Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Shortcut:
WT:EB1911
Older discussions can be found in the archives

/archive1

Templates, 2 entries[edit]

I copied a few templates over from wikisource.org that had not automatically been copied to en.wikisource.org, and added 2 new entires from the Project Gutenberg text. Can someone check that I haven't broken anything? I will probably drop in on this project occasionally and do an entry or two. PhilHibbs | WP:talk | talk 13:46, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Sister project Ad[edit]

Good idea, but I suggest holding back on implementaton for a little while. Editing in WS is a bit more complex than writing for WP, and there is a need to sort out the main page with links to tools like Wikimarkup, -- how to add end notes etc. Hopefully this should not take too long :) Apwoolrich 14:28, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

OK. My main motivation was to find out if this project was still alive :-) I would be much happier creating WP1911 articles if I had access to the source, as it's easier to get this sort of thing right first time than it is to come back and do markup (italics, accents, diacritics, etc.) later. PhilHibbs | WP:talk | talk 13:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
This is a problem to which I can't see any easy answer. Maybe some editors who don't have easy access to an original paper copy do as much basic work as possible - italicising obvious things like book titles, formating the references section at the end, placing links to WP articles, coding for footnotes, etc. Then the final edit will have to be done by an editor with a paper copy to refer to. Its far from satisfactory, but I gather this problem will be the worst with volume 1 as the volumes now being worked on by Gutenberg will be much better done. Apwoolrich 18:17, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Images of encyclopedia pages.[edit]

From what I've read flat copies of public domain images cannot be copyrighted. In contrast a photograph of a public domain book at an angle is under copyright because the angle of the shot is creative. (In such a case I would say the flat image of the cover derived from the angled photograph would be public domain.)

This means that by stripping away any additional material flat images of the pages of the 1911 encyclopedia could be placed here even if the photographer claims copyright.

The first thing should be to place those images on wikisource. Once the images of the pages is online it will be easy to proofread or run through ocr software. http://classiceb.com/ http://www.robinsoncurriculum.com/view/rc/s31p45.htm We only need one person with these sources. --Gbleem 17:17, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

We seem to be getting there. See [[1]]Apwoolrich 19:13, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Orphaned?[edit]

It appears as if this project has been orphaned. J.Steinbock

No Way!!Apwoolrich 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
Absolutely not! I was editing the main project page the other night, and have been working on creating a list of first volume article names (corrected) so that a script can be written to create the listing pages. Images will be added in due course. To be honest, it's not something that's going to take off very quickly, until we've settled a few technical issues on how to present the original text in a new format without changing the meaning. The shoulder headings are causing me a bit of grief at the moment. GregRobson 21:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Problem with Project Gutenberg 1911 Britannica - making new pages.[edit]

It has just come to light that PG split a long article and made two short ones. They are Aeronautics and Aerostation. In fact Aerostation is part of Aeronautics. Please take care to check with a printed version or Tim Sterling's online version that this has not happened elsewhere. We are aiming to reproduce the text as printed, and making new page headings where they did not exist is not helpful. Apwoolrich 19:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

EB1911 classification[edit]

A discussion has started on Scriptorium [2]about adopting the same classsification for the WS version as was used on the original printed version. This has distinct advantages. Your comments are welcomed. Apwoolrich 18:33, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Moved back to this page during archival maintenance. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:59, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Apwoolrich brought to my attention a portion of the EB1911 pages. From pages 879-947 of volume 29 of EB1911, the contributors/compilers took all of their articles and listed them according to what "branch" of human knowledge the articles belong to. This is, in a sense, a built-in categorization scheme. Apwoolrich and I would like to replace this scheme with the current one we use.

Our current heirarchy of categories was proposed by Robert Horning (who started that proposed heirarchy in July and hasn't really worked on it since) and is not complete or ever really decided upon. It seems like it would be better to replace our current scheme, which has many drawbacks and time requirements to be able to utilize it effectively, with the one the creators of the Encyclopedia made. The EB1911 version also has the possibility of a lot of cross-referencing and linking, to further boost it.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 20:48, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

