Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB

From Wikisource

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] Table of Contents formatting

Question around ToC (Moved from User talk:Arch dude) Some style questions

  • Replicating the OR entries, are we leading with preferred name, or do we have entry for both in ToC. Issues is that some of the OR get quite long. Plus if we use full, do we full wikilink or just first component.
  • Dates of life. We have used some DoL, to disambiguate, however, what guidance are we giving?

-- Billinghurst 03:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know. Do you have some examples? what seems to work best? The guiding principle is to preserve the look and feel of the original, but the original does not have a ToC in this sense: It's a navigational artifact that we added to replace the original's (physical page-based) navigation. Once we find a workable solution, we can put it in the "Style" section. -Arch dude 14:25, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
1) Example ToC
Look at name like Waad/Wade as an example of alternate names. Gut feel is to enter under first appearing name. It seems that more will get pretty ugly especially around order, and wikilinks. As you mentioned as long as the transcription replicates the book, that is the important item.
2) I would think guidance is give DoL only where it is needed to disambiguate, though this requires it then in the DNB template, for each entry, which is a level of complication. The complexity of wikilinks makes me hesitate to give definitive statement. Whatever is more foolproof is my preference.
Billinghurst 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your example is very informative. It's an index from the original DNB, not a ToC from the Wikisource project. We should (eventually) create an "article" that is as close as possible to an exact duplicate of the index, with every single character (including the page numbers) duplicated. By our own rules, we are permitted to link the entries in this article to the relevant articles in our project. This is (theoretically) completely distinct from the ToC. The ToC is a modern navigational construct: a navigational tool that we added to replace the paper navigation of the original. Since the project is still new, we can elect to abandon the ToC and replace it with a faithful reproduction of the DNB index. Alternatively, we can keep our ToC and also reproduce the index. My inclination is to abandon the ToC and use the index instead, but please remember that I am only one of the (currently) three members of this project. If we do elect to use the index as our primary navigational tool, we should first agree on the exact format of each "volume" article. -Arch dude 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had a start at some trial text in [Abbadaire - Anne] and in the talk page is the example with full dates added. Note
later in the index is
Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah. see Abershaw.
While I can understand articles being word for word, I wonder whether an index page where we convert to a ToC should be an exact replicate. -- Billinghurst 06:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that the "(DNB00)" is not wanted or needed in the ToC. As an initial matter, let's remove it using pipe notation.
  • [[Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah (DNB00)|Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah]]
  • [[Abershaw or Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795) (DNB00)|Abershaw or Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795)]]
My vote would be for the second article title to be
  • Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795) (DNB00)
The article title is a Wikisource navigational construct, not a part of the original text, so we are free to choose. -Arch dude 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Given it a try, have a look at Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Vol_58_Ubaldini_-_Wakefield, specifically looking at Wadd, William (1776-1829) -- Billinghurst 16:01, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This raises a few interesting points. First I think that if the DNB has an article, even if only a see reference, it should be a link. Second, the John Wadham situation is interesting because he is in the index, but what we have about him is embedded in another article in a way that cannot be easily isolated; perhaps the link to Nicholas Wadham there should be wikified. Third, Arthur and Felix Wakefield have identifiable paragraphs within another article. Would people consider it too much a breech of purity to add headings withing the article so that we could have "See Wakefield, William Hayward (DNB00)#Arthur Wakefield. Eclecticology 18:31, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that adding headings to create anchors is in fact a "breach of purity." Fortunately, it is also unnecessary, since it is possible to add invisible anchors instead. Now I just need to remember the correct syntax... -Arch dude 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
Very spooky, I just happened to do one of those articles today, so I have gone and done as suggested.
Note that I have wl'd the component of the name after See under rather than the specific name itself. I am not wedded to that methodology. In the end, with many articles being short, I don't think that it will even be noticed. -- Billinghurst 06:53, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


1) Example ToC
Look at name like Waad/Wade as an example of alternate names. Gut feel is to enter under first appearing name. It seems that more will get pretty ugly especially around order, and wikilinks. As you mentioned as long as the transcription replicates the book, that is the important item.
2) I would think guidance is give DoL only where it is needed to disambiguate, though this requires it then in the DNB template, for each entry, which is a level of complication. The complexity of wikilinks makes me hesitate to give definitive statement. Whatever is more foolproof is my preference.
Billinghurst 14:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Your example is very informative. It's an index from the original DNB, not a ToC from the Wikisource project. We should (eventually) create an "article" that is as close as possible to an exact duplicate of the index, with every single character (including the page numbers) duplicated. By our own rules, we are permitted to link the entries in this article to the relevant articles in our project. This is (theoretically) completely distinct from the ToC. The ToC is a modern navigational construct: a navigational tool that we added to replace the paper navigation of the original. Since the project is still new, we can elect to abandon the ToC and replace it with a faithful reproduction of the DNB index. Alternatively, we can keep our ToC and also reproduce the index. My inclination is to abandon the ToC and use the index instead, but please remember that I am only one of the (currently) three members of this project. If we do elect to use the index as our primary navigational tool, we should first agree on the exact format of each "volume" article. -Arch dude 02:28, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I have had a start at some trial text in [Abbadaire - Anne] and in the talk page is the example with full dates added. Note
later in the index is
Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah. see Abershaw.
While I can understand articles being word for word, I wonder whether an index page where we convert to a ToC should be an exact replicate. -- Billinghurst 06:47, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
It's clear that the "(DNB00)" is not wanted or needed in the ToC. As an initial matter, let's remove it using pipe notation.
  • [[Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah (DNB00)|Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah]]
  • [[Abershaw or Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795) (DNB00)|Abershaw or Avershawe, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795)]]
My vote would be for the second article title to be
  • Abershaw, Louis Jeremiah (1773?-1795) (DNB00)
The article title is a Wikisource navigational construct, not a part of the original text, so we are free to choose. -Arch dude 11:41, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Billinghurst for joining the project. It takes getting a few heads together to sort out the questions that are being raised. Several points have been raised by both of you that I want to address.

