User talk:Tar-ba-gan/2014

Moving Your Files to Wikimedia Commons

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

Hello Tar-ba-gan/2014!

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.

• Upload a file to Wikimedia Commons
• Wikimedia Commons Welcome Page
• A guide to contributing content to Wikimedia Commons

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 04:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)

Primes in Wade-Giles

Hi Tar-ba-gan. Is there a reason to use primes rather than apostrophes for the Wade-Giles transcriptions in Chinese Life in the Tibetan Foothills? They look like apostrophes to me in the scanned images, and Wikipedia says that Wade-Giles uses apostrophes. But I'm no expert—should they actually be primes? Mr. Granger (talk) 17:03, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hello! Thanks for your good job! I am sorry, I do not know any good reasons, for me it is all the same since there is just one uniform symbol used in transcription. I believe it was User:Wylve who used to do exactly the same contribution on that book, who took care to change apostrophes to something else earlier. I had good faith in his edits, and just carried on doing the same. You might wish to ask him why apostrophes seem to be inadequate. I am sure there is some good explanation to it. BR, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 17:11, 18 March 2014 (UTC)

Hi. Technically speaking, Wade-Giles does not use apostrophes, but a symbol called ayn (ʽ). This symbol cannot be directly inserted using a normal QWERTY keyboard. When I do transcriptions, I follow the convention carried out by the scan, regardless of their adherence to the Wade-Giles romanization. I would discourage the use of the prime symbol, unless the scan uses it as well. --Wylve (talk) 12:01, 20 March 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Tar-ba-gan. You have new messages at Wylve's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

—Wylve (talk) 01:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

An author in question

Hi. Just for my own benefit, how do you know that Joseph Chamberlain was the author of of this article? I looked everywhere, especially at the US Library of Congress and found no mention that he traveled to the north or wrote books. — Ineuw talk 04:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I understand how this may be confusing. It took me some research. I decided to resolve the issue of having multiple "initials only" authors that day, and this is my search history: Chamberlain Lapland, which does not return the exact article title, but page 2 of the search definitely states Joseph had been there and it was meaningful enough to be in his biography at Archive.org. Now, in the article itself (check note at bottom of page) it is said,

From an article entitled "A Visit to Lapland, with Notes on Swedish Licensing," Fortnightly Review, December, 1876.

And the latter title makes search a lot more precise: Joseph Chamberlain "A Visit to Lapland". I did an extra thing reading through this paper I found in the search results: Chamberlain Family Collection at Birmingham University web site. Best regards, Tar-ba-gan (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

Now that I think about it (it was a while ago), "C Chamberlain Lapland" search was what actually returned that Birmingham University family paper collection in the first place, and later I verified the identity of the author by more searches. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 06:39, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I wear no hat, but will to put on one so that I can take it off for you. I learned something very important. Thanks for the instructions.— Ineuw talk 06:51, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

I had not been thinking about instructions, honestly, and I was very flattered by the what you said, so much that I could not respond with coherence immediately :-) My work mostly concerns a very specal interest, and I tend to think it hardly ever gets noticed. I think it was my prior experience on Rodovid.org that had taught me there were a lot of family trees/family archive descriptions available online, and the information in them is sometimes quite enough to resolve questions. There were puzzles that could be solved because litterati normally have people around them who sort out old papers and documents. I am also embarrassed coz I　ｈａｖｅ　ｎｏ　ｉｄｅａ　ｈｏｗ　ｔｏ　ｕｓｅｎ　ｔｈｅ　US Library of Congress．　ＢＲ， Tar-ba-gan (talk) 07:13, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Talkback

Hi Tar-ba-gan, I've noticed that you left a talkback message on my talk page, but I can't seem to find the message addressed to me. What is it that you want to discuss? —Wylve (talk) 09:36, 10 May 2014 (UTC)

Completing your selections of interests

Hi. I noticed your recent post and feel free to complete any article you wish. . . . . especially, The Popular Science Monthly Project articles. . Editors wishing to retain articles for completion by themselves should save the page using either {{Under construction}} or {{In use}} templates.— Ineuw talk 18:07, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

May I have your opinions with regards this page, please?

Hello.

I proofread the above page before it occurred to me the two images fitted together into a single map (to view this effect edit the page and preview, because the default browse view is too narrow and the images wrap... this is also why I specified the two images with slightly different sizes so they "kind of" fit. See edit history.) Now my question is this: do you think This page ought to "match the book layout" (i.e. split images) or should the map be presented as a reassembled, single image? There are a few other pages which could be similarly affected so I'll stop for a while until you let me know if you have a preferred way of proceeding.

