User talk:Charles Matthews

From Wikisource

Hello Charles Matthews, welcome to Wikisource! Thanks for your interest in the project; we hope you'll enjoy the community and your work here.

You'll find an (incomplete) index of our works listed at Wikisource:Works, although for very broad categories like poetry you may wish to look at the categories like Category:Poems instead.

Please take a glance at our help pages (especially Adding texts and Wikisource's style guide). Most questions and discussions about the community are held 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!

Yann (talk) 10:50, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Added to Author pages and DNB XX templates

Hi Charles. Been meaning to say welcome, especially to DNB, for a while. For your DNB contribs, I have added all up to Staunton to the relevant author pages, and added the DNB initials templates to same. If they have qv references and you choose not to wikilink these pages, feel welcome to add the hidden Category:DNB needs qv. This allows us to more easily go back and find those that needs follow-up. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:13, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Ah, thanks. It takes a little while to get used to a new wiki! I have been going slowly, knowing that it isn't so easy to pick up everything at once. I think you might also be interested in my efforts over at enWP to get a matching DNB project up-and-running. I'm still wrestling with getting a complete listing of the biographies (not surprisingly). It is going to take a little while yet, and I'm working from some rather corrupt OCR scans (now where else I have I met that?) - but in a few weeks, perhaps, there will be a bit more to show and some checked listings. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:18, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I so understand. I have been working on building the Author pages at Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/List of Contributors for a few months, and regularly distracted by the contributors themselves, than the people writings bios. I have seen the growth and changes over at enWP. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 22:03, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure "mammoth" really covers it all. You need to roll in a few mastodons and megatheriums too. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Hi there

Hi there. I'm a former Wikipedia editor, used to edit a bit during late 2004 - mid-2005, now edit infrequently. Good to see you on here, hope you're well. --Sunwell5^talk 22:01, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Hello ... well enough to drudge on wikis. Roll on Spring! Charles Matthews (talk) 22:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly doesn't feel like spring here! The not-so-great British weather is afoul again! Hopefully I'll still be around here; travel and work have been taking up so much time lately. --Sunwell5^talk 22:09, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Transclude DNB Page: namespace components

It is possible with a little clever coding in the DNB Page namespace transcripts, ro transclude the text into the main namespace articles. Have a look at the code in place for Abbadie, Jacques (DNB00), and you will see that it inhales the right bits of the pages Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/15, Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/16 & Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/17. The magical guide is H:SIDE. The DjVu files are fairly recent as we had to wait until Commons lifted its max. filesize. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:00, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see, sort of. Certainly addresses the issue of having to proof-correct in two places. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:29, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I have had my hand held through the journey and I am often sitting in IRC #wikisource, if that is of convenience. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DNB, Smith article

I would be glad to do this. My only problem (and this is a temporary one) is that this is a volume that I have misplaced, and have been unable to find for the last few months. I'll mount another campaign into the detritus of my bibliomania in search of the errant volume. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 16:08, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks! I have worked over at WP to make the article, so it's not now critical - but I'd like the article about this scholar to be created at some point. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:41, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for the warning

... and thanks for the help with the clean-up. All reverted, and blocked, and blocked again.<sigh> -- billinghurst (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

You'd better delete Author:Tactical and Technical Trends, if not more (user pages). You say you're typically on IRC - I'll get Chatzilla, since this is likely to happen again. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:10, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Nominated for Adminship

Hi. As per our private conversation, I have nominated you to be an administrator on Wikisource. I chatted with the other party identified, and they were happy with me to proceed with the 'paperwork'. Thanks for agreeing to accept the challenge. -- billinghurst (talk) 15:05, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Congratulations you now have the flag.--BirgitteSB 19:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

- Most kind! Charles Matthews (talk) 19:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Tool

