Hello, Lusanaherandraton, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here. If you need help, see our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). You can discuss or ask questions from the community in general at the Scriptorium. The Community Portal lists tasks you can help with if you wish. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me on my talk page. :)

Agrippa's Three Books formattingEdit

I'd prefer not to divide it up in ways that weren't present in the original book. There are other ways to keep the main page tidy if need be — each book's contents could be a subpage, or we could add columns (which I'm trying now). Another possibility would be having expandable subsections (via collapsible tables), but Wikisource doesn't seem to allow that currently. -- (talk) 17:23, 7 December 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Just a heads up to say I have left comments at Talk:Three Books of Occult Philosophy. Keep up the good work! Suicidalhamster (talk) 15:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Three Books of Occult Philosophy and The Fourth BookEdit


I've recently worked with User:Inductiveload to upload the complete set of images for Three Books of Occult Philosophy and I've Matched and split them so that they are all available to transclude on their respective chapters. This allows us to see the click the little [page] button that you mentioned on the talk page and view the text side by side with the image for better proofreading. We've also uploaded the images for the Fourth Book of Occult Philosophy though I haven't matched and split them yet as my focus is on the original volume. If you're interested, we've also uploaded the original 1533 Köln edition (Latin) and a German edition of Book II known as Magische Werke" (lit. Magick Works). I hope you are still around because this is a huge undertaking. Feel free to e-mail me if you want to discuss the work itself, aside from the editing, which is best discussed on our talk pages or the text's talkpage. Thanks!--Doug (talk) 18:31, 9 December 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hey! I'm glad to see that you haven't left the project! It's a huge book and I was afraid it was going to be me alone. Don't worry about the "match and split" concept. Basically, it just took an OCR text layer that was part of page scans and (tried) to match it up with the text we had. The only reason we can't display the text now is that the match and split had a lot of trouble with the poor OCR layer and all the long-s charachters (ſ). The important thing is that the crappy text layer doesn't actually affect the quality of out text, it just mis-aligns it, so we could get the text back up pretty quickly if we went though and instead of proofing every page just made sure it was aligned with the page it belongs with. So if you get time, I recommend you spend it checking the text on the bottom and top of each page and then moving any text that needs to be moved to get it to align. For example, on this page (grabbed at random):Page:Three_Books_of_Occult_Philosophy_(De_Occulta_Philosophia)_(1651).djvu/128, you'll notice that the text starts with "binding, which comes from the spirit", but if you compare it to the side-by-side image, you can see that it's missing the first three words on the page. I would just type those in, but they are invariably lying on the bottom of the previous page. The same with the top and bottom of every page and they may be several pages off in some cases. There are a few pages that are completely blank and that means the text is way off in that area, so much so that there was no text in that area the bot could match (or that the text layer wasn't even there for that image), so we just have to manually match it up. Once it's all matched up, it will be at least as good as it was. The only other thing necessary to get the page on the mainspace is to figure out which pages go with which chapters and that shouldn't be too hard because I already proofed the index at the back which is structured as a TOC, so we can probably match them up easily. Don't mark the text as proofread though, it will need to have the drop-initials and chapter headings fixed and the long-s's dealt with and we need to make sure there aren't any words left in [brackets] because those are editorial notes from esotericarchives and, although they probably aren't enough to create a copyright, it's close and they aren't original and we want original (we might consider going back and linking some words to wiktionary (or Wikipedia) later (and wiktionary might even want to link back!). If we can get through those two things (page alignment and what pages go with what chapters), I can have it back up in a jiffy. Regarding the other two works I mentioned, they are both missing OCR layers, so I'm deferring any work on them. I have uploaded the page scans of Whiteheads 1898 "translation" (he really just edited it to change the 17th C. language and remove sexual references), but it's not worth much as it's only Book I. Also, I matched and split the sections of the Fourth Book that we have. The other sections could easily be imported from Esoteric Archives and matched and split as well and I can handle that when I get a chance. I'm requesting bot approval specifically for these projects and that will help with things like removing the [bracketed] words. Again, feel free to e-mail me or look me up on #Wikisource.--Doug.(talk contribs) 08:20, 19 January 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Yes, you understood me correctly. There is no good way to mark the text as aligned but not proofread, but if it has something special like a table or a graphic drop initial as the beginning of a chapter, you can mark it as problematic. In any case, I can tell because I'll see that you edited it. I haven't done much with Three Books lately, I've been busy with other things. I do have a bot now and I'm also an admin so if there is a mess up that we need to delete or something like that, just let me know. The reason to not mark them as proofread is there are some errors in the esotericarchives copy and some annotations that we don't want and if you mark it as proofread some people will read it very fast to validate it and this text needs a very careful read by someone who cares about the text.--Doug.(talk contribs) 07:15, 1 May 2011 (UTC)Reply[reply]