User talk:Frigoris

Welcome to Wikimedia Commons, Frigoris!

First steps tutorial Our first steps tour and our FAQ will help you a lot after registration. They explain how to customize the interface (for example the language), how to upload files and our basic licensing policy. You don't need technical skills in order to contribute here. Be bold contributing here and assume good faith for the intentions of others. This is a wiki—it is really easy. Getting help More information is available at the community portal. You may ask questions at the help desk, village pump or on IRC channel irc:wikimedia-commons #wikimedia-commons (direct access). You can also contact an administrator on their talk page. If you have a specific copyright question, ask at Commons talk:Licensing.		Goodies, tips and tricks Put Babel boxes on your user page so others know what languages you can speak and indicate your graphic abilities. All your uploads are stored in your personal gallery Please sign your name on Talk pages by typing ~~~~ Use the CommonSense tool to find good categories for your files (then other people can find them too!) To link to an image page without embedding the image, type: [[:Image:Foo.jpg]], which produces: Image:Foo.jpg If you're copying files from another project, be sure to use the CommonsHelper Made a mistake? Did you want to rename or move a file? Simply upload the file again and mark the old one like this: {{bad name|correct name}} For more information read the full deletion guidelines.
(P.S. Would you like to provide feedback on this message?)

Welcome !!

Nice to see your new file(s) and welcome to Wikimedia Commons. Since you are starting on Commons, it would be nice to introduce you to some helps.

• Sarang is the most knowledgeable user I know about the ACClicenses template, if you need help, he may be the best choice.
• I myself been a good coordinator of the ACC project.
• Wargaz has been there for a long time and is knowledgeable as well.
• I don't know much Justinrleung because we've been active at different time, but he always made knowledgeable comments.

For your Clerical Han project, I encourage you to save the source of each your images (or did I missed it in the page?). There should be some way to pass it to the {ACCtemplate}. Also (noting that your are not a native English speaker ^^ ) feel free to ask us to clarify some points if needed.

PS: I finished the split between Clerical Han and Clerical font, I will return later to talk about it.

Have a nice day ! Yug (talk) 19:46, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Seeing your contributions (Special:ListFiles/Frigoris), it seems Category:Clerical Han script characters will be your playground ! Yug (talk) 19:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Thanks! I'm indeed fond of the clerical script. As for the source I will usually write a brief description in the 5th slot of {ACClicense} for the origin of the glyph, such as "武威簡" for the ink-on-wood codices unearthed in Wuwei. Is that what you mean by the source of each image? --Frigoris (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, I'am not familiar with this field (Clerical script). 武威簡 is a well known archaeological document, right ? Does it have pages/rolls numbers ? I'am thinking about "sources" as a published book and a page number or as a notorious/academic website and a character id to point to. The question is : can someone experienced with Clerical script use this information "武威簡·儀禮 (Western Han), Variant of 願" on File:願-clerical-Han-variant.svg to then go and check the original source ? If yes, then it's a valid source. Yug (talk) 09:42, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: Yes, I think the brief descriptions there were fairly good for identification. The sources I select from are fairly well-known sources of ancient scripts (they're mostly free from large gaps in the texts, and the texts are highly legible. The good thing about the Wuwei codices is that they were a copy of an extremely well-known and well-studied classic, the Yili). I'll probably add a bit more information about the chapter etc for better identification. --Frigoris (talk) 10:11, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This is acceptable

This may get a lift to show some margins.

That's good. How many references do you use ? Could you make a detailed list of these references ? I got an idea

I also noticed you moved toward the 300px/300px format, good. It's what we recommand : square svg, 300px sides, and 270px characters. You still have room to adapt as required by the glyph. By example, the File:春-clerical-Han.svg which is naturally quite flat therefor already has thin strokes and only very minor spikes left and right. Reducing the character width by 10% (to become 270px) would not help readability. So it's acceptable how it is.

On the other side, I may come to resize File:願-clerical-Han-variant.svg so the glyph fits a 270px/270px area within the 300px svg. Yug (talk) 11:57, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, thanks for the reminder. For the sources I have the copies of the following:

1. 儀禮·士相見 from Wuwei, (late) Western Han, highly legible
2. 石門頌, rubbing of stone carving, late Eastern Han, with legibility problems due to the uneven surface
3. fallbacks: The Clerical characters in the Sinica database. Problem: the high-pixel images from Sinica appear jagged, probably due to lack of resolution.

What is the idea that you've got? --Frigoris (talk) 12:39, 11 September 2020 (UTC) Also,  Done the resizing of File:願-clerical-Han-variant.svg --Frigoris (talk) 15:02, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

My idea is to create a template with a switch code, so given a key word it returns the full source.