I've written a quick'n'dirty tool that can show some DNB stats for wikisource, and list pages that are proofread/validated, but not transcluded to individual biographies. Might help with cleanup. --Magnus Manske (talk) 20:06, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. The good news is that there has been more progress that I thought: over 3%. The bad news - well, I knew already that things are somewhat messy. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

It makes mistakes about Author:Charlotte Fell Smith, presumably because it is analysing the hyphenated redirect Author:Charlotte Fell-Smith. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:50, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

NEAT-O! -- billinghurst (talk) 12:13, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] redirect

Hi Charles. I noticed you are active and wanted to to double check something. We have a redirect to the author namespace; am I right in thinking that 1. it fits WS:CSD (Misc. 3) and 2. that it is not going to be useful dab for works with that title? Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You're probably right. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Ta. Cygnis insignis (talk) 20:57, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Push shove

Opinion sought Wikisource talk:Proofread of the Month

[edit] Original "redirects"

What do we do with these, e.g. CLAVERHOUSE, JOHN GRAHAM OF here? Do they get a section? A separate article? Do they get a redirect for the article? --Magnus Manske (talk) 21:31, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

In my view we ignore the "redirects" for the moment anyway - where there isn't an article. I suppose later links can be created on the pages to the relevant articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Robinson, Anastasia (DNB00)

I do not write good articles for WP, and thought that you may want to do something with this. -- billinghurst (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the thought! It's a wanted (music encyclopedia) article, so I'll add it to my list of "thoughts". Charles Matthews (talk) 14:21, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Spelling clash

Wikipedia shows "Mato Grosso". I added "Matto Grosso" as seen from several primary sources. There are two spellings for this same place and it causes search problems. Please look into this.

—unsigned comment by Brother Officer (talk) .

Sorry about forgetting to sign. —Brother Officer^Talk 02:36, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I will have to look at it tomorrow when I have some more time. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:35, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

This seems to be confusion. I have returned the Wikipedia redirect to being just that. Titles here follow original spellings. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Confusion it is. Beyond my transcribing two volumes on the Valley of the Amazon that use the spelling of Matto Grosso as opposed to only one choice of Mato Grosso on Wikipedia, click on that 3rd link above and note the "original spellings" of Matto Grosso in those many articles including the book about Teddy Roosevelt that also is there and mentions "Matto Grosso". I have seen the double t many times in these works and the single t as used on Wikipedia only once -- on Wikipedia. A search for Matto Grosso on Wikipedia would not bring up the spelling of "Matto Grosso" nor even show it as an option. It appears not to exist on Wikipedia, the free "encyclopedia". Please fix that. I had fixed it by eliminating that redirect and I am but a novice so someone smart can should be able to fix this situation. Anyway, I know about the place as I believe many thousands of other people and yet there in search shows that one spelling, that one area, that one source of Mato Grosso. Wikipedia encyclopedia is the best in the world but can be bettered as we learn and as time and tech passes onward into the future.

