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 <[email protected]> > 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 <[email protected]>: > > On Fri, Jun 7, 2013 at 1:36 AM, David Cuenca <[email protected]> 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 > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l >
_______________________________________________ Wikisource-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikisource-l