{{#switch: ourKeyWord
 | "yili" = 儀禮·士相見 from Wuwei, (late) Western Han, highly legible
 | "shimen" = 石門頌, rubbing of stone carving, late Eastern Han, with legibility problems due to the uneven surfac
 | default "(clerical reference missing)"
}}

Alternatively, we may add your 3 references to Commons:Ancient_Chinese_characters_project#References, then a simple text title "Source: 儀禮·士相見 : 春" and hyperlink serving as pointer.

But we have solutions. Yug (talk) 14:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Clerical script sources

Hello @Yug: I'm not sure about the idea of making the Clerical Han script sources in a template. I don't think it's a good' choice to select from just those three sources, so I'm not sure if they're worthy of the "somewhat standard" status as implied by the inclusion into a template. I happen to use them mostly because I happen to have some photographic copies.

Also, each collection is typically fragmentary to some extent and plagued by problems such as weird choice of character-variant, bad handwriting, etc. That means I may run out of characters from my sources much sooner than I thought.

Finally the references are not really standardized. Overall I feel comfortable using just the field in {{ACClicense}} for comment about sources. --Frigoris (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello Frigoris, Sorry for digging in but we are soon done. :)

First, Ok for no templates, my idea was indeed excessive. No need for those.

Second point, the minimalist information you presently add to the ACClicense is light and makes good pointers. But toward what ? If we have them, the source document's archeology/historian/author's name, its book title, website, date of work would be welcome. Your comments on the photographs' quality and limitations as you mentioned above are also valuable infos. As of now, Commons:Ancient_Chinese_characters_project#References seems the most relevant place to store these. ACClicense does display some sources info on the form of "Website's name + link", in a very concise way, but it doesn't quite satisfy our current case.

Last, what do you mean by "I happen to have some photographic copies" ? Are those publications or personal photographs/pressing of ancient steles ? Personal photographs are fully accepted here on Commons and to illustrate articles. Since they are 2D reproduction of 2D works (arguably even the stones carving), these photographs or scan are de facto Public Domain and could themselves be scanned and upload to Commons without the book's author explicit authorization, if we wanted to.

PS: I'am pushing the explanations because I'am at it and most people ignore these cases, but it's possible you already know those things. Yug (talk) 14:29, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, thanks for the tips! I added the reference for clerical script. The sources themselves cannot be uploaded freely because in addition to the photographic reproductions, they also contain scholarly text by the editors (e.g. interpretation of ancient script as modern equivalent etc.). I'm using sample pages for the relevant texts in clerical script. Unfortunately, for now the books in the series cannot be shipped due to covid restrictions. --Frigoris (talk) 19:10, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Woow !! ISBNs ?! This is net, wonderful Yug (talk) 22:59, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

Frigoris hello, I think we are quite done on this side. This Clerical Han category is on solid tracks to go forward in an healthy way.

I encourage you to tag your past uploads under Category:ACC character to review. Each likely miss some minor information, or is not properly formatted. They will need review to check consistency later.

Also, I realized that we indeed already have a naming conventions for era. We use 馬-bronze-shang.svg, 馬-oracle-zhouyuan.svg, 馬-bronze-spring.svg, 馬-bronze-warring.svg, 馬-zhou.svg, 馬-mingti-kangxi.svg, so we must use lower case -clerical-han.svg and -clerical-qing.svg. I missed that point, so I will rename existing files accordingly. This doesn't seems too controversial so I will just move forward on this.

The contributions style I enjoy on the ACC project is generally via short 2-weeks sprints, to help organize things, so I will still pass by but I will also be less active within days. Thanks you for your uploads, it's a joy to see these old Chinese writings, drawn 2 millenia ago, pop up here on Commons to the benefice of all. Yug (talk) 14:37, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug: thanks, but are you sure about the -qing suffix? That the characters were sourced from a Qing-era book doesn't mean that the glyphs were written by Qing hands. The Libian book sources from mostly Eastern Han stone inscriptions. --Frigoris (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

For moving to lower case, yes, 100% sure (per above).

See history, we edit these files to harmonize them.

For technical («font») vs era name it's trickier.

Ideally we would find something in line with Template:Chinese characters naming's names. Others categories use era names (dynasties/kings suffixes) : 馬-bronze-shang.svg, 馬-oracle-zhouyuan.svg, 馬-bronze-spring.svg, 馬-bronze-warring.svg, 馬-zhou.svg, 馬-mingti-kangxi.svg.

But the ACC project has un unsolved tension between two opposite objectives, with the styles putting themselves along this spectrum :

• archaeologically accurate categories, which pick up actual glyphs (likes -clerical-han.svg, 馬-mingti-kangxi.svg)
• idealized categories, which represent idealized versions or either ancient styles (-seal.svg) or recent computer Mingti, Kaishu, Lishu ones. On this ones, we like to edit the glyph to smooth it up, harmonize stroke-width with other characters of the series in order to bring to light the "ideal", harmonized characters, like for fonts.