Moved from Billinghurst's page. Kind regards, —Brother Officer^Talk 07:44, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Look, it is not helping that you are bringing up a Wikipedia question on Wikisource, which is a separate organisation. If you use Google for the exact phrase, you will see that "Mato Grosso" has, crudely, more than 100 times the number of hits for "Matto Grosso". That will be why Wikipedia uses that spelling. There is a place on Wikipedia, w:Wikipedia:Requested moves, to bring up such issues. Your edits over there of the redirect are not helping matters at all, simply breaking the link for people who type in "Matto Grosso". Charles Matthews (talk) 07:52, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I am aware that Mato Grosso is the correct modern spelling and probably has always been spelled that way. However, numerous books and articles use the spelling of "Matto Grosso". I have pointed those out to you by links. Therefore, when doing a Wikipedia search one cannot find Matto Grosso although it was, at least in the past decades, used extensively. Also place names change just as word spellings and meanings change. What I have been is =trying to suggest= is have a search that will show both spellings. What I did with redirect was partly because I am a novice but figured out a way to get both spellings with articles and volumes searched. It worked. I am asking, is there not another way that is better to do this? These volumes and these articles are on Wikisource because I am placing them on Wikisource -- but I firmly believe not a lot of people know about Wikisource as much as they have heard and eventually tried, or will try, Wikipedia There are many links, or connections, between Wikipedia and Wikisource as well as Wiki Commons. It's not something new. Too, I do use Google for searches &c [chap44@gmail.com] as well as Bing and others. If you cannot remedy the situation just say so. It won't hurt me. I know the difference between the spellings but =an overall search could help millions of other people=. That is what I am saying. I did not start any conversation with you -- you joined in, which is fine. I only know Billinghurst and he has been a great helper and is well-mannered on Wikisource. Therefore, I always ask him the questions I have. I do not know how the entire system of Wikipedia, Wiki Commons, Wikisource, et cetera operates -- I have not sought that information and figured they all worked together to make a kinder and better world through volunteers throughout the entire system. Well, whatever, I have done my best in trying so I will work on this no longer. I have wasted my time and effort when I could have been working on the books and articles. So much for risking asking a question, eh? One might do that in the wrong place -- the "wrong organization" -- without knowing that, and all for what or whom -- others? Yes, others. Goodnight. —Brother Officer^Talk 08:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Type Matto Grosso into the Wikipedia search box. I have just done this, and it goes to Mato Grosso. So I don't know what you mean by "when doing a Wikipedia search one cannot find Matto Grosso". The mechanism for that is the redirect page you have been editing. What I have done is to edit the sisterlinks template at the bottom of w:Mato Grosso. It now takes the form {{sisterlinks|Mato Grosso|s=Matto Grosso}}, and anyone clicking there will be taken to Matto Grosso. Does this address your issue? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:12, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Type Matto Grosso into Wikipedia to search for Matto Grosso. I have done it several times and I get Mato Grosso but Matto Grosso exists in ye olde books and in articles. Wikipedia does not show Matto Grosso which is what I first searched for since that is the spelling in many old articles and books including two volumes that I transcribed on Wikisource. The redirect page, before I changed it, went to Mato Grosso when I wanted Matto Grosso. I see that when you looked at Mato Grosso you removed my small alert about Matto Grosso. It's okay with me because I know about the difference. I do thank you for what you have done for others with this situation. This reminds me that it is now Ramadan (also written Ramazan, Ramzan, Ramadhan, Ramdan, Ramadaan). Hang in there, Charles, it is only math.

—Brother Officer^Talk 17:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

Charles, in the "sister link", or whatever it is called, you connected to a temporary page that I created out of desperation when trying to get Wikipedia to also search for "Matto Grosso" (note two L s in that spelling. In that temporaty page I created there is information I gleaned from that third, long link shown above. These articles and books use the spelling of Matto Grosso. However that page that I created has no links and will have no new links as new materials come in with the "Matto" spelling. It was cut and paste from that page showing live links of works done and works that need to be completed uploaded by others and not myself. The sister link needs to connect to that long 3RD link shown above. If you look at what it is connected to now and look at the History, you will see that page was created by me because I could not get it to connect to the correct page which again is that 3RD link shown above. It seems to me that Wikipedia should be doing this but the volumes and articles with the spelling of "Matto Grosso" are located on Wikisource. I believe that you are smart enough that you can remedy the situation which is why I am once again posting here. I know that we both are tired of this but it is not for us, it is for the rest of the world. They The People need both spellings for all of the information as opposed to a portion due to spelling differences just as in the old days defence was the correct spelling for defense of today. Kind regards, —Brother Officer^Talk 18:57, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, I have tweaked the sisterlink at w:Mato Grosso and I believe it now does something close to what you want, if not the way you want. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:27, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vol. 28 back online

