User talk:TheTechnician27
Welcome to Wikisource
Hello, TheTechnician27, 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:
- Help pages, especially for proofreading
- Help:Beginner's guide to Wikisource
- Style guide
- Inclusion policy
- Wikisource:For Wikipedians
You may be interested in participating in
Add the code {{active projects}}, {{PotM}} or {{Collaboration/MC}} 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.
Have questions? Then please ask them at either
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 username if you're logged in (or IP address if you are not) 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) 03:26, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A, vol. 184 update[edit]
There are no real missing pages. I have marked all “missing” pages per the JSTOR listing. They are blank pages used as padding in between articles. I will work on updating the page numbering regarding plates soon. Another note: It is general practice to mark pages as “problematic” if you have proofread them entirely, but an image is missing. Could you point me to the subscript that you mentioned? I can try to make it out. (Also, in the future, use {{illegible}} to mark such cases.) TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 23:20, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- Hi TE(æ)A,ea. I'll go through and mark those pages as problematic; I just wanted to mark them that way to keep track of the pages whose text I've proofread, but I can always leave a source comment at the top of the page. The superscript in questionn appears on page 1, and I've marked it with a source comment. I believe it's likely to be a '4' based on what I've read from the rest of the paper (including the equation immediately proceeding it, which leads me to believe only the coefficient was changed, not the exponent); however, it looks somewhat akin to a '5'. TheTechnician27 (talk) 23:31, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
- It seems that the square root notation was √{}; I have removed these curly brackets in the final product, because we use the modern notation (with a superior line). TE(æ)A,ea. (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
- TE(æ)A,ea.: Makes sense. Speaking of issues with math notation, I was wondering if you had an idea for how to fix page 48, equation number 5 (I've labeled them using source comments). The original text (rightfully) splits this monster into three lines, but unfortunately, I couldn't find a way to split the second third of the equation into another line, as it shares a bracket [] with the first part of the equation. As it has no way to wrap, this makes part of the equation unreadable, as it runs off the page. If you were wondering, by the way: yes, all of those pages between 48 and 55 are going to be as excruciatingly tedious as 48, so I'm probably getting around to them last. TheTechnician27 (talk) 00:40, 4 May 2021 (UTC)