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 10:23, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think you came to some perfect solution, because it maintains original layout on most displays (or I believe so) but displays a continous image. I transcluded some chapters to observe what it looked like: Twentieth Century Impressions of Hongkong, Shanghai, and other Treaty Ports of China/Hongkong (Descriptive)

It takes me a bit long to understand. Are you talking about creating a new single image file out of two or more? I am not sure. I remember I had consulted someone about what to do with misplaced images (some images are 2 pages away from the paragraph they illustrate), and I was told that I should transclude text and images separately in these cases, so that images match text when transcluded, but match page otherwise. Following this logic, you might use separate images in pages, and use a new "reassembled" image in transcluded pages.

Personally, if I were still attempting to work on cutting images, I would have cared more about cutting rather than merging images, for the following reason: there are a lot of items and especially persons that I would like to be transcluded separately, as a kind of a dictionary or encyclopedia. And these people / places could go with their own image instead of a collective photo...

Generally, I am happy you care about this book at all, so whatever you do is fine. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 13:45, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

By good fortune your transclusion above captured my "other experiment in craziness", being the combined result of page 150 and page 151. The two panoramic shots fit together this way, whereas the "true-to-the-book" approach slices them such that a casual reader might think two "slices" are not even captioned. If you can cope with this I'll carry on in similar fashion unless it gets just too mad.

As Ineuw has done such a superb job on the images (I have only found one I needed to add that he had missed so far) I have no intention of making fundamental changes to his system. Just occasionally as you have just seen the opportunity arises that a bit of careful formatting can place two separate file-images adjacent to one another so that the final result approximates a single image. As quite a few of the montages contain sub-images skewed from the vertical I think attempting to break them up would be detrimental to the result at best and in any case I have tried to compensate by giving similarly "uneven" captioning to the book (e.g.) to as clearly indicate which sub-image is being captioned as possible.

I probably should have made this point earlier but as you may have noticed I am attempting to attack the pages marked "Problematic" first. If that makes my edits look rather random I hope you now know why. Good to hear you appear to be generally happy with the results so far. Please continue to keep an eagle eye out for any aberrations I miss (or accidentally create! I have spotted the occasional—say "u"/"ū"/"ü"—case where I have been a little uncertain which alternative to choose.) AuFCL (talk) 22:47, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your involvement, and explanations! I will keep an eye on the ü's, it may be more like what I normally do on Wikisource (example of a page w/ special chars).

Do you think using hairspace is a good idea? I used to like it, because it looks so nice in Firefox, but now I am finding it may not be good in all browsers. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 03:01, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

PS yes I noticed the HK panoramas, great job! (while most of the buildings in the book do not exist anymore, the rugged misty shores of HK is something I see every 3 months or so, even if I come there for an hour). Tar-ba-gan (talk) 03:07, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Ooo. Italics and diacritics—nightmares! Regarding the hairspaces I too am using F/F so do not mind. However I believe Beeswaxcandle(?) mentioning hairspaces messing up certain epub readers and so I have tended not to use them except when somebody else has already set the precedent (as you have in this case.) AuFCL (talk) 03:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I guess it is the time I stop (not sure if it is going to affect 100% books I work on but the Hongkong book is sure the case). I finally used someone's Internet Explorer to see how it just looks ugly (blue frame around each hairspace). I did not know about epub, thanks for telling. I have a lot of other things to format, that are higher priority (say, in my case special chars in abundance in 2 high-priority books, and all over Sacred Books of the East where I am interested in half a dozen volumes). The Hongkong book is just too large to care about things like this. I won't care to remove those hairspaces already done. You are welcome to use them or not. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 04:25, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

It is incredible what you did, all this obsolete taxonomy typed in! I can hardly believe. I spent quite some time earlier today just establishing the spelling for some of those butterflies. Have you learned Latin or some serious age-old Biology?

On a related note, I think most or all images in this book (except for small ones that we have a few or do not have at all) look best centered on the page, dividing the text. I am using small monitors, and horizontally oriented images never look good if they are left- or right-aligned with text on the side. Also, it makes the whole task simpler, or so it seems to me. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

(If the above was intended for me?) I noticed some image adjustments. As I happened to start on maps I got into the habit of setting everything 600px which I began to realise is too large for just about everything else. Would it be acceptable if I do any future images as 400px centred (i.e. irrespective of the scan layouts) and perhaps anything "landscape" (maps, panoramas etc.) can be 600px? I noticed Ineuw seems to like 430px which I haven't quite figured out the reason for. AuFCL (talk) 10:31, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry I am still using my discussion page instead of yours (it was intended for you and I should have done it on your talk page). Whatever image width you consider good, is fine with me. Yes, centered is the best for reasons I brought up above. Thanks for your good works! Tar-ba-gan (talk) 11:53, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for formatting and especially for pointing out the turtle image is misplaced in the book. WHen we have all images centered, it is easy to transclude the turtle to a more appropriate place. It is a regular feature of this book. Look at Mr. Mody, his picture is in the middle of the previous page. I haven't found out though how to best transclude the chunks of text that result (with an irrelevant break now) when I transclude a section without a central portion though (Mody's picture was breaking up this section). Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:00, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Lotus Sutra

I saw your recent edit on Lotus Sutra and read an example of your input at Commons. I appreciate your efforts to produce a complete digital copy of this book, because the version published by Sacred Texts (and several copies of this version on the internet) does include the diacritics but it does not include the pagination, introduction and notes. The complete versions of this book at the Internet Archive are very large PDF files that are unsuitable for e-readers. It might be a good idea to include the original pagination. This could assist readers in citing passages from the LS. JimRenge (talk) 09:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the links and advice Jim! Now I know what to do if I am tired of diacritics, just copy them.