  1. ToC vs. DNB Index. I think it's important that we are recognizing the importance of Wikisource navigational constructs. Failing to do this can make work awkward. (I've already run into this over works that have quotation marks as part of the title.) I have no complaint about including the DNB index with page numbers as an additional group of pages, but what page numbers should it show? My own hard copy is the (originally) 1921 reprint edition which combined the original 63 volumes into 21. The pages themselves were essentially duplicates of the originals; right down to the same word breaks at the beginning and end of a page. That edition, however, did include the changes from the 1904 errata volume. (See Internet Archives for this one.) With the 1921 reprint the pagination was changed so the original separately paginated volumes 4, 5 and 6 became the new continuously paginated volume 2. The indexes for the new volumes also had footnotes to take into account those additions made in the First Supplement.
  2. DoLs. I very much support using these as disambiguators, but only when necessary. I know that Wikipedia favours disambiguation by what made a person famous in life, but that is more likely to require some sort of subjective determination than DoLs. To make it easy for a person who wants to cross link articles we should not require that he read the entire linked article just to make the link; the dates used should be exactly as they appear in parentheses at the beginning of each article. (At some point we may need to deal with same individuals who have different dates in another reference work, but I think that that problem can be deferred.)
  3. Using a pipe to suppress the "DNB00" from what is seen in the ToC is just fine.
  4. Honorifics. My preference is to suppress these from our article titles. We would, of course, continue to include this material in the article itself. It is to be noted that titled people usually have a see reference at the title, and these "see" articles should be kept as such (e.g. "ALEMOOR, Lord. [See Pringle.])
  5. Alternative names. I agree with Arch dude's solution for the situation expressed in the Abershaw example, but without the dates since there is no ambiguity with some other person. We would maintain the see reference at "Avershawe". The alternative name should continue in the ToC since there will be an article, even if it is only a see reference which maintains continuity between other articles. Eclecticology 17:42, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
This looks like a consensus to me. Shall we now add it to the project page's "style" section and begin converting the ToCs? -Arch dude 00:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
I just found the syntax for an invisible anchor: go the the note on purity above. The syntax is {{anchor|my_hidden_anchor}}. -Arch dude 00:50, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguation

I've drafted the disambiguation section on the project page. Let me know your comments. I'll attack some of the other topics in due course. Eclecticology 18:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of authors

Some guidance to where the list of authors are in the book would be useful. Probably something that is worth giving guidance in scope. Thx.

-- Billinghurst 02:49, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
What I've been to doing to rough this out is to simply take the number of pages in the volume and divide by four. This should give an idea of where to break up the list. I've been avoiding putting the break in the middle of a set of surnames, but this may not matter in the long run. The list can always be easily fine-tuned at some later stage.
With the first two vols., I have just been adding a page per column, and I have then been getting part the way through a fifth page. I then even them up, and like you, split after a set of like surnames.
I've been working directly from the pages, but that will work too. Your way insures that we add the see references, and mine does better with the cross-reference articles found in the text. Either way works, and having both operational will help one pickup what the other has missed. Eclecticology 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that the reason for the breaks between list items is to avoid having the whole list wrap into one long text. Bulleted lists will avoid this (as would the less elegant addition of line breaks). Eclecticology 18:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I must have been less than clear. I was enquiring about the source location of the authors of the individual articles, eg. A. H. M.. At this point, I just know and list them with their initials, and leave them from others to modify, if they see them. -- Billinghurst 11:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Sorry if I misunderstood. I'm working from the "List of Contributors" in the first volume of the reprint edition, pp. xi-xx. It covers the original volumes plus the first supplement. If anyone anywhere has already scanned this it would make developing this dense material into a workable page of links much easier. The other option is for me to type this out the hard way. Eclecticology 18:34, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hey, absolutely no prob, thx for the direction. I have uploaded scans DNB contributors and will remove them in a week or so

BTW I type all that I do (my preference). Obviously I am a dinosaur in my ways. :-) So if I need to type these out, give us a yell, and I will do it when I get back later this week or next. -- Billinghurst 02:45, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It's interesting to compare what you have scanned with my hard copy. They are essentially the same except that your Jan. 1932 printing (per the bottom of page 1) had the daggers, and they were omitted in mine from May 1942. I did find one name spelling variant. I'll try to at least work up what I have in mind for these pages in the next couple days.
Around here I too am from the age of dinosaurs! It's tedious, but at times there is no realistic other choice. It is good to know this when I'm proofreading something. The kinds of discrepancies that arise from typing material in have a different quality from those using an older uncorrected edition or from OCR errors. Eclecticology 08:47, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I've started Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/List of Contributors. Have a look and let me know what you think about it. Eclecticology 20:40, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proofs, authors and wikilinks

