough to keep me going for a while!

This removes the issue I had with 'fake' issue numbers - I still like the date-based format but perhaps as redirect pages. Qq1122qq (talk) 08:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Everything from '/Articles/' has now been moved into the appropriate issue 'folder', and I'm going to start working through the other issues - I have everything from August - October proofread so there's quite a lot of article admin to do! Qq1122qq (talk) 12:02, 22 July 2023 (UTC)Reply

Index:The life and writings of Alexandre Dumas (1802-1870) (IA lifewritingsofal00spurrich).pdf

Latest comment: 9 months ago4 comments2 people in discussion

You marked this as "fully transcluded", but several pages were not transcluded. There is a button that allows you to identify which pages have not been transcluded. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:55, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey Interesting. I haven't looked at it properly for a while (since transcluding it a couple of years ago) so I'll see what's missing. Qq1122qq (talk) 18:09, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

@EncycloPetey Okay, I've slightly 'widened' the trancluded page ranges - the only things missing now are completely blank 'not to be proofread' pages. Do you want those included in the transclusion as well? Qq1122qq (talk) 18:16, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

Blank pages do not need to be included. I usually try to avoid transcluding them, but other people do when they set page ranges. The important thing is to not be leaving out content pages. --EncycloPetey (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2025 (UTC)Reply

New texts

Latest comment: 9 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Thank you for the new texts that you are adding to the list. Please remember to "Have a descriptive edit-summary of the work being added to help enable management of this page". Thanks -- Beardo (talk) 18:36, 2 March 2025 (UTC)Reply

my solo work

Latest comment: 7 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Your remodeling of the page made me think you were running a project with other people. I am sorry I was wrong about that and please accept my apologies for any part of the following that I got wrong: "It looks like a pack of en.wikipediers taking over The Strand".

So, I also wanted to show you my solo magazine work. I am needing to redo many parts of this as I did not abide by the wikisource rules. I was tackling St. Nicholas/Volume 32, which occurs in 2 parts and was very depressing to look at. I only got 1/3 of the way through and I cannot remember the reason I stopped, but I sure enough enjoyed it. Number 5 I did not complete. Number 1, Number 2, Number 3, Number 4 were completed, however. One per month.

Check out the main page for that: St. Nicholas yet another wonderful thing all in red. I got so I did not look at it and now that I have, I am going to add the year navigation to it. It has its own bunch of first publishings.

I had in mind, lately, showing all of the numbers of the current Public Domain year/month, like for this month and year (2025 April) it would be April 1929 and also, a year/month of numbers from a past year -- so that many people might know they are available to be worked on. Some of the joys of solo work would go away, but getting a huge lot of unfinished works might happen.

Also, I really was sorry when I reverted your page, because it is very nice looking and well crafted. Wikisource is a lot more scholarly though, at least in my experience. They do laws here and court cases. Patents. And technical! Finally the public domain year is starting to encompass technology that has been more directly built upon for the devises and stuff we use now (or at least in the very recent past).

It will never be complete, the works here. Oh, maybe some short run mags will be completed, but they have advertisements or mentions for others, so not really complete.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 17:37, 20 April 2025 (UTC)Reply

Aristotelian fractals

Latest comment: 6 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Maybe it wasn't Aristotle, but one of those Greeks wrote about the four humours or humors. Labile, phlematic, -, -. Since then we are all living in a variation of that. Very easy to map with a fractal.

When in crowds, I like to know what the big two of the humours I am in comparison with others. Then an "am I happy" can be answered. Honest, productive and usually nice but always kind. For if you should be here doing this, also.

I love the magazines! Blackwoods weather! Punch's cartoons! Here, where they can be documented.

I am very jealous. I was very happy doing magazines here, still am, actually but really very jealous. My favorite winter.

I like to dislike your presentation. It is English Wikipedia. My "first set" of Wikimedia rules came from the commons 2007 to 2012. The closest set of rules to this now days is probably gutenberg. But I upload originals when I can both time wise and project wise.

I am also thinking that a "cite this" rampage here would be fun and interesting. Modern cite this is with wikidata.

I just hope that you are happy here. Happy enough maybe. Productive is awesome.

It would be nice to have a layout like yours on a calendar. I used some of my spare time working on issues from the same month of other magazines. It was interesting. I think also that header and footer need to be filled before they should be there, on the index page. A bridge where we can work together seamlessly.

I love your magazines. I love them as honestly and precisely as I can. And I hate things quite a bit. Thank you.

Also, cow say is my least favorite thing.

This is going to end with Portal versus Main. It was gallery versus category at the commons. I am ending the layout difference by conceding the Portal space to you. That's as fast forward thru the style war as I can go.--RaboKarbakian (talk) 13:35, 19 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Page:The Radio Times, 1923-09-28.pdf/7

Latest comment: 6 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I note that each of the sections starts with a word in small capitals. Do you not want to include that in the transcription ? -- Beardo (talk) 21:51, 25 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Beardo I will probably update it when I'm next free too (I have some pressing family issues happening right now), but I'll be annoyed at myself for doing so, as I already think WS has got too obsessed with matching specific book presentation styles rather than semantics and content. If people want something that looks exactly like the original then that's what the PDF version is for... So it'll be done, but I'll be calling myself a hypocrite while I do it.