To clarify this, the editors of EB1911 created 24 main classes of knowledge and added further sub-divisions within them. This list - the Classified Table of Contents occupies 4 columns in the printed book. This is followed by a Classified List of Articles in each of these classes. These are grouped in a typical classification - Chemistry - as General, Inorganic, Organic, Biographies. I should add that the biography lists feature in almost all the classified tables of articles and are a valuable strength of EB1911.
I have in mind that we should have a page for the Classifed Table and each entry is Wikilinked to the same entry in the Table of Articles. Once there each article entry is Wikilinked to the article itself. The articles would be categorised back to this scheme in the usual way.
I posted the Introduction to this on the EB1911 page some time ago and am part way through typing the Table of Contents which I will post shortly.
Make no mistake it will be a long job, but once done we are set up for the rest of the task of posting the articles from the remaining volumes. Apwoolrich 21:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure what you're proposing. Do you want to delete the EB1911 categories, and use the original index pages for navigation? If so, a link to the indexes could be added to the {{header}} template on the main page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:03, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
I am also confused. I think you want to make page of "Categories" but it really would be a list as put out in the EB1911. If so why would you not use the Wiki category system? I think we should use category tree the original authors designed, but we do not have to follow the list formatting.--BirgitteSB 22:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
That's exactly what we're proposing—we want to use a category tree, just a different one than the one Robert Horning created. I'm going to try to do a sort of mock illustration using pages 883 and 882 to try to explain away some of the confusion.
Looking at page 882 (and also 881), there are 24 different "meta-categories"; very broad subjects under which the entire encyclopedia fits. Starting at page 883 and following, we see that these broad, over-arching categories are also broken down into more specific sections. The first "meta-category" is Anthropology and Ethnology which we could use to be the category Category:EB1911:Anthropology and Ethnology. However, this meta-category can be broken down into other smaller, more specific categories (such as races and tribes, or contributors to the field of anthropology, or just general terms of anthropology). These sections could be turned into the categories Category:EB1911:Anthropology and Ethnology:General Subjects and Terms, Category:EB1911:Anthropology and Ethnology:Races and Tribes, and Category:EB1911:Anthropology and Ethnology:Biographies. Very similar methods could be used for the other 23 meta-categories, as well.
These similar categories are the ones that we are thinking of using and substituting in for the current categories that we are using.
You'll notice that this isn't really different from what we are currently doing with categorization, but for a few points (the biggest similarity is that the current scheme we use adds one category from the EB1911 category heirarchy to each article while the proposed scheme would do the same):
  1. This scheme of categories and its heirarchy is complete and it is comprehensive. We know that we don't need much expertise to be able to tag these pages in order to have a very well thought out category scheme because we are using one many experts in the field have created. The current scheme we use will require much knowledge of the heirarchy and much time spent reading the articles to be able to apply the appropriate category to it. With the very few people we have working on it, this would take a decade or two to complete.
  2. We will not have to worry about having an "over-exhaustive" category scheme. The current one we are using is artificial, and so more categories than needed will probably be made so we can make sure that we can "get everything tagged." Since we do not know all the articles in all 29 volumes, we will either have an over-exhaustive amount of categories or we will have to keep thinking up new ones when we can't seem to find a current category that fits with the content of the article. This is another time saver.
I'm sure there are other benefits, but I can't think of any at the moment.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:49, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
The idea has my support. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
That is exactly what we should do. :)--BirgitteSB 03:37, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
If this gets going I suggest we work up one of the shorter classifications to get the mechanics right and perhaps design some new templates for it. The present design of the Categories page (see [3] for an example) is not suitable, I feel for the mass of entries each category has. The Anthropology and Ethnology classification noted above occupies only one printed page but has around 600 articles mentioned. The text in fact occupies 6 columns of small print. Instead I suggest we develop something similar to the EB1911 volume navigation page [4] for this allows 4 columns instead of 3 and allows sideways scrolling, which the regular category page does not.
I am going to mention this proposal on the talk pages of all the editors who have signed up for the EB1911 project. Apwoolrich 18:00, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I'm not quite following what you're suggesting. I don't see what Category:Wikisource has to do with categorizing EB1911 pages or how a layout similar to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 1:1 will solve the problem.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:18, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Do we not also need pages so readers can navigate their way round the classifications? I posted these as examples of good and bad layout. Apwoolrich 18:38, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, yes, but I'm confused about your proposition. We definitely do, but once inside the category tree, I don't think it will be hard at all to navigate. This is the tree that I was thinking we'd use, since it's straight from the tables (note: these are all categories, but I don't feel like typing out all the extra syntax, so I'm leaving it as plain text):
  1. EB1911
    1. Anthropology and Ethnology
      1. General Subjects and Terms
      2. Races and Tribes
      3. Biographies
    2. Archaeology and Antiquities
      1. Subject
      2. Biographies
    3. Art
      1. General
      2. Architecture
        1. Subjects
        2. Biographies
      3. Music
        1. Subjects
        2. Instruments
        3. Biographies
etc.
Using sub-categories, the navigation would be fairly easy, I think. And, when we type up the classified list of articles (when we finally get around to that volume), we can of course do much interlinking (link the titles of the sections to their repective categories in the category tree). If I'm missing something (which I might be) then please tell me.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Oops. I think I understand what you mean now. Am I right in saying that you want to offer another form of navigation (similar to how we've split all the pages up according to what volume each article falls in) where we split up the Encyclopedia and parse it according to what "meta-category," and "lesser-category" each article falls in. Like, a person can click on a link that says "Art" and get a tabular listing of all the results that fall under the area of art?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:08, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, exactly that. The user can then click an article name in the category and get to it. Without this other index it will be hard to navigate round the work once it gets bigger. I feel we should be getting on with this work now instead of waiting until we get to vol 29, for readers are going to need it as we do the work, even though most of the links will be red until, the articles get posted

In my note on your user page I asked about an EB1911-specific search engine. The printed index is vast and is keyed to the page numbers. It gets readers into data within articles not just the article titles. I can't see it being practical to have the text of this big index on WS, so a search engine is the only answer. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 19:42, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I like all the current discussion, my only thoughts are that the category names don't get too long with the concatenation perhaps instead of Category:EB1911:Anthropology and Ethnology:Races and Tribes we can use Category:EB1911:Races and Tribes and only distinguish further if there is ambiguity or a clash (like in Biographies). This sort of endeavour is good as it does not alter or destroy any of the original volume's work whilst adding functionality the orginal volume never had. GregRobson 20:44, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the search engine. IF/When we ever get the namespace manager enabled, then we can make EB1911 it's own namespace the would allow you to only search the EB1911 namespace. Like we currently can do with Help, Template, etc. However the search engine will still probably be as crappy as ever.--BirgitteSB 20:55, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
I don't think a distinct search engine or namespace for one work is feasible, regardless of how vast it may be. A more useful feature that could be used globally would be to add the ability to search a single category and subcategories. This would be useful in a wide range of circumstances, from finding a particular page in Category:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to checking if a proxy is listed in Category:Wikisource:Blocked open proxies. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 22:46, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I support this new categorization scheme fully. It is true to the original source, easily linkable, and people can work on their favorite categories, using Tim Starling's scans, rather than being subject to specific letters. I vote yes. Danny 23:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Pathoschild's comments. Having the ability to search categories and sub-categories would allow us not only to be able to search all of EB1911's contents but also help us search specifically in the realm of speeches or poems (a boost for us having portals). Having the ability to search categories does everything searching a single namespace can do but it gives us more freedoms for searches.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:40, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

I think these are great ideas. Does this mean I could find something like, EB1911 > Art > Music > Instruments (appropriately linked to pages containing the contents of each category and subcategory), in the article for "violin", etc.? That would be good. - Antireconciler 06:10, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just added Classified Table of contents to EB1911 page. This is the basic list which sets out the form of the EB1911. Have to add the header. Apwoolrich 18:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Just added the Classified table of articles - headers only. [5] This is the proposed category scheme with no articles included, which will be the next stage if the scheme gets anywhere. Still needs a bit of tweaking for typos etc and formating. Apwoolrich 18:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Could you add a link in this discussion to the header list so that we can access it from the Scriptorium? Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 18:39, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
What if we linked all the headings, sub-headings, sub-sub-headings, etc., to their appropriate category as well? That'd be a nice bit of navigation.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:06, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, thats the way forward. Can a Bot do it, or must it be all hand-coded? Apwoolrich 19:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
But before that is done it needs a good proof-check in case I have missed a line. Apwoolrich 19:19, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
I know nothing about bots (tried to get one started myself and dropped it altogether—far too difficult to figure out) but I would imagine that it wouldn't be too hard to at least get a bot to code some of it. It really wouldn't take too much time to hand-do, though (it'd mostly be copy and paste).—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Is there somewhere I can find out how to do it? Alternatively can someone code up a bit I can copy, please? Apwoolrich 21:18, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Gone through it proof-checking, added Text Quality Infobox on discussion page. Apwoolrich 07:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Excellent work! Shall we begin creating the categories and organizing the category tree?—Zhaladshar (Talk) 02:01, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, please, once somebody shows me how to do it:) Before this we also need to work out a protocol for dealing with long articles. In recent days I have noted instances of long articles being split to create new article headings which don't appear in the printed version. I am not clear they are coming this way from PG or WS editors are doing it. We can either insist that articles are uploaded 'as is', and the constituent sections are indicated by the use of 'header code' ==00== or we can allow the split, with each section having its own header, but amend the EB1911 category tree to add the parts to the article name, thus.

