Index talk:Cyclopaedia, Chambers - Volume 1.djvu
Latest comment: 12 years ago by George Orwell III in topic File problems
File problems edit
Please list missing/duplicate/unreadable/etc. issues as you come across them. -- George Orwell III (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
Letter A ( Starts: DjVu/46 - Ends: DjVu/224 )
- scan pages numbered 89 thru 96 missing between DjVu positions 136 and 137
- scan pages numbered 155 thru 160 missing between DjVu positions 199 and 200
Letter B ( Starts: DjVu/225 - Ends: DjVu/287 )
Letter C ( Starts: DjVu/287 - Ends: DjVu/524 )
- DjVu positions 291 thru 294 repeat scan page numbering 141 to 144 at DjVu positions 295 thru 298. Content appears to be correct & unique however.
- scan pages numbered 175 & 176 (DjVu positions 329 and 330) have partial content missing in the original scanning.
Letter D ( Starts: DjVu/525 - Ends: DjVu/624 )
Letter E ( Starts: DjVu/625 - Ends: DjVu/746 )
Letter F ( Starts: DjVu/747 - Ends: DjVu/859 )
Letter G ( Starts: DjVu/860 - Ends: DjVu/948 )
Letter H ( Starts: DjVu/949 - Ends: DjVu/1044 )
- All the above problems appear to be simple numbering errors in the original document, which is very common in books of this era, which were often typeset in blocks by different workers. I doubt that there are 10 pages worth of entries between "Angelici" and "Angeronalia", or five pages between "Assistant" and "Assistants". These numbering errors are seen in reverse in the duplication of numbers in the C's. Inductiveload—talk/contribs 01:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Humbug. Look at the extreme bottom right of any page (well most pages) for the word or partial word that should appear at the very begining of the page that immediately follows it. I was only trying point out what I believed to be obvious defects in the original scan based on that simple test. Sorry if it offended. Get Merry! anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- It didn't offend, in fact I am grateful for the work you did in localising the letter boundaries (and for checking so carefully each page). I have myself spent a long fruitlessly checking the page numbers of the Philosophical Transactions before concluding that the original compilers were just not as thorough as they might (dare I say should?) have been. I do find it unlikely that some 7% of all the "A" pages fall between two words sharing the first four letters, especially when Croker's 1764's Dictionary goes from Angelica to Angeronalia in the same column of the same page, despite having more "A" pages than Chambers'. If you find that there really are pages there, I will gladly eat my words (we get 15 more content pages, which would be good however you slice it). However, I have looked and can't find alternative scans, or a reliable transcription not based on our scans. Merry Christmas! (or appropriate seasonal equivalent, gotta stay PC! ;-). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- I may have been premature in giving an exact number of missing pages when all I really wanted to point out before anybody started to proofread the volume was that some kind of gap &/or overlap exists. After "fixing" a number of Djvu's by inserting/padding/deleting pages after-the-fact, I wanted to get the full picture of everything that needed to be addressed prior to proofreading for a change. The only way to do that was to start mapping each letter's range and in the process one can't help but make note of the glaring discrepancies such as the above.
- This edition, by far, is the "oldest" one anywhere (unless something has changed since last November, that is) so it is certainly worth hosting. I recall little luck in ascertaining 100% that pages are indeed missing but definitions and words almost certainly do not jibe with the other online, but later, editions I found. My hope is/was that at the very least folks map out each volume per letter and at the most - insert blank spacers whenever it makes sense to just in case extra/missing pages are found somepoint in the future. It won't hurt anything as far as transclusion goes, the scan-page numbering isn't exactly going to be uninterupted as you've pointed out for this era and, in the end, can only add value to our copy over any others that may be out there somewhere, if at all (imho). -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:05, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- It didn't offend, in fact I am grateful for the work you did in localising the letter boundaries (and for checking so carefully each page). I have myself spent a long fruitlessly checking the page numbers of the Philosophical Transactions before concluding that the original compilers were just not as thorough as they might (dare I say should?) have been. I do find it unlikely that some 7% of all the "A" pages fall between two words sharing the first four letters, especially when Croker's 1764's Dictionary goes from Angelica to Angeronalia in the same column of the same page, despite having more "A" pages than Chambers'. If you find that there really are pages there, I will gladly eat my words (we get 15 more content pages, which would be good however you slice it). However, I have looked and can't find alternative scans, or a reliable transcription not based on our scans. Merry Christmas! (or appropriate seasonal equivalent, gotta stay PC! ;-). Inductiveload—talk/contribs 03:27, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
- Humbug. Look at the extreme bottom right of any page (well most pages) for the word or partial word that should appear at the very begining of the page that immediately follows it. I was only trying point out what I believed to be obvious defects in the original scan based on that simple test. Sorry if it offended. Get Merry! anyway. -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)