Is there some easy way to record and mark that something has been proofread, and probably that the wikilinks and author data has been attended to. I am finding with articles, when they have the [q. v.] components and want to come back to them later to do the right wikilink. -- Billinghurst 14:13, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't think there is a satisfactory answer for this. I have been clicking lately on the 75% box in the text advancement section under the summary box. This puts a message "Proofread and corrected" in the summary box and adds {{TextQuality|75%}} at the top of the edit page. The other stated magical effects are more obscure.
I might go and ask someone. -- ab
Another option is to use the template {{textinfo}} on the talk page. This would give more detail, but requires that much more work. This gets very tedious when you are working on a lot of short articles.
Neither of the above two techniques have a specific provision for documenting whether the wikilinks have been made. The ones with the [q. v.] are clearly the most significant, but there are plenty of other names that could be cross-linked. On top of that, you really need to check out whether disambiguation is required; I've even found one reference to a biography that doesn't exist.
The other problem that I'm finding is what are we proofreading to. The original 63 volume edition may not be the best. I've been using the 21 + 1 volume reprint edition which incorporated the extensive 1904 errata volume even though it did not make other substantive changes. That creates an enormous challenge. I look forward to your comments. Eclecticology 22:32, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
(IMNSHO) I am interested in the most correct data, rather than the more sentimental replication of data at all cost, whether correct or not. That is probably the genealogist in me! So ideally it is more that we need to annotate the edition to which the proofing was done, though I would be happy with a proof than none. -- Billinghurst 11:18, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree. Now it's a matter of finding a practical solution that is clear and does not generate excess work. !!!! Eclecticology 18:06, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Expanding our use of {{textinfo}}

I just looked deeper at {{textinfo}} and can see that we should be using more components rather than ticking the little boxes at the bottom {{textinfo | edition = | source = | contributors = | progress = | notes = | proofreaders = }} Can I suggest that we put the full box and dice into all articles, when we create them (prefereable) or first edit them if others transcribe. I am not template expert, however, is there a possibility that it is within the DNB template that these parts are included? -- Billinghurst (talk) 08:01, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Using categories on talk pages to signify requirements

(I am obviously getting obsessive <g>) I have used {{textinfo}} at Talk:Waddilove, Robert Darley (DNB00) for a look-see. Plus I am wondering on the potential usefulness of adding categories (temporarily) to the article talk pages to signify work required, eg. __Category:DNB talk qv links__ and __Category:DNB author pending__ -- Billinghurst (talk) 16:04, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

There are plenty of challenges in these questions, not the least is the availability of manpower, and how much work does each person want to do. I even try to ask myself why I feel so disinclined to use {{textinfo}}. The principles behind that template are fine, but I can't approach it without a feeling of annoyance. At the same time I find it quite acceptable to spend a considerable amount of time in detailed proofreading, or in trying to track down basic information about authors.
I have been mulling over these questions as I have been sitting doing bits. I have added them, and for lack of anything better, I have been adding them. An old version of ShortKeys application makes the text addition reasonably simple, for me, though, I emphasis 'for me'. I think that all I can hope for is that {{textinfo}} will become more useful in time.
The "for me" is not always appreciated by some of our colleagues. I too tend toward idiosyncratic work habits. If a technique works satisfactorily for the contributing individual, externally imposed efficiencies will be counterproductive.
Manpower. Well, I think that for transcriptions that I can find that. The genealogical community has been generous in their time for the right projects. The issue with that community can be more about the wiki learning curve. I have a plan, and just doing other groundwork first. It then might become more about management.
The genealogical community is a big untapped resource for wikis. There was a time when it was sufficient to know only a small handful of markups before a person could edit effectively. Now, the abundance of templates and other technical tricks scares people away. If in the course of recruiting from that community you can convince them that all the markup they will really need can fit on a single printed page that campaign will be successful. The experienced ones among us then need to step in when the techies begin insisting on fancy proceedures.
I have a 'secret' there and it is very non-Wiki. I am going to give them a choice of doing it in-wiki or in-mailing list. If they can transcribe they can post it to a list, and they can be copied from there and pasted here. That bit is ready to go. Many genies have been on the web and utilising lists for years. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:53, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I too have some concerns about categories on the talk pages. We want volunteers to know what needs to be done, but these categories and "textinfo" are more likely to be put where the work has already been done instead of where it's needed. They can't go on articles that don't exist. I've been putting a "#" by the pages listed on the volume pages to show that it has been proofread. Is this useful?
As I am only transcribing at this point in time, the only answer that I can give is probably. Backend solutions would seen preferable, it just seems that most of this communities vision is focused on the output, than the outcome.
Outcome requires more farsightedness than output. I'll keep thinking about this problem.
The "q.v" entries are a good places to start adding cross-references but I don't think that those will show their full value until we have a much greater proportion of articles written. Some people are mentioned in articles without a "q.v." Thomas Falconer is one mentioned in the Waddilove article. The articles in the earlier volumes hardly used them at all. I skimmed through the long articles on Queen Anne and Francis Bacon, and didn't notice any. I'll continue with anticipatory links, but there are probably many more that could be in there.
Nice feedback, I hadn't noticed. They are the navigation constructs only, so I feel happy that we can do as and when. Similarly, I have been adding them, though feel that the most important aspect is the actual text.
I think that our current thoughts are about setting up the underlying framework, so that others can plug n play as required.
We agree on both points.
One way to judge the utility of techniques is the extent to which the technique's inventor actually uses it. Keep up the good work. We do have people who have these brilliant ideas, but never use them. Eclecticology (talk) 07:16, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Plethora of tools, just many that don't do the right job or not in the right place. I probably could go and learn to make the tools (BTDT at RootsWeb), however, on this project, I was more looking to be front end minion rather than back end semi-genius. :-)
-- Billinghurst (talk) 01:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, we occasionally need to be rescued from genius. Eclecticology (talk) 06:33, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
Back to the coalface.