Article name =

Aeronautics

New section name =

(1)Aerostatics

I have an open mind, but welcome comment as to the best way forward. We are also getting articles posted from later volumes which are not noted in the main page since this is only dealing with vol 1, so maybe we ought to be tbinking about expanding the volume tables there. Apwoolrich 07:31, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

In terms of "doing it," isn't all that we have to do to simply delete the current category, and add the one like "[[Category:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/MAIN CATEGORY HEADING/SUB-CATEGORY HEADING/SUB-SUB-CATEGORY HEADING]]"? I really think that's it (once we can agree on how to go about the tree—that is do we want "[[Category:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/..." or "[[Category:EB1911/...").
For very large articles, we should split them up into other sub-pages. I believe the entry for the United States is currently split up because the text would be hundreds of kilobytes. But for most articles, they should all be on page.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 23:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
I haven't really followed this discussion, but is it necessary to have the full category tree mapped in every category name? We could very well base the category structure on the original, but perhaps use more human-readable category names more inline with our own category structure. For example, we could use something like [[Category:Nations in Europe (EB1911)]] instead of [[Category:EB1911/Geography/Nations/Europe]]. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:46, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
"Human readable" What do you mean?. The idea behind this proposal is that it is the one actually written by the compilers for EB1911. Do alter the wording to suit the present structure is to defeat the object, I think. Apwoolrich 17:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
What I think Pathoschild means would not alter the actual structure of the category scheme. Behind the scenes (like when you actually clicked on the category link), the entire structure would be identical to the one the EB1911 compilers devised. The difference would be in its presentation. Instead of having the very stilted category [[Category:EB1911/Main classified heading/sub-heading/sub-sub-heading]] instead, the wording would be such that it matches natural language discourse (well, what exactly is this article talking about? Ah, it's talking about a tribe of people. So let's make the category [[Category:Tribes and races (EB1911)]]) Once a person clicked on the latter category, they would see that it is categorized under [[Category:Anthropology and Ethnology (EB1911)]]. Looking up at the partial list near the beginning of this discussion, we are still preserving the actual structure of category hierarchy, we are just changing the language in which this structure is presented.
On this matter, I slightly lean to the stance of the stilted presentation (it's the math and logic in me) over the natural language version because I can see right in the category the entire overall hierarchy for that branch of the category tree, whereas the human-readable version would not have it. Of course, I know other people might feel differently, but that is merely my partiality.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:12, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

More Useful Projects?[edit]

Aren't there more useful projects that people could be working on rather than an encyclopedia. I fail to see the relevance of this project. Wikipedia has revolutionized encyclopedias and therefore the other versions are obsolete. I can think of a number of projects that would be more useful such as Summa Theologica by Thomas Aquinas Pbarnes 23:09, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

Then work on it. No one's making you work on this project. But volunteers have a whole heck of a lot of freedom in deciding what they want to work on. And there is historic importance to this encyclopedia as well--it's not trying to take WP's place, but it is trying to preserve history.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 16:31, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia has also made truth obsolite. As there will no longer be published or printed works, the truth will flow with the tide. EB1911 is valuable because it is immutabile. -- Petri Krohn 03:31, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Linking: EB1911 or Wikipedia?[edit]

Should links on pages go to Wikipedia or other EB1911 articles? -- Petri Krohn 03:33, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Google Books[edit]

It looks like Google is putting up the Eleventh Edition. I added links on the Project Page to the completed (?) volumes. There are others currently only showing "Image not available" in Full View, which presumably are still being worked on. --Jmb 16:55, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Missing Volume 1 article[edit]

There are two articles called Abdera on page 33 of Volume 1. The first one is about the ancient Spanish town of Abdera. That article is missing here. We do have the following article about a town called Abdera in Thrace. --Jmb 11:21, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

As a result, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abdera has been deleted. Do we want to restore it and convert it into a dab page? John Vandenberg 03:30, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
That's a good idea, I set it up. Feel free to tweak it if you like. --Jmb 20:34, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

author in header[edit]

At Template_talk:Header#header inclusion update, Eclecticology has raised the fact that the {{EB1911}} doesnt handle an author param. Adding an author param seems appropriate, as the named authors are usually notable people, and recording this is a way we can "value-add" to our EB1911. John Vandenberg 02:23, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

navigating sub sections[edit]

Again at Template_talk:Header#header inclusion update, Eclecticology raised the problem with the navigation of EB1911 articles that have sub sections that are on sub pages due to the size of the article. e.g. 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/United States, 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abbey. I recently "fixed" many of these to use {{EB1911}} instead of {{header}}, but that was just a partial fix. "Abbey" uses a menu template to allow easy navigation. I think we should apply a similar approach to all of the others. John Vandenberg 02:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

EB1911 layout[edit]

Hi everybody, I had a problem concerning the layout of the internal links in EB1911. I followed the instructions in "WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual", where under the heading "Hyperlinks within Article Text" I found these guidelines:

Often within articles there are specific references to other EB1911 articles, and they are usually noted by having the whole word in small caps. Project Gutenburg text will show the word in all caps. Use the template smallcaps and link the word. Example: Abscond.

I used the above mentioned template for all links in the articles I contributed until now. But it seems to be wrong. I suppose I misunderstood the guidelines. Links in the text don't need smallcaps, but only the links in caps in EB1911 do. I would like a confirmation about this please. I think I have a lot of changes to make. Greetings --Toby 09:04, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, you have been following the style guide correctly. I didnt even know the EB1911 style guide existed. John Vandenberg (chat) 06:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Hey sorry I didn't mean to add confusion by changing the good work you have been doing Toby. As far as I understand the style guide the smallcaps template is used when that format is used in the orginal. Abscond is a good example, with the page scans here, of EB using the small capitals. This is the way I have always interpreted the style guide. Although this is not a big issue, it would be nice to have consistency across all the pages. Suicidalhamster 13:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
So what is an example of when not to use smallcaps ? John Vandenberg (chat) 14:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
I suppose anytime when Wikisource is linking something which wasn't suggested in the orginal. So Lyall, Sir Alfred Comyn has the titles of works linked to normal wikisource pages (ie no Encyclopædia Britannica/... beginning bit). Alternatively anytime the links are at the discretion of the editor, so those I changed at Airdrie would fall into this. This is my personal take, however I understand if people have different opinions. Suicidalhamster 15:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Ok, so the crux of the issue is small caps where it doesnt appear as small caps in the original ? The style manual says "they are usually noted by having the whole word in small caps"; can we change that to always so there is less confusion? John Vandenberg (chat) 22:16, 8 April 2008 (UTC)
Yeah that would be ok. There is also the part, under 1.5 Small Caps, which says: If the original text shows a word in Small Caps then use the template {{small-caps|Text here}}. This seems to remove most of the uncertainty (we could add something about aviod using this template for other words). Could this sentence be added to the bit you quoted, both talk about the same thing but are split up. Suicidalhamster 09:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Pages needing attention[edit]