I have brought back DNB vol. 28, and recovered all the pages with editing. With the text layers being in place, I didn't recover some of the other pages that we had imported though not edited. Ping if there are problems with what has been done. Regards Andrew -- billinghurst (talk) 15:16, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Well done! I bet you are ready to sort out all the other troublesome volumes now ... not. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Stab stab stab. One at a time! If there is a better copy available, then we can have a go, or if we have editions where the text layer is not popping through, then let's identify those that are a priority and I will bruise the other side of my head. -- billinghurst (talk) 16:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Note at Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB. Wondering whether some of these conversations may be better real time? I have Skype (not that I am proficient), and I think that I still have an instant messaging account somewhere. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:19, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I keep meaning to mention the I did a couple of Blakes; fix the style if it is out of step. Cygnis insignis (talk) 19:35, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Author names added. Very interesting to see w:Anne Gilchrist (writer) there. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:45, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

She was the main editor of the subject of this stub, any shortcomings this work are attributed to the Rossettis. Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:27, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I can see my copy over my left shoulder. Not that I have read up on Blake, as I will one day. I'm too immersed in the 17th century at present. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 09.djvu

Charles,

I just wanted to let you know that with Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 09.djvu, I have uploaded a higher resolution copy to Wikisource that is 1200 dpi. (The old version is still at the Commons). They have the same filename but the one on Wikisource is taking priority because it is local. sDrewth wanted you to take a look and make sure it was indeed better. If it is then maybe we can have yannf delete the other one from the Commons and move this one to the Commons. Please let me know what you think, by leaving me a message on my talk page. Thanks. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 12:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles, to respond to your last comment on my talk page. I just used the information from the original Djvu file. Please feel free to change it as you see fit. I actually created the file from the DJVU from the PDF hosted at Google's web site for the text. Please let me know if you have any more questions. There is no text layer for this file, but since we have the text all ready, I think we'll be okay. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 17:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] FYI [[Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Introducing Template:DNBset]]

Feedback and suggestions welcomed. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Pagelist bug?

Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 11.djvu shows (for me, at least) that only page 61 of the range pages 59-65 are proofread, when it turns out they all are. Making a minor edit updates an individual page, but that can't be the solution, somehow... action=purge on the index page doesn't work, either. Any idea? --Magnus Manske (talk) 23:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't know how the Index pages work. Try asking at the WikiProject Talk page, where people may be more competent. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Undiagnosed hiccough (reported), which is cured by a null edit on the Page: components. I am wondering whether it is an artefact of the change from {{PageQuality}} to the tag <pagequality>. I couldn't get AWB to proceed through and null edit all pages as a bot, so have left that task for the moment. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

Charles. BTW, |contributor= implemented. Tried to see if I could tie in the {{DNB XX}} more readily, though it doesn't seem simplistic, so left for the moment. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:13, 18 October 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Have we been missing linking?

All the extra DNB works that you have been adding links to Author: pages, it would seem that they have not been added at the time that the transcription has been done. Where have we (as a project) been slipping up in the process? -- billinghurst (talk) 22:22, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't believe I have added bluelinks, if that answers your question. I'm adding as I explained on the project talk page, and after pasting in a list I then remove duplications. I haven't come up with many missed author links that I have noticed: perhaps separately I have added a few from some recently-created articles, and in one or two cased there may have been DNB links on an author page that were not in their own section. I hope that sets your mind at rest - certainly no systematic troubles that I have noticed. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:29, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't fully comprehended the other message, and this now gives it context. Vol. 63 does have compilation data in the early pages of who did how many and what. billinghurst (talk) 10:31, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