[edit] Further suggestion on the above

If the potential recruits had the page already started would they be inclined to add the text directly to that article? We could go ahead and start articles with the headers only and put them in Category:DNB25%, but those articles would have their headers complete, including author and Wikipedia links. Once they're trained to add the text to these articles (and if they haven't yet been intimidated by a welcome message), maybe they could progress to proofreading each other's entries, and after that cross-referencing. Eclecticology (talk) 06:39, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Nice solution. I do think that having the framework in place (without author text and WP links) would be very useful. Ability to "type" and "edit" and "save" would simplify things. I think that we may be able to sweeten the deal.
N-ve may become that the categories don't get amended; for interim viewers it is not evident that nothing behind the link
P+ve direct links to each TO DO page by task from project page
The notion of being stuck with arbitrary percentages did cross my mind. If the current spectrum works, so would 20/40/60/80/100. Keyword categories are indeed more useful, and some of the issues that arise with shorter publications, are no longer a factor, especially sourcing issues which is a global one for the entire project. They should unambiguously specify what needs to be done instead of what has already been done. The problem with the word "proofread" is that the past and present tense are spelt identically. More than one category may be used on the same page.
May I suggest:
  • Category:DNB Add text - The article has a header and needs a text. This is roughly equivalent to the current 25% category.
  • Category:DNB Add header - May not be needed except in the occasional situation where we have a text but no header.
  • Category:DNB Verify - The text needs to be proofread - Roughly equivalent to the current 50% category
  • Category:DNB Re-verify - The text needs to be proofread by a second person to give greater quality assurance.
  • Category:DNB Link - Needs wiki-links added.
  • Category:DNB Stable - This page has been proofread by at least two people, the last of whom did not find any errors. The clearly required links to other DNB articles have been created, but optional ones may still need to be made.
  • Category:DNB See - Use this for articles that are little more than cross references to other articles.
  • Category:Needs info - This tries to address your negatives and the matter of {{textinfo}}. Perhaps it could involve a modified version of the box that could go right on the content page. This requires more thought.
Comments? Eclecticology (talk) 18:09, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Broad agreement. DNB Link can be added or checked. {{textinfo}} probably becomes redundant with proposed framework, beyond not knowing who undertook. That said they need to amend talk page, and that is less likely to happen anyway. About the only additional is potential for a hidden(?) DNB complete to allow for quiet cross-reference ability. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:51, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Category:

[edit] Biographers?

Would you agree that all of these authors should be classified as biographers? It currently exists.

I have no problem with this as it is directly relevant to that person's written work. I admit though that I have been doing nothing about putting categories on author pages. I do find things like Category:Knights of the Elephant somewhat over the top, but it does have ardent defenders.
There definitely should be a clear purpose for Categorisation. This was a coin toss. Nights of the Heffalumps? Pass! -- billinghurst (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
A good category system requires being able to take a global view on how it's structured, and how one's own interests fit in to something bigger. Eclecticology (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat tangentially to this I would like to see more generally done about categorizing texts than authors. Wikisource is after all about the texts. Eclecticology (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
That would mean Wikisource:Biography would be ugly, though from Category:Biographies it would have some value. DNB is already at the former, and in a subset of the latter. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:27, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
Wikisource:Biography is probably a lost cause anyway. It's unmanageable. Eclecticology (talk) 00:32, 21 September 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Authors to works

As per my question to the Scriptorium, I was thinking of putting within the category tree Category:Authors >> ...Authors by Works >> ...Authors in DNB and having that as a category for all authors. Yes? No? Maybe? -- billinghurst (talk) 11:37, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Somewhat lukewarm, but again it's not likely to be the sort of place where I will participate. For me it begs the question: When is a category useful? We currently have 2083 entries in Category:Early modern authors, and I can't imagine any reason why I would want to look anything up there. Sorry if I sound a little testy over this matter of categories. Eclecticology (talk) 18:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)
Most of my reasoning was systems for us.
  1. With temporary empty Author slots, may lessen where people adding superfluous flags
  2. Allows for a cross check in that every page would expect to have one of more DNB pages

Your other reflections are based upon the lack of usefulness of much categorisation. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:32, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

I wasn't objecting completely, and I think I understand what you're getting at. The intermediate category,"Authors by works," is probably too broad, and gives too many people the opportunity to fulfil their natural tendency to get things wrong. Maybe "Encyclopedia contributors?" Go ahead, and we can see how it works out. Eclecticology (talk) 22:17, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Done → Category:Contributors to DNB. Full notification to Wikisource:Scriptorium. -- billinghurst (talk) 05:44, 21 September 2008 (UTC)

[edit] pagescans

I have started Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/pagescans by scanning this list (using the "Flip Book" feature). John Vandenberg (chat) 00:50, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. An issue that arises is whether these are the best ones to use for proofreading. The first combined edition might be better since it incorporates the 1904 errata. Eclecticology (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
With the change in the upload limit to 100MB, all the DNB files fall into the limit, it seems opportune to get the DJVU files into Index: pages. I have started that process and you can see where I am up to with Index: pages at Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Djvu files.
For where I am up to with download process, see billinghurst archive.org bookmarks. The list will be completed with what is available time. I am limiting myself so that I can keep track of where I am up to. -- billinghurst (talk) 12:45, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

[edit] CotW

The EB1911 project often transcribes the EB1911 article for our weekly collaboration project. This week's author is Author:Isaac Brock, and the EB1911 article already exists, and is featured on Wikipedia. DNB should do the same! John Vandenberg (chat) 23:57, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Will do. Eclecticology (talk) 04:19, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
John, is there a list of forthcoming CotW? -- billinghurst (talk) 23:08, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] DNB Author links

I just added a template: {{DNB contributor|x. y. x}} . I intend to add this template to each DNB contributor in the list of contributors. I also intend to add a new template for each DNB contributor. The worked example is {{DNB GCB}}.