Pathosbot ran through the the encyclopedia pages for a recent bot task, and found the following issues:

The following pages are missing one or more navigation links:

The following pages might be better off with the 'article' parameter (which was removed anyway):

The following pages had three Wikipedia links (I moved one into 'other_projects' for now):

The following pages are using {{subpage-header}} or {{header}} instead (I skipped them):

These pages seem to have two headers:

{admin} Pathoschild 04:27:00, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

The Infinitesimal Calculus article is long and broken up into sections. The top navigator goes from article to article and the bottom one goes from section to section. I don't think there the project guidelines are very specific on this so, while it's not something I'd do myself, I don't think anyone can call it wrong at this point.--RDBury (talk) 04:36, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternate Google scans[edit]

It looks like Google has 3 or 4 different scans of EB. I have links on my user page in case the link here has missing or unreadable pages. Is there there any interest in putting the alternate links here as well? --RDBury (talk) 04:27, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

Also to note that some of the Google Books scans hyperlinked may not be able to be accessed from outside of the US, eg. vol. 2 is inaccessible from Oz. -- billinghurst (talk) 09:52, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Transwiki'd 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Amsterdam (Holland)[edit]

The text now at 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Amsterdam (Holland). If someone could format it appropriately that would be great. Thanks. -- billinghurst (talk) 02:55, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Synopses[edit]

Have a look at my efforts at User:Eclecticology/EB Synopsis. Is there any interest in this kind of thing? It is interesting to see the development of the EB over the years, and it would be intersting to see this at the article level. Everything on that list except the most recent one is in the public domain. I am on the lookout for copies of 10th and 12th editions (supplements) so that they could be added. It would be nice to include the 2nd through 8th editions but they are very difficult and expensive to acquire. My most interesting finding in this is the amount of change that took place over the 45-year lifespan of the 14th edition. One could never be sure that the information in one small town library's version of the EB would match what was found in another small town. Eclecticology - the offended (talk) 17:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Active projects[edit]

At Template_talk:Welcome#Add a Project_Tab to the Template.3F.3F.3F we had a discussion about having a Wikiprojects tab and have implemented such where we point to active projects. My next idea is to have active projects rather than be a flat list, to have a different project appear weekly. Obviously EB1911 gets such a guernsey, and I would like your feedback on a beta product available for your review at Template:Active projects/var. Comments can be pasted to this page or to Template talk:Active projects/var. billinghurst (talk) 12:50, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of EB1911 category structure[edit]

See Wikisource:Proposed deletions#EB1911 category hierarchy. Hesperian 02:39, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

ProofreadPage[edit]

I have proofread several articles for this project. I enjoyed it immensely and i am going to do a few more, but one thing is bothering me: is there any reason not to use ProofredPage for this?

I tried using it with 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Grammar and i think that the result is OK. The only difference which is immediately visible to the reader is the wide margins - i used <div class="prose"> so that page numbers on the margins will be visible and that, of course, is open to discussion.

I am not proposing to force all the participants of this project to use ProofreadPage, but is anyone opposed to its usage by people who do want it? I am certain that it will make my work here more efficient. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

EB1911 pre-dated ProofreadPage. Also we had issues getting volumes as they either were not scanned or were often bigger than we could upload to Commons, not sure whether that has changed. While I do have a personal preference for scans and PP, as it is generally easier to get works validated especially with drop-by editors, it is not mandated.
That said, there is still the ability to interweave both for our pages in the main namespace, and I haven't heard any objections here or elsewhere to its use, or the mix. One can easily have a mixture of transcluded and standard pages as we section the articles anyway. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
Thanks.
Here's a possible problem: At 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Philodemus there's a q.v. link to Herculaneum. If i mark it up according to the style guide, then it works correctly on the final page, but on Page:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu/436 it doesn't even look like a link, because that relative path is irrelevant there. It's not terrible, but it's a bit of an issue. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 09:20, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
There are no subpages in Page (nor Template) namespace, the / is just a character. Also to remember that Page:ns is a work environment, not necessarily a public display space, so one needs to consider whether one needs to link internally to other Page: pages, or to just have the work in the main namespace. So there alternatives. In DNB we just link according to the main namespace article, though that not as subpages. In other works you can use some of Category:Internal link templates, so things like {{namespace link}} or {{TOC link}} may be of use, alternatively we could look to alternatives or making something better. That becomes a choice of the project (note that I am more observer due to DNB project rather than active here). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:51, 10 May 2010 (UTC)
I for one dislike seeing my contributions to EB1911 turned into pages that use the chunked technique of individual pages. It breaks the source texts of articles into single pages, making it impossible to copy the source text of a complete article into a plain text editor, and edit it there. Checking source texts of articles against Tim Starling's User:Tim Starling/ScanSet PNG demo without the "Page:" technique has worked really well for me. But I am afraid I cannot force my dislike on anyone. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance of this to the proposal of transcluded pages. Transclusions allows the editor to select a section from a page; sections from multiple pages; or many multiples of pages, whichever is relevant. We have various bits for DNB that demonstrate it from the perspective of a encyclopaedia. — billinghurst sDrewth
I do not get what you are responding to. I am saying that the complete text of the article cannot be copied into a plaintext editor, an incovenience to the editor, as only single pages are available for selection. I am not saying that the single-page technique does not work. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Well that may take two of us, as that was not my intention We proofread in Page: ns, and present articles to the main namespace through transclusion. The whole article is presented in the main ns and presents however many pages were selected, from 1 to whatever. This means that the whole text can be copied to a text editor. Here are some example from IrishBio Wellesley, Arthur, Duke of Wellington and you will see all the individual pages in Page: ns linked down the side. — billinghurst sDrewth
Maybe Dan means to say that when transcluded pages are used, it's not possible to immediately copy the complete wikitext source of an article. This is true, although it doesn't seem like something that's often needed.
It is possible to create a sandbox, copy the {{page}} templates, and subst them. This, however, adds a lot of markup for showing the page number and other things.
Having the wikitext source broken up into several pages has the advantage of working faster. Editing a very long wikitext source, like Philology is pretty slow in Firefox on XP and even slower on Linux (that's particularly disappointing!). When i only edit one page in a ProofreadPage window, i don't experience this slowness.
All that said, i don't want to upset anyone by messing up the page he created. I would, however, be happy to finish that treatment for the aforementioned Philology article, since i already started it. --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 08:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)
Amir, you have understood well what I was saying; thanks. Your point with substituting pages in a sandbox is an interesting one. However, after I join the plain text of forty pages into one in my plain text editor, and correct it, I cannot copy the edited text back into wiki as one chunk.
One does need to modify one's approach slightly, so rather than working on just one article, one often works on a page of text, and it works well for the DNB project.
Of course that you should not be editing long wikipages in Firefox. You should copy the source text into your favorite plain text editor, be it Notepad, Notepad++, Vim, Emacs or another one. The built-in editor of Firefox is simply not up to the job. I recall that a first-pass correction of one of the long articles of EB1911 took me several hours to complete. I would not perform this several hours lasting correction in a small Firefox editing window, without the editing tools available in advanced plain text editors. --Dan Polansky (talk) 08:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Why not? That is a big statement and if one has the right tools in play, and implements the Regex tool in your gadgets, I find that I can get the right tools, and scripts and align them specifically for each work I have in play. Also as the proofing is now per page, you don't have to do a whole article in the one hit, you simply do it page by page, or subarticle and it is leave a internal to the edit. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:37, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
Re Billing Hurst, unindenting: I stand by my "you should not be editing long wikipages in Firefox"; you have said nothing to contradict that statement. What you are saying is that it is possible to avoid editing long pages by having only short pages in a wiki. I dislike page-by-page proofreading, while you obviously like it. The claim that there should be no long pages in a wiki because the Firefox editor handles them poorly is wrong: no one is forced to edit long wiki pages in Firefox: that is the point. --Dan Polansky (talk) 12:49, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