The front matter in vol. 63 you mention is certainly interesting. Coming out of this effort to create redlinks on author pages (which was in part prompted by Magnus saying that it breaks to flow of proofing to have to fill in your own listings there) I was thinking that the most prolific contributors probably will need a subpage to house the DNB article listing. Once there are 100 articles there it is clearly taking over the page. I have some ideas for tabulating such a listing eventually. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:45, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I would suggest that we just say to Magnus to not worry, collecting links from WHAT LINKS is fairly easy, and we are going to need to check anyway. Either way we are going to have to do an audit. Re articles per page, that conversation was started at one point, and we said cross that bridge when we have to. Do note the template {{author-subpage}} for that use. billinghurst (talk) 12:38, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I have ducked (going through) the biggest additions to author pages, where so far EIC, HMC and TC are all in three figures, and Thompson Cooper is over 400. My theories are something like this: working through a given author is interesting (for some people) because there is a consistent style and often a particular area of subject matter. I would like Author:Alexander Gordon to have a complete listing, for example, because he was a real expert in his area, and it fits with the way I'm building up on WP. That is over 700 articles with AG. No way right now to compile the whole listing except to go through volume by volume. Approaches are through the ODNB which will yield a couple of hundred, putting in the DNB AG template where I find it in the text and then check what links, and so on. Over time I'd want to tabulate those and which have WP articles, as my own kind of project page. Starting with vol. 1 and adding author names to a copy of the main listing would be a good idea, but like all per-volume approaches risks getting bogged down early in the alphabet. Still, we'll get there eventually on this. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:50, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WRM-d

Interestingly William Rae McDonald was missed from the combined list of contributors from the consolidated volumes. billinghurst (talk)

Ah, you're telling me there is an explanation. There may be just the one article he wrote - he was an expert on Napier, it seems. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:35, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Yep. Ec and I are working of a compilation of contributors from the 1932 compendium, hence the differences in names. When we started that, it was easier than 63 rotten copies in other means. When we did the {{DNB XXx}} templates we found a couple more missing, and that served as a reasonable audit. When I have finished the author creation process, I do have the intention of going through and correlate author per volume, and the original use of names. billinghurst (talk) 12:42, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] DNB Conventions

I saw this. I must admit I had feared a change like this, but as a s:newbie its difficult to take all this stuff in and I guess it will cause a bit of rework. Is there a place where these conventions are listed? I know it is may be obvious to you guys, but I see [w:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Missing_encyclopedic_articles/DNB_Epitome_28 here] that the convention is not always kept to. Is this list existing or possible? Victuallers (talk) 12:29, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, not everything is yet documented in the way of titling, so I think the first thing to say is that it shouldn't be the most major worry: the articles can easily be moved around by title without breaking links. The current convention as I understand it is that we work to minimal titling with disambiguation done by dates. Obviously not everyone (yet) agrees: some people include a 'Sir' in the title, for example, where I wouldn't nowadays. Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Titling, which is where I raised all this, refers to the section Wikisource:WikiProject DNB#Disambiguation, which is what we officially have. I now agree with User:Eclecticology, in the matter of noble titles, post-nominal initials and so on, that we shouldn't include any of these. Obviously if you look at the listings we have you still see a variety of styles used, and we just have to try to converge more as we work through. If you have thoughts put them on the project talk page where others can see what is at issue.

One thing I was going to raise with you, that is related, is the treatment of subarticles (as in Lucy Hutchinson (DNB00)). I don't go for this splitting, actually, for one thing because the references at the end refer to the main subject as well as the subarticle topic, and they are now stranded on a different page. It would be better to set up a transclusion than to divide the article, in my view, and I'd prefer to consolidate. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] WP need articles

Tonna, Lewis Hippolytus Joseph (DNB00)
Tonneys, John (DNB00)
migrated Tonson, Jacob (1656?-1736) (DNB00) which also include Tonson, Jacob (1656?-1736) (DNB00)#Tonson, Jacob and Tonson, Jacob (1656?-1736) (DNB00)#Tonson, Richard with no WP article on the last.