Qq1122qq (talk) 02:33, 26 May 2025 (UTC)Reply

Author:William Wymark Jacobs

Latest comment: 3 months ago2 comments2 people in discussion

What was the point of adding "see also The Monkey's Paw" when that just redirects to the same place as the preceeding link ? Am I missing something ? -- Beardo (talk) 18:24, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

I was just collapsing down two entries into one - but given that it redirects then we might as well remove one of them. If you don't do it then I'll do it the next time I add something to W. W. Jacobs' page (we're getting to the stage in my project of working through The Strand Magazine contents pages where he's contributing pretty much a story a month so that won't be too long). Qq1122qq (talk) 22:17, 22 August 2025 (UTC)Reply

Author:Rudolph Stratz

Latest comment: 1 month ago11 comments2 people in discussion

Is the Punch review written by Rudolph Stratz, or is the article a review of something he wrote? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The review is of the named book. Happy to separate into two sections (one referencing the book and the other the review - what would the name of the section be?). Qq1122qq (talk) 21:21, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

That depends. I still don't know who wrote the article. Was the article in Punch written by Rudolph Stratz or by someone else? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The reviews in Punch are written by anonymous staff members. In this case (and the others I'll be adding given the 'populate' nudge) it's a review of a book someone wrote - in this case by Rudolph Stratz. Qq1122qq (talk) 21:31, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

So, you are saying the review article was written by Rudolph Stratz? Or was the book written by Rudolph Stratz, and the article about the book written by someone else? I still can't tell from your answer whether you are saying the Punch article was written by Rudolph Stratz, or whether the book discussed in the article was written by Rudolph Stratz, because the final clause in your reply has an unclear referent. Please provide a straightforward answer: Did Rudolph Stratz write the Punch article? --EncycloPetey (talk) 21:39, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

I have gone to the article to try to figure this out for myself. It looks as though the article is about something Stratz wrote, but is not written by Stratz. That means the {{populate}} tag should remain on the page. The populate tag should only be removed when a work in English by that Author (or by that Author and translated into English) exists on the page. The Punch article does not appear to be authored by Stratz. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

"His English Wife" is a book written in 1915 by Rudolph Stratz.

It was reviewed in 1915 in an issue of Punch.

I'm not sure why you've removed it from the Works section, given that "His English Wife" is a work, written by Rudolph Stratz, in 1915.

Thank you for putting the Review of Stratz's work in a different section, although I don't like the title 'Works about Stratz', as a review isn't a work *about the author*, but about *something the author has written*. It seems to be the standard nomenclature used on WS, though, so it must make sense to other people. Qq1122qq (talk) 22:51, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

The list item is for the Punch article, which does not appear to be written by Stratz. I moved it because Stratz did not write the article in Punch. I do not understand why you keep claiming he wrote the Punch article. If you have evidence Stratz wrote the article for Punch, please provide that evidence.

I looked, and cannot find evidence His English Wife ever existed in English. I can only find the German Seine englische Frau. I have looked in several scan repositories and databases. I cannot determine from the Punch article whether the book was translated, or whether the title was translated for purposes of the article. If you can find a scan or catalog record for the book in English, please provide it. The Punch article is ambiguous on this point. --EncycloPetey (talk) 22:57, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

If that was the focus of your issue with having His English Wife listed as a work then it would have been good to know in the first place - thank you for clarifying.

No, I have made no effort to look up His English Wife in catalogue records and do not intend to do so. It would surprise me that Punch reviewed a book only published in German, but I suppose it's possible.

In future I will remind myself not to use the existence of a review of a book to infer that the book exists - this will probably mean that I'll just leave more empty Author pages as I do not have the time to perform bibliographic research. Qq1122qq (talk) 23:07, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Please keep in mind that the community is entertaining the idea of deleting empty Author pages. We are looking at setting a minimum standard of knowing that there is a work hostable on English Wikisource in order to keep the page, much like Wikipedia has notability requirements. --EncycloPetey (talk) 23:19, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Having said that,

Here's the Worldcat entry for "His English Wife". https://search.worldcat.org/title/6004812
Page 4 of this issue of the Telegraph has an advert for it. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/03210/Telegraph1915_1003_3210569a.pdf
Here's a footnote reference to the English translation of it in a transcription of a different text https://www.isle-of-man.com/manxnotebook/history/intrn_ww1/insel/p211.htm#sdendnote3sym

All of these were linked from the Google search for the book: https://www.google.com/search?q=%22his+english+wife%22%2C+author+Rudolph+Stratz%2C+published+in+1915+by+arnold%22

You may want to widen your research from your 'several scan repositories and databases'.

I have no idea why you assumed that the work did not exist given the review of it in a middlebrow publication which would definitely not assume that its readers could read German.

Goodnight. Qq1122qq (talk) 23:26, 15 October 2025 (UTC)Reply

Page 24 of this NYT issue

Latest comment: 10 minutes ago3 comments2 people in discussion

It has two images which don't seem to be connected to any article. How should I transcribe them? Nighfidelity (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

@Nighfidelity Great work on the NYT! Yes, it looks as though there are articles about Syracuse and Brown on the page, but nothing specifically referring to those pictures. Options:

1) Have a small article which is literally the title and the two images

2) Include the images in both the articles on that page that reference Syracuse and Brown.

A small image-only article isn't the worst shout in the world for that page, as it looks like there are millions of other tiny one/two sentence articles there as well. Qq1122qq (talk) 08:02, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the help! Nighfidelity (talk) 19:14, 5 December 2025 (UTC)Reply