class=prose[edit]

Using <div class="prose"> seems okay to me: it makes the page easier to read online by narrowing it, and the class "prose" can be customized to have no effect when printing the page: "@media print { div.prose { width: 100% } }". --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There is other discussion around about prose, lefttext, indented-page, columns etc., and that is well covered there. I suppose the major point that I took was about only controlling the left edge and leaving the right, and this related to viewing with mobile devices. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Can I have a hyperlink to the discussion you are referring to? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:48, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
They have been animated discussion that spilled around the place as challenges went around and you can probably find these bits relevant and indicative [6] [7]. moondyne (talkcontribs) did some testing on his mobile device. I have just been looking at {{LR sidenote}} and the forced width itself causes some problems. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:11, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Breaking up into multiple pages[edit]

Some articles are being split into multiple pages. While I appreciate that it makes the pages quicker to load, it makes it much more laborious to print the long article and to determine the number of words. I would prefer that even long articles such as 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Metaphysics with 286,338 bytes and 47,000 words remain unsplit. --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

An alternative would be to also have a page that transcludes all the sections and sticks them all together and hence you can achieve both approaches. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Sounds good. Is there a work on Wikisource that could be used as a model for this approach? --Dan Polansky (talk) 10:47, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Umm, yes, and not one that I can lay my brain to as it is done less often. We could find some and play, and it is something in which could look to chat to ThomasV to see what can be auto done for this. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Yes, sounds good. Perhaps a link to the "printable" page can be put on the index page of the article. I've used transclusion for the disclaimer text at Wikisource:WikiProject Appletons' Cyclopædia of American Biography, but it looks kind of awkward since it uses a template meant for use with template docs. I like it, since it automatically transmits any changes to the project page to the disclaimer page and vice versa. Actually all that it needs is the word "documentation" changed to "text". Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
There are many EB1911 pages which have been split. Two that I can recall quickly are United States and Abbey. before making a decision about this, we should compile a complete list.
Possible solutions are PDF book (special:book) of the pages, and user:pathoschild was working on a JavaScript routine which would merge pages for the printable format. John Vandenberg (chat) 01:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Template[edit]

In DNB project is DNB contributor template, which makes easier linking to contributors. Is similar template in this project? --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 19:35, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

I added 26 new "EB1911 contributor templates" in Category:EB1911 contributor templates. --Tommy Jantarek (talk) 07:23, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Tables[edit]

For this project page I think it would be easier to navigate the sources if the Gutenberg files and the Google book section were in table format as they are in w:Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition#Free, public-domain sources for 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica text. -- PBS (talk) 05:08, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Westmorland[edit]

I have done a preliminary check of these two pages because I wanted the article on the Earls for a Wikipedia article and it straddled the pages.

I have done an initial pass of all of the two pages, as it helps this project. If someone else wants to proofread the pages it should allow a couple of article to be added to the encyclopaedia. -- PBS (talk) 21:29, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

Hi Phillip, if you think that article is corrected then we can create the page. Drop me a message if I forget, Cygnis insignis (talk) 23:18, 26 July 2010 (UTC)

OCR question[edit]

Hi, I've been getting a fair understanding of the process for working with scans from a different project. I'd like to work on some of these pages, for instance Page:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu/264. However, when I click "OCR" it apparently fails to recognize the 2-column format, running text together as though it were all the same column. I'm sure this has come up here before..what's the best way to deal with it?? Thanks for any tips! -Pete (talk) 04:07, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Common sources[edit]

The link Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Commons sources on the project page does not seem to be working all it returns to me is a blank page (no html text). Not sure if it is a problem with my client browser Firebox 3.6.8 or a Wikisource server problem. -- PBS (talk) 01:13, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Each file is enormous, 85 MB in the example I looked at. This probably exceeds a threshold for the page if we try to link more than a few. The 29 volumes are consistently named, one can infer the index title

This is the contents of the page you tried to access:

 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu|Volume 1]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 01.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu|Volume 2]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 02.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 03.djvu|Volume 3]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 03.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu|Volume 4]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 04.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 05.djvu|Volume 5]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 05.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu|Volume 6]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 06.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu|Volume 7]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu|Volume 8]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 08.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu|Volume 9]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 09.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu|Volume 10]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 10.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 11.djvu|Volume 11]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 11.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu|Volume 12]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 12.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu|Volume 13]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 13.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 14.djvu|Volume 14]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 14.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu|Volume 15]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 15.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu|Volume 16]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 16.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 17.djvu|Volume 17]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 17.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu|Volume 18]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 18.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu|Volume 19]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 19.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu|Volume 20]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 20.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu|Volume 21]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 21.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu|Volume 22]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 22.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu|Volume 23]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 23.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 24.djvu|Volume 24]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 24.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu|Volume 25]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu|Volume 26]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 26.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu|Volume 27]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu|Volume 28]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 28.djvu|Scan index]])
 [[:File:EB1911 - Volume 29.djvu|Volume 29]] ([[Index:EB1911 - Volume 29.djvu|Scan index]])

Good luck! cygnis insignis 04:52, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

Disambiguation pages[edit]

Does it make sense to have disambiguation pages in certain cases? And if so, do we need a custom template? For example, I created 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre, but I'm not entirely happy with the generic {{disambiguation}} text. Opinions? - Htonl (talk) 03:06, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Why not disambiguate the "see Blantyre" links to Scotland or Nyasaland, the indexer assumed it would be self evident, eg. EB1991/ British Central Africa. I notice that making a sub-page for each article requires a scheme, Blantyre (Scotland) for a parish, and this was not needed on the original page. I'll also grumble and note that the browsing aspect of nearby articles is lost with this framework, in addition to the added complications and work. cygnis insignis 16:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Certainly, "See Blantyre" (e.g.) links should be disambiguated to the the correct article - I've just done the one in the BCA article. For the rest of it, you seem to be proposing a fundamental change to how we organise the project, which is a bit beyond me, really! - Htonl (talk) 17:45, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
Personal opinion, and what I have suggested for DNB, is that disambiguation pages only occur at a whole of enWS level, and they can have specific sections that address projects. So we would have Blantyre which is {{disambiguation}} and there are sections for EB1911, DNB, ... We would apply {{similar}}, or any successive style, that points to the disambiguation page. We can then create a redirect that points from 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Blantyre to Blantyre#EB1911. To me this is about disambiguating pages and finding pages, rather than disambiguating links within a work, as Cygnis expressed losing the ability to browse a work in this alternate presentation needs a solution. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:53, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Reviewing header EB1911?[edit]

The header {{EB1911}} has not continued development of its internals compared to some of the other features and formatting that has occurred with {{header}}. As we have utilised a template and aligned partameters is it worthwhile looking at the functionality of the advanced header and seeing which components within EB1911 may find useful? — billinghurst sDrewth 00:33, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Unless there is reason(s) and dissent not to undertake upgrade to the modern header, I will look to undertake the conversion. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:58, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
I have moved the header to the Template: ns to allow for consistency in approach, which reverses the redirect. PBS has done some work in the sandbox, and we can look to getting to components. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:58, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Linking within articles[edit]

It would be useful within the project that there was some documentation that explicitly indicated that linking within articles would take place

  • primarily to contemporary articles within EB1911
  • secondarily to other places on enWS
  • and then onto directly to enWP where there is benefit.

To me linking directly to enWP from within an article written by 1911 is somewhat out of context where it is not contemporary to the time, especially where the linking is to quite modern subject material, eg. science-based. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:45, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

I think the Style Manual addresses links fairly well. As stated, the editor expressly references other articles with small caps or q.v.. I feel that these, but nothing else, should be linked (except in the header) as this is not Wikipedia. --Bwpach (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2011 (UTC)
I've been working on an article from the 1922 EB (the three supplementary volumes published for the 1911 edition), and have been pointed here. Would anyone be able to say whether these edits are helpful or not? The complete article is here. I am now going to link to the other EB articles referred to from that article. One question: what does 'see 25.437' at the top of the article mean? Carcharoth (talk) 19:45, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
My view is that articles on works and authors should be local links, even if they are redlinks; that is, it is better to redlink to Author:Robert W. Wood than bluelink to w:Robert W. Wood. Hesperian 23:41, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
I can change to redlinks, but is there somewhere I can put the Wikipedia links so that future editors and readers can still realise who is being mentioned here? I could add them to the djvu talk pages, but maybe the 'article' talk page is a better place, even though people have to find the djvu page again to edit it. I find the talk pages confusing here. See the edits I made here - there must be a better place to note this. Also, I've been trying again to work out what 'see 25.437' means and have still drawn a blank. Maybe volume 25, page 437, which would be referring people back to the EB 1911 edition from this supplementary edition? Carcharoth (talk) 00:11, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Linking from 1922 supplementary volumes to 1911 volumes[edit]

Following up my own question above, I've found out what the "See XX.YYY" bits in the 1922 EB supplementary volumes (volumes 30, 31 and 32, published in 1922 as a supplement to the 1911 EB) mean. For the 1922 EB article on 'Sound', we are referred to "25.473", and I just looked at Index:EB1911 - Volume 25.djvu and clicked on page 473 (not yet done) to confirm that this is the start page for the 1911 entry on 'Sound'. My question is whether I should link to the page or the article. I'm guessing that as the pages are workspaces, I should link to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sound and trust that this gets created eventually? I've done that here and then corrected myself here. Does that look like the right thing to do? Carcharoth (talk) 00:38, 23 May 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource links to the main namespace articles, not to the Page: namespace articles. The reasons are 1) it is predictable to link to the WS article and we can do that without any further information, 2) we can link to it with the appropriate EB1911 plain linked template, which gives us uniformity, and allows for personal formatting if someone wishes to do so, and that allows for future proofing, 3) the Page: namespace is our work area, and generally not where we wish to direct people and not have them get back to other data. — billinghurst sDrewth 08:06, 21 June 2011 (UTC)

Volume information for EB1911[edit]

Copied from Wikisource:Scriptorium#Volume information for EB1911

At the moment I am working through a backlog of Wikipedia pages that cite the Wikisource EB1911, the trouble is that may of them need to be attribute the source as they are in part or totally a copy of an EB1911 article on wikisource.

Some of the information that is needed for a full citation is the volume and page number.

I would like to request that a bot goes through the complete set of EB1911 articles adding volume=number. Where do I go to make such a request?

Although I realise that obtaining the page number is complicated for some pages because they have not been saved with page information. Others have it displayed on the left of the page, but others have it embedded as a comment within the text. Is there any place on the article page where that information could be displayed?