The idea here is to simplify the creation of the last line of each bibliographical article. Whenever you add an article, just add the correct template as the last line. The template will add the right-justified initials with the proper author link. -Arch dude (talk) 01:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Is it also worth having the template drop in Category:Contributors to DNB? That might make it easier in the long run to pull it, if/when that decision is made.
Not quite. The "contributors to DNB" needs to be added to the template that is used in each of the (less than 100) "Author" pages. That template is template:DNB contributor. Ecletology (I think) wrote that template.We could add the categorizatin to that template, which would allow us to remove the categorization later if someone does not like it. My template(s) will be added to each of the 50,000+ bibliobraphy pages. We could elect to amalgamate these templates with the footer template if such a template exists. -Arch dude (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just added a template: Template:DNB footer initials. This is an "internal" template to be used to create the footer (100 or so) templates for each author: See template:DNB GCB as an example. -Arch dude (talk) 00:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I just edited all the articles to convert the author footers. -Arch dude (talk) 02:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

  • 100 authors? :-) It's over 600. The templates seem to work; they do keep me from needing to look up the same authors miltiple times. Eclecticology (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
I have updated the {{DNB contributor}} template so that it also transcludes Category:Contributors to DNB. I am working through filling all the existing Author pages with the template. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Progress? and variations

I am just wondering on how we are progressing with these author templates?

Also, when I was cruising through volume 1, I see that Sidney Lee had been assigned the initials "SLL" and in the later compiled List of Contribs he is "SL". We will need to review how to handle, and watch out for others. When AD does his template, should we just redirect one to the other? -- billinghurst (talk) 11:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My original intent was to add the templates gradually, as needed. After your heroic effort to add the page scans, I'm now addingth templates pre-emptively, starting with the ones listed on the "list of writers" page for vol 1 and progressing slowly forward from there. I am finished with vol 1 and most of vol 2. during this effort, I added S. L. L. as a synonum for S. L. on the consolidated contributors page, and E. W. G. as a synonym for E. G. I also added H. R. L. I did not add the two Misses Clerke, because I couls not figure out who they really are. (A. M. C. and E. M. C.) -Arch dude (talk) 12:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Done through vol 5 Slow going here. I'm still finding about ten new authors per vol. -Arch dude (talk) 18:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
If I/we concentrate our transcriptions on vols. 1 through 8, or earlier, then that covers the templates for now. :-) billinghurst (talk)
Done through vol 8. I'll wait until the 'bot does a few more volumes, and then catch up with it. However, please don't feel constrained: if you need a template, just make it yourself ro drop me a note and I'll do it. -Arch dude (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Variation between versions

The very useful material from Internet Archives is based on the first (63 + 3 volume) edition of the DNB. For proofreading I use my dead-tree version of the 22 volume reprint, which has incorporated the 1904 errata. This causes me some concern when the two versions differ. Thus in Brougham, Henry Peter (DNB00), what originally read

"As Lord Cleveland (Darlington) went over to the tories, Brougham felt bound in 1830 to vacate his seat for Winchelsea, and accordingly accepted the offer of the Duke of Devonshire to return him for Knaresborough."

became

"Brougham in 1830 vacated his seat for Winchelsea, the borough of the earl of Darlington (created Marquis of Cleveland in 1827), and accepted the offer of the Duke of Devonshire to return him for Knaresborough."

Or in another situation "1805" was simply changed to "1806". For one who would prefer precise reporting, these situations are maddening, and attempting to document them could take considerable time. Such attention to detail could severely limit the amount of material that could be included in Wikisource in the near future.

My own preference is to stick with the more recent version with the hope that at some point we will also add the 1904 errata. The purpose of those errata was, of course, to correct errors. Comments? Eclecticology (talk) 19:09, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm very much against using any version later than the original 63-volumes published from 1885 to 1900 for this particular Wikisource. I feel that you should create another parallel Wikisource with a different title (e.g., "Dictionary of National Biography, 1904") in which you will be free to point back to the articles with (DNB00) suffixes when there are no differences, and you are free to replace the (DNB00) articles with (DNB04) articles as needed. We can also link forward to the (DNB04) (or later) articles from the "see also" section of the (DNB00) article header, since the header does not purport to exactly reflect the source. Furthermore, we can add a section to the "notes on reading the DNB" article to recommend that users who are looking for information rather than exact sources should start from the latest NB that we have: Indeed we can create a synthetic "Dictionary of National Biography" (with no date) as the front project. At an absolute minimum, if we intend to use the existing project as the synthesized DNB, then we need to do three things:
  • change the project name
  • add a note to the front matter of the project to explain that the project has mixed sources
  • explicitly provide the provenance for each individual article.
As I see it, there are at least two ways forward that can accommodate our competing goals:
  • Create multiple separate top-down sources (including a synthetic "best" source) within the existing project.
  • Fork the project.
If we cannot agree to preserve the original unmodified DNB00 source as a distinct source within the existing project, I will create a separate project for this even if I must do this, I would still happily contribute the this existing project also. However, I feel that it is better to continue to work as a single project team to capture all of the versions, each as a separate top-level source. Now that we have a worked example, I can create a each separate source superstructure in about an hour. Which sources do we need in addition to the existing 1885-1900 and 1904? -Arch dude (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Clarity of principles. I think that we need to decide what is the desired outcome and the reason for it. Reflect on why. After that we can decide on how to get to the goal. I don't want to get into a bunfight over this or that, or have a view on on whether either is right or wrong. I simply wish to make the information available, and in the clearest and most factual means.
-- ab

So ... Principles

  • Make available, in a searchable text form, the DNB's information
  • To present historical data as accurately as possible

(add more ...) The point of difference seems to be

  • Identical reproduction of DNB00

OR

  • Reproduction to a later corrected DNBXX

I would like to consider the intent of the original authors in our project, and what would they have considered if they had the web available to them. I think that they would say correct information. The genealogist in me has concerns of propagation of incorrect data, even if it is available corrected on another page. The ongoing reproduction of incorrect data is a nightmare. So I am disinclined to multiple pages for the same person for the same publication.