As for pagination, it is there. Inside the chapters, page numbers are on the left from the text. You can also observe the Index file page that allows me to work on pages one by one, and others to evaluate the work progress. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 09:44, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, you might just focus on adding the notes, appendices etc. The diacritics in the notes, intro and appendices will be enough trouble. Cheers JimRenge (talk) 09:58, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Page access and image name for the Twentieth Century project

To simplify your editing and image issues, I created this this list which displays the image name and the page it's on. Page access with image names for the project Ineuw (talk) 23:19, 7 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks a lot! I noticed! Great job! Tar-ba-gan (talk) 04:42, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I am now completely confused regarding Twentieth Century Impressions..page 840

As far as I can tell in this change you:

• validated the page (which indicates you are completely happy with the result); as well as
• tagged it with {{missing image}} (which overtly contradicts the above point); whilst
• removing the very image the prior point is apparently complaining about!

Pardon me if this judgement seems harsh, but just what do you want to actually do because I cannot draw any usable conclusions from this event. Did you want to move that final image outside section "s4" perhaps? AuFCL (talk) 23:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

No idea how that happened. I do not normally remove anything. Slip of hand? Or maybe servers that failed to show recent changes to me? I am even more confused than you, for I know I ain't got any cats to walk across my keyboard that may cause stuff like that. Sorry anyway. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 04:13, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I apologize for butting in. I fixed it because I misunderstood this post completely, (not difficult for me to misunderstand) I also don't know how it happened perhaps the page editing history can shed some light? I also looked at the page earlier to check the running header --— Ineuw talk 05:16, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for taking care of it Ineuw, I appreciate it. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 05:38, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Another 20thC Impressions.. puzzle

Hi.

I noted you marked the above page "Problematic"; but apart from the wrapping not being too precise (which I hope I have now addressed) would you please be so kind as to detail what appears to be wrong with it? It seems O.K. now, so is there a browser issue, perhaps?

Regards, AuFCL (talk) 06:04, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

It is as simple as that. Mr. Medhurst and his position appear in different places, and I have not been able to fix that (owing to lack of concentration and that I am not familiar with the tagging that you are using in this particular instance). It is a minor thing, but enough to revert status to problematic. I am amazed at how swiftly you responded, this is great, since for my part I will be having less time to spend on Wikisource in the next 6 months. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:51, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Amusing aside: You might have noticed Medhurst was misplaced; the one which was bothering me was Lammert—I never noticed Medhurst at the time! This kind of wrapping problem can be incredibly sensitive to font size; and gets worse the larger the font chosen. Wrapping the names in width: CSS makes the entries immune to problems, but looks incredibly unwieldy and hard to separate content from control text. AuFCL (talk) 19:24, 16 September 2014 (UTC)

Chapter headings in 'The Development of Navies During the Last Half-Century'

Hullo. Just wondering if you’re going to add {{sp}} to all of the chapter headings of The Development of Navies During the Last Half-Century, as you did with chapter 4? Not that I have an opinion on whether they should be spaced or not! I'm not saying it's a prob, just thinking that all the chapters should be the same. :-) Thanks! — Sam Wilson ( Talk • Contribs ) … 06:52, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Done them all/ Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:24, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Re: Help needed: Dotted Page Listing / Bottom dotend text problem

I saw your question before you removed it again. I think the point was valid, even though the {{dotted TOC page listing}} family of templates is getting pretty complicated. /bottom simply lacked the code which the documentation indicated it ought to have, so I have pasted it in and the result (in this case) is this. I hope that is what you wanted? AuFCL (talk) 23:44, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

Yes exactly! Thanks a lot! I understood it was about some careful copypasting between templates, but I do not do things like those these days, shorter attention span/ Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:26, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Index:Japanese Gardens (Taylor).djvu

Hi, I noticed that there were problems with the pdf version of this file that you uploaded a while back. So, I've replaced it with the djvu, which seems to be behaving much better. Have fun, Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks! I feel embarrassed, you are being very kind. I stopped working on that book because of that pdf problem, so now some progress can be made. I never did this job myself because I decided that it was outside of my scope and has images, something I am not comfortable with these days at all. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 13:58, 13 November 2014 (UTC)