WP has article w:Charlotte Elizabeth Tonna no transcription here at Tonna, Charlotte Elizabeth (DNB00) -- billinghurst (talk) 16:02, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, not sure what you meant for the Tonneys article. Experimentally I've made the Lewis Tonna article on WP link back here as a conventional ext lk, rather than using the template. The Charlotte Elizabeth Tonna article showed up on the "Data capture" page; that list might end up as about 600 articles (there seem to be on average 10 per volume, but the first half of the alphabet is always favoured). Right now I'm giving some priority to the creation of longer articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

I have realised that my strength is not writing articles at WP. I am good with a mop and bucket! That it is a turbo super-sudsy classic mop doesn't seem to excite some people. Would you believe it?!?

Ah, they need articles for WP is all that it means. If I tell you, then I can absolve myself of complete responsibility. :-) billinghurst (talk)

Well, sure, just ask away, division of labour works. I don't like creating orphans, so the trouble with the Tonneys article right now is how it would fit in. That can involve creating article B so that you can create A ... Research required, but I'm not uninterested. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:31, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

There is actually much more about Tonneys in the ODNB, but nothing that is an immediate hook to hang him on. It's an interesting example of how the DNB grew out of the biobibliographical tradition, actually: starting with a book, or in this case just a title, people researched the lives just for the sake of it. We would never do that (actually Wikisource stands very much in that tradition, you'd have to say). There was an early disclaimer that people would not get into the DNB just for having written a book, but in practical terms that did happen. I don't supposed you know as much about Augustinians as Carthusians? (Was a joke.) Charles Matthews (talk) 16:41, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Must stop meeting like this

Yup, I see the changes. I'll get better at this wikisource lark sometime. Is there a good OCRd version nof the DNB you can point me at - if the ONDB DNB stuff is 1912, then presumably I should not be pulling text from there but from somewhere else? --208.51.151.2 16:52, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Sadly for vol. 1 the available scan is this which is rubbishy. The modus operandi for proofing can be seen in the context of Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/151: use the scan to check for any changes in the editions. I was going to get this done later on, anyway: the point is that with the text pasted and proofed in the page namespace one then reconstructs the free-standing article by transclusion. (Yes, it all sounds wacky first time round.) The state of the art transclusion template is {{DNBset}}, but there is a simpler transclusion method using {{DNB00}} plus the #section method, or just no transclusion at all (all three types coexist at present). From the project's point of view, creating the links from volume and author listings is a lot more important than anything else, otherwise the article might be in some sort of limbo for quite a while (and with 30,000 potential articles ... well, let's not go there). Charles Matthews (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

[edit] djvu

I saw you edits to my edits on O'BRIEN, MURROUGH here is a list in alphabetical sort of the djvu pages I have edited.

I hope this is some help. When I first started importing DNB into Wikipedia I either did not see these pages or I did not understand how these volumes worked, so not all the DNB text I have used on Wikipedia has been placed in these pages. I'll go back through my sand boxes and see if there are any others and let you know if I modify any other pages. Regards Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks - I had your contributions to go on, but that saves time. I'll get through these at the rate of about one a day, since I'm currently working on various things in parallel. I had a few remarks I was going to pass on about style, but they are probably apparent in the diffs. The running head is to be put in by some method Billinghurst uses. I have switched over to {{sc| }} throughout, for small caps. Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual explains about hyphenation and other matters that don't really warrant repeating.

I'm nearly done going through Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Data capture, which is based on all WP pages showing {{DNB}} not filled in with a link over here to the article. If you ever want to add to that list, just do so, but please sign with five tildes so that we have a date for any new entries. (The page format right now is awkward for that, but disregard and place any updates somewhere.) I intend to chip away also at that list, to get everything DNB on WP referenced by some point in 2010. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I noticed your edits and will make such edits in future as they say monkey sees monkey does ;-) But something I had not made clear above. If I edit a page now I am doing the whole page to a greater or lesser extent (something I did not used to do) so taking the example of 30.djvu/299 RICHARD KEBLE, there may well be short bios on the same page which are to a similar level of cleaning as the article I am interested in. The dates (as you highlighted to me at Wikipedia) may have more mistakes because I don't know what they should be for people outside my area of knowlege. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 18:23, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I assume that if the text is advanced to status yellow that's the whole page done. There are actually a few more people on the project than a couple of months ago. If I run out of things to do, which is not so likely, I can forage around by looking over the shoulders of other participants. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:04, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I've improved these pages:

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 15.djvu/291 DOUGLAS, ARCHIBALD, Earl of Ormonde
Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 15.djvu/328 DOUGLAS, Lord JAMES

If you have time please could you have a look at them and see if by the additional edits if I have included the additional changes you suggested. (I'll know by any additional edits that you make). Thanking you in anticipation --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 11:16, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The only obvious thing was the issue described in Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Raw materials#Way of working, hard line breaks showing up in the small-type references section (first of those). (And there the diffs don't show what is going on.) I have put a space in a [q. v.] in the second, because I prefer it, but there is no point pretending that the original had a constant spacing in its qv's, because it didn't. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:27, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Two AM-l by my reckoning

I see vol. 7 Miss Macdonell and vol. 35 Mrs John Macdonell, and I have disambiguated them to be different Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/List of Contributors#M

Yes, Alice and Agnes. See Template talk:DNB AM-l for what I did in this case, and other talk pages comments. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:36, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I misunderstood the summaries, that is what comes from working at 3am in the morning. billinghurst (talk)

[edit] Re: 1911-related templates

The "nofollow" just tells bots not to pursue the link further in their indexing efforts, yes? "nofollow" seems fine to me for external links. I wouldn't want to see "nofollow" for a Wikisource link. But maybe I don't understand "nofollow" or its implications as well as I need to. I think the URL feature of 1911 gets used less than it could be. I have also been concerned about linking, mainly from Wikipedia back to Wikisource, but also with intra-Wikisource links. I've been using {{Cite ...}} for links from Wikipedia and {{... Link}} for intra-Wikisource links. So far this has been done for Appletons' and EB1911. Thanks for letting me know about your efforts, and let me know how I can contribute. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:01, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The point about "nofollow" is basically about prominence: as I understand the technical side linking from WP to WS via full URL will not help the prominence of the article linked to; while linking using the interwiki "s" will. So it is the desirable way to do it. I could just define another template {{1911WS}} over on WP by mimicking {{Catholic}} and {{DNB}}; but proliferating templates isn't a great idea if there is some way to upgrade existing ones. We are talking about three types of template, which I could call (a) attribution, (b) citation, (c) poster. The poster templates display as rectangles saying "Wikisource has ...", and the citation templates are what you place as inline references or as external links to a specific article. It is the attribution templates, the ones saying "This article contains text from ..." that I have been working on, to get them to link to specific articles here also.

The bigger issues seem to be to do with the reference material here, which is piling up without too much structure, and I could express the issues as coming from convergence (it would be better if each type of article production didn't have its own private habits, at least where things could be a bit more uniform) but also from the hypertext side. It appears to me that understanding the hypertext side might prompt some progress on discussing what "convergence" might even be desirable. This all came up because the Catholic Encyclopedia articles don't link across to WP or have a contributor field (ancient header), and I thought they should ... and so I started looking back and forth and assessing the cross-referencing generally.

This particular point about 1911 attribution to specific articles here is one point to understand. But the other thing starts at this end. There is {{ref links}} that has been created to consolidate articles on one topic; but I wonder how well that idea scales. The other type of idea is to have a "topic disambiguation" type of page that lists in one place the pages for a given topic with more than one article available. That seems more efficient; but the whole thread we had at the Scriptorium didn't really reveal which way to go on that. I thought anyway you might have ideas arising from the EB1911 side (not so restricted to biographies as the DNB is). Charles Matthews (talk) 18:52, 2 December 2009 (UTC)