Talk:Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Information about this edition
Edition: 9th (American subscription edition - same page images as English edition)
Source: OCR from archive.org proofread against facsimile from same source. Source links:
  1. Volume I A - Anatomy (1878)
  2. Volume II Anaxagoras - Athenry (1878)
  3. Volume III Athens - Boissonade (1878)
  4. Volume IV Bokhara - Canoe (1878)
  5. Volume V Canon - Cleves (1878)
  6. Volume VI Clichy - Dayton (1878)
  7. Volume VII Deacon - El Dorado (1878)
  8. Volume VIII Eleanor - Fakir (1878)[1]
  9. Volume IX Falaba - Fyzabad (1879)[1]
  10. Volume X G - Götz (1879)
  11. Volume XI Gouda - Hippopotamus (1880)
  12. Volume XII Hiring - Indus (1881)
  13. Volume XIII Infant - Kant (1881)
  14. Volume XIV Kaolin - Lons-le-Saulnier (1882)
  15. Volume XV Loo - Memphis (1883)
  16. Volume XVI Mena - Mosul (1883)
  17. Volume XVII Motanabbi - Ormuzd (1884)
  18. Volume XVIII Orne - Phthisis (1885)
  19. Volume XIX Phylactery - Provins (1885)
  20. Volume XX Prudentius - Roswitha (1886)
  21. Volume XXI Rothe - Siam (1886)
  22. Volume XXII Sibbald - Szolnok (1887)
  23. Volume XXIII T - Upsala (1888)[1]
  24. Volume XXIV Ural-Altaic - Zymotic (1888)
  25. Volume XXV (Index and List of Contributors)

Footnotes:

  1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 1.2 This volume seems to have lost its text layer on Wikisource, and probably at archive.org as well. The OCR is available as a separate file at archive.org.
Contributor(s): D.H, Bob Burkhardt (a.k.a. Library Guy)
Level of progress: Mostly incomplete
Notes:

Wikisource templates:

Wikipedia templates:

  • Citing Encyclopædia articles: {{Cite EB9}}
  • Poster for linking to Encyclopædia articles: {{EB9 Poster}}

Authors for some articles are not indicated by initials, and are only found in the "List of Contributors" at the end of the index volume 25.

Footnotes:

  1. ↑ Unlike EB1911, EB9 has doubly fine print, as for example when the references for an article fall at the end of a fine print section. The double effect can be achieved by nesting another {{EB1911 Fine Print/s}} invocation within an already open invocation.
Proofreaders: See contributors.

Margin headings[edit]

One of the challenges of implementing the Wikisource edition of EB9 will be dealing with the margin headings (used as shoulder headings are in EB1911). I propose a template called "EB9 Using Margin Headings" which would enclose the entire article, exclusive of the header, and just provide margins. Another template called "EB9 Margin Heading", much like {{EB1911 Shoulder Heading}}, could then insert the headings where needed. When transclusion is used, the first template may not be necessary, since the page margins are created to accommodate page numbers. Other thoughts are solicited. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:17, 7 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

After further thought, I think I will call it "EB9 Margin Note", but treat it like {{EB1911 Shoulder Heading}}, that is embed it in the text, though probably not with bold italic formatting, but plain text, possibly smaller, surrounded by a border. I think having the note is more important than having it look like the original precisely. The problem I see with the original format is I think it requires hyphenation to keep it from overlapping adjacent body text. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:03 and 12:25, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

See implementation above. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Article names[edit]

LlywelynII and Bob Burkhardt I have just come across an article currently called Encyclopædia Britannica, Ninth Edition/Antonfrancesco Grazzini this is not the name used in the article. Is this standard for this encyclopaedia or should this article and the two articles that follow it:

be renamed to reflect the name in the encyclopaedia (as is done with EB1911): ie:

The "or" verson depends on if just the large lettered name is used or that in small-caps as well. -- PBS (talk) 19:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think eb9 should follow the same conventions as eb1911. LlywelynII has kind of Shanghaied my project. I think LlywelynII has interesting ideas from time to time, like basing the chapter index pages on the eb9 index pages, but a lot of what he does just makes the editor's and reader's job harder. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 14:33, 19 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some examples of problematic LlywelynII editing practices: numerous non-q.v. internal project links (these look odd, clutter up the link space, and hide the genuine q.v. links); strange article titles (e.g. using (1), (2) etc. to disambiguate - these provide no additional information about content in comparison with the usual practice of using words from the article to disambiguate); all the redirects and disambiguation links - these are not useful and make it harder to ascertain which articles have had genuine work done on them and install correct q.v. links. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:51, 29 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Some way for new users to tell if something has already been transcribed, even if has not been transcluded?[edit]

So I’m deeply, deeply frustrated. I spent several hours correcting the original archive.org OCR on Compass, Mariner's, only to discover, when I tried to figure out how to import it into that blank article that someone has already done that, it just hasn’t been proofread. Is there any way that some sort of informative template can be input on articles where there are un-proofread page-space proofs? Calion (talk) 04:39, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Encyclopædia_Britannica,_Ninth_Edition&oldid=10685834"