-- PBS (talk) 21:14, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Wikisource:Bot requests is the page for requests. I think that we can do vols, though the template has not been configured for the task. I remember putting comment on the page that I thought that {{EB1911}} was old and I thought that they should be aligning to the more modern components of our updated header. With regard to page numbers, as most of these pages are not transcluded text, it would be either the task to copy and paste the text to the article in the Page namespace, or manually identifying the page number and adding it with the left set variation of {{page break}}. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:13, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think though it is time that the suggestion made a year ago at (Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Header#Changes to make more like DNB) is implemented and a change is made to {{header}} so that it can handle a section author or contributor parameter so that all these multi-volume, multi-authored books can have headers that look something like that produced by the {{DNB00}} header template without mangling the code as is done with {{DNB00}}. In the mean time the changes I placed in the sandbox a year ago could be implemented.
I will put in a bot request unless for the volume information. It seems to me that in the long term we should go to all the pages being transcluded text as Londonjackbooks has suggested. However in the short term as many pages have the page number information embed in them as a comment, I agree with your suggestion that the page information should be made visible on the left using {{page break}} (as it appears to the reader to look similar to a transcluded page). Do you think extracting and presenting this page number information this could be automated? -- PBS (talk) 00:17, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The Bot request -- PBS (talk) 22:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Once article pages are transcluded properly, this article: 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Meyer, Victor would/should(?) be 'moved' to 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Volume 18/Meyer, Victor, no?? Londonjackbooks (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Putting works into subpages of volumes? While they were published that way, what is the value in our reproducing that way? And to me I find little value in moving the pages. We can add a volume number to the header to help us identify the volume, but I don't see the value in adding a level of complexity to reproduce the work, and one that I don't think assists in the production values. In some works it is necessary, however, I try to resist that option unless it positively helps. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:55, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
How about magazines?... And I'll have to chew on your explanation a bit too... I'm only thinking about how an article links back (from the Mainspace page) to it's actual source... When I can explain myself better, I'll repost... Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:07, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
Ok... I'm "game" with the vol. info being in the header... that makes sense... I just thought that the navigation above the header should likewise direct a reader to the exact source (e.g., "1911 Encyclopædia Britannica | Volume 1") Still, with magazines (I'm changing horses here) there's more of a likelihood that one would eventually come across duplicate titles... Plus, there's not only volumes, but issues—and also often special issues... What are your thoughts with regard to magazines? Londonjackbooks (talk) 11:31, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
The conversation about what belongs in volumes probably belongs elsewhere … in short, journals do, and that is due to a need to disambiguate. In a work that is an alpha collection, you won't have a need to disambiguate in a later vol. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

From looking at the header, the parameters wikipedia2 and other projects either do not exist or are in a different format from current standard. On running a quick parse of the 10k or so pages, there are ~628 pages that use these two parameters that should be updated first. From a quick look, we can convert the wp links to be inline, and usually occur where lesser people are included after the main biography. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Status of volumes 11 and 29[edit]

FYI...

Volumes 11 & 29 have been statused as needing an OCR'd text-layer ever since first uploaded some 2½ years ago.

With the help of Ineuw, I've finally managed to replace the .DjVu for volume 11 on Commons with one that now has an OCR'd text layer to work with.

Volume 29 (Index) will require specialized attention however - it seems the normal OCR routines floating around can't handle it's 5 column-per-page format. -- George Orwell III (talk) 00:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Request[edit]

For 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Vol 5:11 - the Thomas Chalmers article would be handy for WP work. I'm in a discussion about it now on w:User talk:Charles Matthews. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

There is a transcription at Project Gutenberg. - Htonl (talk) 11:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Subsections[edit]

I have put in a BOT request that those articles without volume information have it added see Wikisource:Bot requests#Volume information for EB1911.

An issue that has come up are that some pages have been cut up into subsections. Fore example 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abbey the first section of which is 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Abbey/Santa Laura. From the Bot request page:

Can I be bold and request that the subsections be merged to the one page. It seems that we are not true to the work if we start creating new subsections, AND we can manage the longer pages just fine. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:36, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree with billinghurst, and until someone points out why it is desirable, I think we should depreciate splitting pages up into subpages -- The way I handled a large page can be seen with 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Great Rebellion. -- PBS (talk) 13:39, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Currently the guidance is for subpages see Wikisource:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Style Manual#Breaking up into multiple pages -- PBS (talk) 00:06, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Volume information[edit]

I have put in a BOT request that those articles without volume information have it added see Wikisource:Bot requests#Volume information for EB1911.

An issue has come up (copied from my talk page):

Hi. These pages (and maybe more of the same kind) appear not have volume info. Maybe you should think a way of coding the template so that they are not categorised as "without volume" (maybe with parameter "volume = NA" or something like that:

Bye--Mpaa (talk) 12:02, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

What do we do about these pages? --PBS (talk) 13:24, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

More from my talk page:

They either appeared in volumes or they didn't.
  • If they didn't and they are our constructs, then maybe they belong in portal namespace.
  • If they did, then they belong with each volume, or they are just reproduced in the introductory section, then we reproduce one, and make it volume nude in the main ns, and work out what we want to for the page ns.
Basically this is the area of braveness where we probably make the considered decision to deviate from the published work as the 'rule' was not designed for EB1911. We should be rule-guided, not rule-bound. Also examples are what has been done for DNB and its subparts.— billinghurst sDrewth 13:29, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

--PBS (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Also these kind of pages are currently tagged as "no volume" (some examples follow, they apply to all volumes):
--Mpaa (talk) 23:20, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Replacement images[edit]

I have uploaded for colour images onto Wikcommons (see commons:Category:Encyclopaedia Britannica 1911 volume 27 Uniforms) but I do not know how to incorporate them into the Links in Index:EB1911 - Volume 27.djvu could someone please show me how to do it. -- PBS (talk) 16:40, 24 August 2013 (UTC)

Fixed page width[edit]

Please see Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Fixed page width. I now realise that this affects more than one project and for the same reasons as given on the DNB page I think that this change is a mistake for this project.

