@ Jane again: I'd better look before, and talk after.... I see a collection jpg's from scans, not a djvu file or a Index: page into a wikisource project. :-)
So I presume that I can't find any pagelist tag..... :-) Did you personally scan those pages? Did you scan all the pages of the book (if it's a book...)? Do you know if any complete scan of the book has been published previously (into Internet Archive, Google books, or other digital libraries)? Next time if you scan or take pictures to all the pages of a book, and load all the images to Commons, some willing wikisourcian could mount them into a multipage djvu file and to open an Index: page to proofread it into a wikisource project. 2013/6/7 Alex Brollo <alex.bro...@gmail.com> > Thanks for suggestions.... I can only promise, I'll think about them. The > question by Micru is particularly hard. :-( > > @ Jane: I've to read your mail again and again; nevertheless a well > compiled pagelist tag can really identify into a unique way any page of the > book, even if they have no page number, and tl|Pg manages djvu page/book > page relationship easily even if book page is identified by something like > "Figure 1, Figure 2....". I'll take a look at your book. > > Alex > > > 2013/6/7 Jane Darnell <jane...@gmail.com> > >> I have been wondering the same thing for years. When I upload prints >> to Wikimedia Commons, I am generally in a hurry and just use the >> default uploader to get it out there. Weeks or months or sometimes >> years later I will add in the detailed metadata like the book it was >> first published in, alternate sources for the print from the one I >> used, the publisher if that is a different person than the artist, >> etc. What I don't bother with is page numbers, because this is often >> unknown and changes from edition to edition. You can get around this >> problem by naming specific editions held in specific libraries with >> specific page numbers, which I have done occasionally. Some prints are >> so well known they go by their own titles, and the Wikimedia Commons >> artwork template even has a field "Original title" to deal with this >> issue. >> >> When you go through an index of plates in any older book, generally >> there are some mistakes, such as blank pages that are indexed because >> the plate didn't make it to the printer, some plates the printer added >> that didn't make it into the index, and of course the really confusing >> one, the prints that a reprinter added that neither the original >> author nor the original publisher ever saw. >> >> One reason I have not spent much time on Wikisource is because I feel >> I have to decide up front what the structure of the book will be with >> page numbering (which sometimes does not count the plates), so I need >> to base this on the original index or original list of chapters. >> Sometimes a book becomes famous just for one passage, and that passage >> may not even be indexed in the original version. How do you add these >> links? On Wikimedia Commons you can keep on adding values to fields, >> and change the "Information" template to "Artwork" to get more fields. >> You can even add annotations to files and then put links to other >> files in the annotations, so that through the "Global usage" property >> you can see where such prints have been "quoted" or re-used. How do >> you do this with books? >> >> I would like to see a flexible way to set this up that makes it easy >> to come back and make corrections or additions to the published >> information in both indexes and ToC's based on later discovery. This >> book of prints for example shows a page order based on one edition >> that was reproduced in facsimile version, but other versions exist >> with different plates: >> >> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:32_afbeeldinge_der_Graven_van_HOLLANDT >> How do you set up page numbers for this, because there weren't any to >> start with? >> Jane >> >> 2013/6/7, Andrea Zanni <zanni.andre...@gmail.com>: >> > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:36 AM, David Cuenca <dacu...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> >> Automatic creation of page transclusion is nice but also dangerous... >> too >> >> many structures to have an easy solution. >> > >> > >> > What Alex is thinking, if I understand his work correctly, is that when >> you >> > work on a new book in nsPage, >> > you "define" what the structure is (his work right now is wrapping >> > titles/chapters in {{title}} templates, to give the book a logic >> > structure), and then a bot runs, create corrispondent ns0 chapters and >> > transclude pages. >> > >> > I think that ns0 automation is something long needed, as we could >> suggest >> > users to focus just on nsPage and Indexes. All the difficult >> transclusion >> > part would be automatic (or semi-automatic). >> > >> > I wonder if there is a better way to define the logic structure of our >> > book, maybe directly in the Index page. >> > I don't know what would be easier for the user: >> > * define the table of content once for all in the Index page >> > * define the table of content once in the book Toc (there is often one, >> if >> > not always, when needed) >> > * define the table of content just putting templates thorough the book, >> as >> > the reader goes through the book. >> > >> > What do you all think? >> > >> > Aubrey >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Wikisource-l mailing list >> Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >> > >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list Wikisource-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