Practically, the three of us are not going to get through DNB alone, and it seems that we are getting particularly fussy over first ed, or corrected ed. Others (hopefully) are going to come and type, and they may have whichever source available. I am not wishing to confuse the helper with the intricacies of this ed, that ed. Isn't it a matter of noting which ed., and if there is a difference just highlighting the difference?

A proposed solution

  • People type from whichever version they have available
  • The DNB00 version remains the base text
  • We proof against available version, if there is any differentiation from text in a later version, it is annotated in the article and the corrected (differing) part of the article presented on the same page in a classy fashion to indicate, that it is the predominant fact and where the errata occurred.

If we don't have a simple means to annotate, then can we import one? If it is going to take time, then we can use the Talk page to park the correction in Textinfo and get back to it when able to.

If we end up with articles with a major rewrite, or major difference between two versions, then how about we deal with those as they come up with the governing principles. -- billinghurst (talk) 23:06, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. It should be pointed out that the errata volume is 300 pages long, and since the corrections for each of the 66 volumes always start on a right-hand page this results in a number of blank pages in those 300, and an average of four pages of corrections per DNB volume. Few of the corrections are more than two sentences long. Most frequently only a single word is changed in an article. The majority of articles remain completely unchanged.
I agree with using annotations or footnotes. When I began working on this project I scanned articles from my paper copies, and put them through OCR software. Now I find it much more efficient to use the the OCR version from Internet Archives. That version used the original edition, but for proofreading it is still easier to work with my on-paper reprint edition. The OCR from Internet Archives has fewer OCR errors than my scans, but it is not exempt from them. Nevertheless, since the errata volume is not straight text, but more of a tabular list of corrections, the OCR version of that is more difficult to work with.
Distinguishing between errata, OCR errors, or human typos during proofreading makes that task far more time consuming than it should be. The most practical time for acknowledging the errata may be when all else in a volume has been entered, at which time it would be much easier to go through all the errata pages for that volume. Eclecticology (talk) 04:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks Ec. Ouch, a lot of pages. I have never had the pleasure of seeing the paper version in any means. Even with proofreading, I still bet that we will have more errors from transcription or OCR even with checking. I hope that we can reach a practical solution to the issue that meets all our needs. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 10:45, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
It looks as though we are making progress towards defining project goals. My personal project goal remains the same: I want a faithful reproduction in Wikisource from of the exact contents of the original 63 volumes. Fortunately, it appears that this goal is not hugely incompatible with the goal of the other two participants: we just need to decide how to meet my goal while also meeting the other goals. My primary reason for my goal is esthetic: I see it as being very simple and objective. However, there is major practical reason also, which is that I'm fairly sure that there is a large project over at Project Gutenberg to produce these articles from the original 63 volumes. If we get the correct infrastructure in place to accomodate these as a base, then we can build on the PG work once it is available to create the other desired forms for these texts. Note particularly that I do not disagree woth the other goals: I am perfectly happy to create a new front project that we will encourage the casual user to use. this front project should be called "the DNB," and its pages should be the most recent or "best" pages we have for each article. In many cases these will be the DNB00 pages, but in other cases they will be updated pages. However, we should also retain a "hidden" DNB00 project, which will be accessable to anyhone who desperately wants to see the original. Each of these pages can also forward-link to later updated pages.one nice thing about this approach is that we can dump the PG project into the "hidden" DNB00 and then update it at our leisure to produce the "updated DNB" "view" of the material. If this is acceptable, then adding an article proceeds as follows:
1. add the article to the DNB00 project in completely unmodified form
2. add the article's title to the appropriate DNB00 Vol table of contents.
3. see if there are 1904 corrections. If so, copy the article to create a DNB04 version: --e.g., copy "Harvey Smedlap (DNB00)" to "Harvey Smedlap (DNB04)"
4. add the article (or the 1904 version if it exists)to the DNB04 Vol TOC.
5. if you created a newer copy, add a pointer to the newer copy from the older copy and add a pointer to the older copy fromn the new copy.
6. repeat steps 3-5 for each newer version.
This scheme requires a new mainpage and new vol pages for each version. It's not elegant, but it's fairly straightforward. This scheme does not by itself aid users to see how an article evolves from version to version. It that is an important goal, we will need to be more creative. -Arch dude (talk) 22:35, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
That looks like a lot of work, and it may take a while for our current large horde of contributors to complete it. Look at Brereton, Thomas (1782-1832) (DNB00). In dealing with the 1831 Bristol riots the original edition referred in two places to the scene at the more intuitive name "Queen's Square", which could undoubtedly satisfy many readers who don't know anything about the local geography of Bristol. The 1904 errata, possibly reflecting the indignation of some Bristol resident, indicated that this should be corrected to "Queen Square" That was the only correction made to the article. Does this merit a whole new page just to deal with this one? I have documented the change with a footnote. Could this not be enough?
I should add that the 1904 publication was nothing more than a volume of errata. It did not include full texts of the corrected material. Instead, this corrections were incorporated when the work was first reprinted in 1911. Where more than a word was at issue additional rephrasing to make the corrections fit was required. To respect the pagination, additions to the text could not increase the number of lines on a page, and some rewording became necessary. Eclecticology (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
See also my treatment of removed material at Bradfield, Henry Joseph Steele (DNB00). Eclecticology (talk) 16:55, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 1904 reflections of Sidney Lee