Where is the best place to centralise this discussion? Until such time as there is a better place to centralise the discussion please place any comments at Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Fixed page width so that the discussion is centralised there. -- PBS (talk) 13:26, 30 November 2013 (UTC)

Discussion being held at Wikisource:Scriptorium#Fixed page width -- PBS (talk) 11:50, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Archived Wikisource:Scriptorium/Archives/2014-01#Fixed page width -- PBS (talk) 12:19, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Small caps in Page space[edit]

I'm trying to absorb the proofreading conventions for the EB1911 page space. One question: should we preserve small caps in page space? Example: Page:EB1911_-_Volume_28.djvu/722, should Anne Finch Winchelsea's title be rendered in page space source as {{sc|Countess of}}? And will that transclude through into article space (and what's the convention for small caps in article space, anyway)? Similar considerations apply to the alternate headings; in the article headed "ABACA, or ABAKA":, the first word is the main entry, in bold caps and the second word is in nonbold small caps. DavidBrooks (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Format of EB1911 RunningHeader[edit]

I've seen the headers formatted in different ways: with the title words bolded or included in {{x-large}}; similarly with the page numbers, and also with hyphens where the scans seem to have an m-dash. I just created page 100 of volume 4 with this:

{{RunningHeader| left={{x-larger|100}} | center={{x-larger|BOATSWAIN—BOBER}}}}

which seems to me to properly capture the spirit of the original (complete with the closed-up mdash). If I create another page I'll do the same until-unless someone notices this and starts a discussion. Pinging those who have edited RunningHeaders I've found: @PBS:, @Lala love:, @EncycloPetey: DavidBrooks (talk) 03:40, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

That's at odds with what I've seen the community doing in two respects: (1) we use the actual character, rather than coding, for the "mdash". There is no need to say "& mdash ;", (2) the spacing seems to be well used, although others might disagree. At the very least, there is no need to specify "left=" and "center="; the template can handle unnamed parameters without all that extra typing. --EncycloPetey (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
So this is better:
{{x-larger|{{RunningHeader|100|BOATSWAIN — BOBER}}}}
(in my previous example, the source has ; mdash &, but the PRE doesn't override that). I like the certainty of the HTML entity because the mdash is a pain to type in Windows: the fonts seem to be confused by alt-8212. But the insert tool is there to help. I'll try to get around to extending the project transclusion instructions DavidBrooks (talk) 16:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)
@EncycloPetey: Now I see someone has changed the new page function to pre-populate with this:
{{rh|{{x-larger|n}}|{{x-larger|{{uc|Foo{{—}}Bar}}}}|{{x-larger|n}}}}
Based on your previous comment, you may know where this change is located, and who did it?. It's good to have a convention, but I would point out that you can factor out the x-larger and put it outside the rh, saving some complexity. See above, and the source of Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/897. Also, I see, no space around the dash. DavidBrooks (talk) 05:39, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
No, your proposal is definitely NOT better; the spaces you've added are too wide, and you've set up the templates in an inverted order. One cannot have the x-larger outside the running header template. Not as a default anyway, because there are some article pages that have other text in the header that is not at that size. See the pages of the articles Theatre (e.g. vol. 26, Pl. III) and Greek Literature (e.g. vol. 12, p. 513) for examples.
The pre-populating format is the preferred one. The template {{}} inserts hairline spaces around the dash, which would otherwise run up against the lettering in some fonts. If you're not seeing spaces, then it may be the result of your OS, browser, or font choices. The hairline spacing is needed on other platforms, for other users. --EncycloPetey (talk) 19:21, 21 June 2014 (UTC)
Correction noted; thanks for taking the time to point out the examples. I'll fix the pages I created, to act as better models. I still want to record my problem with – versus &ndash; or {{ndash}}, precisely because of the focus on proofreading. When someone proofreads an article, the text and source show no clue, or only a subtle one, whether you're looking at a hyphen or dash. I guess the quick way would be to edit it to the desired version and see if it shows up in Show Changes. I sometimes copy it into Word and alt-X it. That said, I guess my argument would also imply the need to create "Hair spaced ndash" and "Hair spaced mdash" templates. (@EncycloPetey: in case you aren't watching this page.) DavidBrooks (talk) 15:58, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
In general, the community has chosen to avoid using code for characters and discourages use of &ndash; and similar coding. If you feel there is reason for a community change, that would need to be brought up in a general discussion at the Scriptorium. Nearly all characters that might need to have special coding are either done directly or through a template. We also tend to discourage the creation of lots and lots of alternative forms of templates. There was even a thorough clean-up and mass deletion a few years back. Keeping it clean and simple is the community mantra here. --EncycloPetey (talk) 17:17, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
Granted you discourage the proliferation of templates, but I thought it would simplify Page space coding to create {{EB1911 Page Heading}}, with 4 positional parameters (only 2 or 3 would be valid), to encapsulate the preferred format. I'll try to extend it to allow named parameters. It currently doesn't support headings like vol. 12, p. 513 in an obvious way; {{rh}} could be used, or the non-obvious font decoration mentioned in the doc. I've only used it in 4 pages, so if there is strong disapproval I can revert them.
I also modified {{EB1911 footer initials}} and {{EB1911 footer double initials}} to default to small-caps, as the printed encyclopaedia does. DavidBrooks (talk) 05:14, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Source version[edit]

The online versions that are listed for reference in Page space are imperfect scans: they often drop periods, and represent ; as , — presumably because the speck detection is too sensitive. The new archive.org scans mentioned in the index pages have low contrast and are often almost impossible to read. I have been verifying against the high-quality scans also at archive.org; an index query is here. However the latter set seems to be a different printing from the other two. The main title page identifies the Cambridge University Press, compared with a New York address, and the footers of the first and last article pages of each volume contain different codes. The only substantive difference I've found after the title page so far is in the listing of contributor W.W.R., who is "Lic Theol" in the All-American version, and Ph.D. in the CUP version. Can someone explain the versions, and if there are any significant differences in content?

For consistency, I'll continue to dup the American content, and use the CUP printing to verify questionable OCR. But I'd like to know whether the right-hand footer of the first article page is II or 11. DavidBrooks (talk) 06:32, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Source of images?[edit]

I've been avoiding verification of pages that contain inline black-and-white images, because I don't know where to obtain good versions of them. I realize that Project Gutenberg has already done the good work of extracting many (all?) clean b/w image files from the original pages, but I'm daunted by the prospect of finding them and uploading to mediawiki. I saw that Gutenberg had batches of them in zip files, but have no idea how to find the file containing images for any given article. Some of them seem to be already on mediawiki, but it's still not clear how to find them.

Is there an index that would let me easily find image files for a specific article? I don't want to resort to making screenshots myself when the work has already been done. And is there a simple source for full-page plates? Finally, if I do upload them, is there a standard naming convention for the mediawiki copies? DavidBrooks (talk) 00:42, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Uploading images onto Commons[edit]

At the moment the EB1911 style manual contain a section "Images". This gives guidance on where to place uploads and how retrieve them. But it gives no guidance on what names to give the images. I think it would be useful to come up with some sort of guidance eg

EB1911-VolumeNumber-PageNumber-CounterOnPage-description

or something similar as this would make searching commons for the correct image much easier. Is there currently an agreed standard? Do Project Gutenberg have a standard we could use?

-- PBS (talk) 13:19, 25 November 2014 (UTC)