We will need categories for:

This is idealized representation of clerical, like fonts

• Han dysnasty clerical, of type archaeologically accurate
• modern clerical fonts, of type idealized
• does Qing dynasty clerical needs a category of type archaeologically accurate ?

From previous discussions I understand that what we commonly call "clerical", the style we see in computer fonts and in prints originate from the Qing dynasty printing press. So the last 2, clerical fonts and Qing's era printing blocks seems to me to be the same and should go to the same category. -font,svg suffix is still at odds with our other naming pattern dominated by era. It's a first. So I'am not comfortable using -font,svg. But since we don't have any other -font.svg to create a trend, -clerical-qing.svg could be at least align with existing categories.

But maybe we need to something entirely new, soon, to manifest the next series of fonts-based categories ? (for now I suggest -qing but I'am curious of your feedback now that I have exposed all my parameters, including both legacy and coming scripts+fonts generated categories). Yug (talk) 19:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

About fonts in the style of clerical script and their relevance to ancient glyphs here

Hello @Yug: thanks for your detailed response. I have no idea about the origins of modern computer fonts in the style of clerical script, especially whether they're related to traditional Chinese press-making; for all I know, the font forgers may simply hire some modern calligrapher who are informed by the vast body of historical calligraphy works before them. I agree that the glyphs generated by modern computer typesetting technology should be clearly marked, because they are not ancient characters.

I think that the Qing-era book Libian, as a catalogue of historical glyphs (mostly Han, but could include Wei/Jin, I need to check) remains largely valuable source of such historical glyphs. Within the technology available to the authors and publishers, the glyphs there can be considered "archaeologically accurate", although probably not more accurate than modern reproductions from the same sources (i.e. glyphs carved into stone). On this ground I believe it may be misleading to term them -clerical-qing. Perhaps -clerical-libian may be a better suffix (with the -libian as some sort of "artist" suffix?)

For the other topic, I agree that, if the -clerical.ext "namespace" (is that the correct word) is to be used for the "idealized" forms, just like the -seal Shuowen "seal scripts" (which I agree were idealized by historical hands), it is best kept separate from the "archaeological" glyphs by naming, so that one may safely proceed to harmonize them. --Frigoris (talk) 13:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

(1) -kangxi.svg is akin to an artist (individual)'s suffix. So it's already ok to create a set of uploads by calligrapher, patron, and/or style. Our conventions allows us to host -kaishu-Obama.svg, -xinshu-Obama.svg files.

(2) But in our case, if I understand well, Libian is a Qing dynasty author who collected and reproduced as accurately as the time allowed some earlier clerical-han and Wei/Jin calligraphy. Then, when you take out the technical limitation of his time, he actually wanted to produce accurate representations of clerical-han. Therefor, it seems that Libian glyph may be accepted in a Clerical Han/Wei/Jin group. Should we apply a transformation to counter some technical biase : there are fatter glyph due to Libian copy-process → we recommend to apply some thinning on Libians glyph ? I try to brainstorm with you but I'am don't have a full sense of what we have here on various sides. There is also an obvious reality that all these "Clerical Han/Wei/Jin" were likely done by dozens of different writer, the quest for uniformity is therefor vain (and not the focus of historically accurate categories). We could also assume that Libian, as an editor, had the same influence as Kangxi on his dictionary, and therefor indeed created a series/style. It then encourage use to create a -clerical-libian.svg

(3) Ok, *-clerical.svg seems ok for font-like clerical idealized representation. I take note of this.

PS: I mentioned you in a discussion with LiliCharlie, he/she is passionate about the 214+ Kaishu radicals, the 214 Kangxi Chinese radicals, and the 540 Shuowen radicals. LiliCharlie contributed outside the ACC project, but worked slowly and with method, therefor producing maybe likely the best sets of Chinese characters by completing systematically the 214+ Kangxi radicals in these 3 styles. Kangxi's 214 radicals present the double advantage of being a limited set and highly representative of Chinese writing. Yug (talk) 13:27, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, about "Should we apply a transformation to counter some technical biase : there are fatter glyph due to Libian copy-process → we recommend to apply some thinning on Libians glyph ?" .. I'm not sure about the thickness of strokes, to my eyes they're fairly uniform in the Libian book. They are of course not directly comparable to the glyphs from other eras/on other media/etc.

Cf. the thickness of strokes in bronze inscriptions:

thick

thin

Ahahahah. Yeah........................................

 Done I clarified within the naming convention template that we have a spectrum between historical accurate and idealized. With people aware, consensus will be easier to find.

Sarang helped me to upgraded {{ACCcategory}}, you can now do this

Have a nice day Yug (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, thanks! --Frigoris (talk) 07:50, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

I reviewed all your -clerical-han.svg files within Special:ListFiles/Frigoris and corrected ACClicense template, editing from |clerical Han| (obsolete) into |clerical-han| (correct). All is done and up to date now. Yug (talk) 08:22, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

@Yug, wow, thanks!