Found letter to The Times from Sidney Lee that reflects on DNB and Thompson Cooper. Interesting info. The one thing that took my notice was the number of articles (1422) written by Cooper for the DNB. This is going to make a very long page! We will need plans for how to manage that many pages. -- billinghurst (talk) 06:39, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and Gordon Goodwin is in second place with 1178 entries. At least 26 authors have over 200 articles. (See the "Statistical Account" in the revised volume 1.) I think this is a valid concern, but not an immediate one. We can probably devise an appropriate system of sub-pages in the way that Rudyard Kipling's poems have been split off from his main author page. Eclecticology (talk) 17:30, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Readers' Page

I fail to see the need for a separate page of information for the reader. The only reason given for this page is that it was copied from the EB11 project. It is not a general practice for other long works; why should the DNB project be an exception. There is no need to give one person's interpretation of copyright rationale on that page when such matters are already dealt with on a more general basis elsewhere. Eclecticology (talk) 06:25, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Here is the material I added and you removed:
This project has not been endorsed by the Oxford University Press or any agent, editor, or subsidiary thereof. The Oxford University press has been the publisher of the Dictionary of National Biography since 1917. Modern derivatives and supplements, now known as the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, continue to be protected by copyrights. The 1900 DNB, the first two supplements, and the early reprints are in the public domain because their copyrights have expired in the United States. Based on a commonly-accepted interpretation of Copyright law in the United States, any work that was made available to the general public in the United States prior to 1923 is in the public domain. The Wikisource servers are in the United States. Other jurisdictions have other rules. Your Jurisdiction's rules may extend the copyright to the date of the "death of the author plus 70 years," or to the "death of the author plus 100 years." If this is important to you, then you should refer to the author page for each specific author of the DNB article in question.
I do not understand your objection to the material. It is not a personal essay. Instead, it is a summary of a great deal of commentaryand discussion relating to copyright law that has occurred over the last uear over at Wikipedia. If the UK "life plus 70 years" rule is used, then some of this material is still copyrighted under UK law, and the reader may need to know that. I live in the US, and for me the material is inthe public domain, so I don't care all that much. -Arch dude (talk) 00:55, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
Although I still have reservations about the various copyright templates, they at least save us the problems associated with reinventing that wheel any time that a project like this is undertaken. I don't at all doubt that there has been a lot of discussion of copyright law at Wikipedia; that sort of discussion has been a constant presence ever since I became involved in 2002, and I'm sure that that will continue as long as there is a Wikipedia. Be that as it may, this project is not bound by the discussions on Wikipedia since it is to be presumed that those who primarily spend their time on Wikisource do not take a lot of time following chronic debates on Wikipedia. We here too have ongoing copyright discussions based on those aspects of copyright that are relevant to Wikisource. Your summary of the Wikipedia discussions remains your summary of your interpretation.
We obviously have no differences about the status of this material under US law, but I would not be so quick to draw conclusions about copyrights under UK law, or to speculate about the law of third countries. Remember that the material that is being considered in this project was originally published before the major revisions to UK law in the 1911 Copyright Act. On any given article the author was only identified by his initials; properly recrediting those authors is our innovation. The DNB is a collective work; what evidence do we have that any of the authors retained their copyrights instead of having produced works for hire? Eclecticology (talk) 05:00, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
FWIW, the last time I read US legislation associated with (IIRC) its acceptance of the Berne Convention, led me to believe that the Life+70 years rule applies under US law for UK books not published in the US before 1923.
A comment I made - in the context of discussing the copyright of Punch Magazine on Gutenberg - was:
US copyright law - specifically an amendment made on Nov. 13, 1997 to 17 USC 104A (Public Law No. 105-80) - effectively restored in the US copyrights on foreign works which were copyrighted in their country of origin. http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_Code/Title_17/Chapter_1/Section_104A#Amendment_history
There is not - that I know - any other mechanism by which one could assert that a 1920 Punch is PD in the US if it is copyright in the UK, given 17 USC 104A.
Equally, all of the DNB author's I've researched to date - five or so - all died before 1938 and so their work is in the clear. But there is scope, in my analysis, for some of the information still to be under copyright. --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:05, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Not if you treat them as works for hire. Eclecticology (talk) 00:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
But the DNB was published (i.e., printed) in the US in addition to being published in the UK. -Arch dude (talk) 01:02, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Before 1923. Eclecticology (talk) 18:01, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. As far as I can tell, The 1997 law that Tagishsimon was referring to does not affect works that were published in the US before 1923: those works, including the DNB are in the public domain. Since the title page forthe DNB volumes says "New York", and a date prior to 1923, we are OK.

[edit] Poor Quality Scans

I really hate to bring this up, but I think it is important. I am wondering if we shouldn't replace the current scan with higher quality ones from the Archive.org instead of these Google ones we currently have. The Google scans are missing pages, have unreadable pages, are hard to read and are in general poor quality. In order to make this change, we would need community approval. Here is a list of the higher quality scans. Please note the good scans all end in (Volume volume number). I think with the importants of this project we need to have the highest quality possible. Please let me know what you think. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 12:56, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Simple answer. Yes. I was obviously opportunistic and enthusiastic in prior uploads. Better is better. No need to hate brining it up, truth is truth.  :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 13:00, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I think you will find that the University of Toronto texts at archive.org are generally better. Unfortunately, I never found all of the volumes from there, so we will end up with a fair nyumber of the google volumes also. Do you intend to start with the list on the Wikipedia project page? If you have not already completed your list, I can check my list to see if I found one or two that are not on that list -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

To look at the 70 non-Google DNB's one can do the search "creator:(sidney lee) OR creator:(leslie stephen)" AND national -description:(google). There are other compiled lists Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB, though I can compile a fresh one if that is preferred.

If it is a case of replacing pages, then I have access to a good series of individual JPGs (latter rendition however) that I can trawl to locate and download. -- billinghurst (talk) 03:03, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Billinghurst, where did you get the images from? I think we should create a page with a link to each volume we are going to use. I agree the Toronto texts at archive.org are generally better. I think we should uses those first and use whatever else source is best for the missing volumes. My biggest objective is we have these volumes as close to prefect as possible. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 12:41, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

From the same place, I just eliminated them from the search results. I have a table existing for what I have been using already Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Djvu files. We just need to munge it to reflect (deflect?) previous attempts. -- billinghurst (talk) 14:54, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
While I can't legitimately complain about any of the techniques outlined above, we still need to be mindful of excessive perfectionism. We are accumulating a large assortment of scanned pages, and a large number of OCR pages are quickly following. Ultimately though, what we want is a series of articles that have been reliably proofread, and that is a tremendous challenge. The mini-projects to proofread single-volume works are given a full month to be accomplished. At that rate it should take more than five years to bring the DNB to completion....but only if we don't do anything else. Eclecticology (talk) 00:53, 6 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] List of revised text to be upload

Hi guys,

I moved the list of text to be revised and uploaded to here. Your help adding to and modifying the list would be really appreciated. Once we get the list completed, I would like to start uploading the text.

Thanks for your help in advance. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Slippage

I noticed some vol. 59 scanned text a number of pages adrift from the images. Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/236 has the beginning of the article "Walsingham, Edward" if you want the page image, while Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 59.djvu/242 has the text. Possibly an offset has been made the wrong way round. For the moment I'll just work on that one article, and paste corrected text on my user page. I'm presuming this is a bot error and can be best corrected by the bot. Could someone drop me a note about this on my talk page? I'm here on wikisource often enough, but basically just to correct text here before using it on enWP. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:41, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Charles, we will see if we can get Matt to reload the text with his bot. It probably came about when I trimmed leading pages, and didn't correspondingly trim the text. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:40, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Right now I am really busy with work, but I'll take a look when I get a chance. --Mattwj2002 (talk) 12:43, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Another glitch: Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/222 is for p. 235 of the original. while Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/223 moves to p. 238: two pages missing. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:09, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

[edit] {{DNB00}} & Category:DNB biographies

Noticed that the DNB biographies were all appearing in Special:UncategorizedPages. This is eventuating due to they not being subpages of the main. To alleviate the matter, I have created the hidden category Category:DNB biographies and embedded it into the {{DNB00}} header. It can be accessed via the Category:DNB. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The supplements

Organizational point: there were three DNB supplements published in 1901, mainly catching up with folk who had died after the relevant volume was completed. It would make sense to handle these in parallel with the 1900 DNB: but how exactly? Charles Matthews (talk) 16:08, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Vol 28 skips

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/149 is p. 151 of the original, while Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/150 is p. 154. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

As a lash-up I have made Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/148a, Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/148b, and Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 28.djvu/148c, to fill with text for the moment, since I want to work on the Michael Hudson article. I'm not up with how to add djvu's yet. As on an previous occasion, I'd be grateful to have bot assistance with sorting this all out. (Shouldn't be hard, given that vol 28 is untouched so far). Come to think of it, there is plenty to discuss about improving the posted text, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:20, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Titling

What is said so far on the project page doesn't give a complete style manual. (And I think the text conflicts with the example: John Holt (d.1415) has no trailing space after "d.") There seems to be disgreement, or at least a lack of clarity, on the disambiguation. And possibly format issues. Agreed we give dates to disambiguate. The "name" part though is not agreed to be an initial segment of the name as given at the start of the article, because "Newton, Sir Isaac" is (as I understand it) to become "Newton, Issac". And then in the case of titles of nobility, Talbot, George, sixth Earl of Shrewsbury (DNB00), there are other George Talbots. It is arguably the right prompt to the reader to leave the title there. It is possible to disambiguate by dates here, but is being said that the dates should override the title? (There is also the point that there is some latitude in using upper case where the DNB has caps, as shown by this example.)

Two points about this all:

(a) getting a Manual of Style worked out now when progress is 1% to 2% makes sense rather than waiting longer to discuss this all; (b) this may be vain talk, but I'm really not happy with the approach as initiated - I'm not a fan of inverted names, which double searching effort, at the best of times - and I can think of ways that would be more helpful to readers searching (which can be implemented perhaps by redirects, but in any case depend what we think we are aiming at).

The basic indication of the "name" of an article would be how the volume index names it. Perhaps we can get in from that end. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:52, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

So as can be seen at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 55.djvu/493, the volume index gives "Talbot, George, sixth Earl of Shrewsbury (1528?-1590)". We could call that the "official title". To meet several of my issues, we could agree the following: the header template to have a field which is to hold the uninverted form of the "official title". Charles Matthews (talk) 13:02, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Wikisource_talk:WikiProject_DNB"
Personal tools
Create a book