Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search
Wikisource: WikiProject DNB Main Talk


Authors here in DNB lacking enWP article[edit]

This is quite a neat use of SPARQL: query here. Today it brings up 76 authors with pages here, not having enWP article (according to Wikidata), but being DNB people. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:12, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

Hi. I'm new to this but happy to help. SiHol (talk) 13:49, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Time for a FAQ?[edit]

I see much of this page has been archived. That may make sense, given that the project is still active, but discussions are no longer so frequent as in the past. Consolidation of conclusions as a FAQ would make sense. Charles Matthews (talk) 04:06, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am not against that; or if it is easier, I am not against bringing back pertinent conversations and marking them not to be archived. We could also pretty easily build a central ToC for the archives and paste it into a top section. Examples of ToC are WS:Scriptorium/Archives. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:31, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

So I'm now revising Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/FAQ. One format point: do we want the author templates to be on a new line? Charles Matthews (talk) 09:48, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Do you mean the article footer initials templates? If so, I have been doing so, it just makes them more eye readable IMNSHO. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I noticed that, which is why I asked. Should this be adopted for our Manual of Style? Charles Matthews (talk) 04:24, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Time to talk DNB redirect articles[edit]

In the early years we transcluded the DNB article redirects, though we stopped that after the first couple of years, nd said that we would review this down the track. So we are a little in and a little out. Currently there are 800+ of these DNB redirect articles (count from WD). Which are somewhat populated and characterised, and quite inconsistently. Probably time to have the conversation on whether they should be in and complete the missing — or they should be out, delete them from here and WD.

Personal opinion is that they don't bring a lot to our article space, and we can fix look to add the appropriate redirections from the head pages of the volumes, and we can appropriate link from any reproduced indices. Having the transcluded articles is not particularly required in the web format, and the redirects are an artefact of the printed book. They can be proofread and validated in the Page: ns and we don't need to transclude to the main ns.

In summary: I believe that we should delete the main ns transclusions, and fix links to pages either side to skip them; and that we have the corresponding items deleted at Wikidata. — billinghurst sDrewth 03:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I think I understand the case for deleting them here. Putting the case on the other side: such short articles can be useful content. See for example Page:Dictionary_of_National_Biography_volume_55.djvu/35 for a short list of Viscounts Strangford. Or they could be to a spouse or other close relation, making useful connections. It is possible that enWP will pick up the wives, at least, in time, I suppose.
There is also the precedent. Alumni Oxonienses, on which I'm working right now, has similar redirect articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, we are either pregnant or not; half-pregnant doesn't work. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
So, how would this look as a general guideline? Nutshell summary:
"Certain free-standing portions of reference works do not contain enough to be identified as valid sources. They may with consistency be omitted in the mainspace presentation of the digitised work."
With implementation details by way of explanation:
Such material may, indeed, contain useful information: e.g. aliases, family relationships, business connections, and series ordinals for titles of nobility. These matters may well be covered in Wikidata. It would not be a suitable use of the Wikimedia system as a whole, however, for the Wikidata property "described by source" to be applied to them, on the basis of the Wikisource entry."
Is this formulation at least capturing a general argument? Charles Matthews (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

There is a proposal to alter the template wikipedia template to work around not having redirects for ndash in date ranges. See W:Template talk:Cite DNB#Hyphens and dashes again -- PBS (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2017 (UTC) Struck out.-- now in a section down below -- PBS (talk) 12:51, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

I think that you misunderstand this discussion. This is about those redirecting articles in the DNB that redirect you to the biography. This is not about wikimedia redirects. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:31, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

John Poyntz[edit]

At the end of the article Poyntz, Sydenham (DNB00). There is a short biography on am older brother of Sydenham. However it appears that the ODNB has decided that the DNB has mixed up several different people in the sources, the DNB lists. The ODNB has an article called

  • John Poyntz (1629/30–1712) that includes "Another John Poyntz (fl. 1639–1665),"

The ODNB states that John Poyntz (1629/30–1712) "was probably the third son of Sydenham Poyntz's youngest brother Newdigate (bap. 1608, d. 1643), a royalist killed at Gainsborough" He is this one who was probably involved with the expedition to Tobago.

"Another John Poyntz (fl. 1639–1665)," "may have been a kinsman of Sydenham Poyntz, who was governor of the Leeward Islands (1650–51)"

Given this information in the ODNB I have not created an article based on the description of John Poyntz at the end of the article Poyntz, Sydenham (DNB00). -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)


John Poyntz (fl. 1639–1665) is a co-subject (subarticle) in the ODNB, and so there is no automatic assumption of notability. On what the ODNB currently has, he would be marginally notable, at best. There may be some other sources. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:59, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Hyphens, en dashes and redirects[edit]

There is a conversation taking place at Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual#Hyphens, en dashes, but as its not proposed to change the content of an article (ie its style), I think this is the more appropriate place to hold the conversation.

  1. - a hyphen/dash
  2. – an ndash
  3. — an mdash (not pertinent to this discussion)

Pinging the participants of the conversation to date SMcCandlish and billinghurst.

Neve-selbert started a thread on Wikipedia at w:Template talk:Cite DNB#Hyphens and dashes again wishing to change the link style so that it display ndash in the dab extensions where daterange has been used. Trappist the monk wrote some code to display the daterange extensions with ndashs on wikipedia but still allowing the link to the dash version on Wikisource. billinghurst reverted that change stating on the talk page "The articles at English Wikisource use a hyphen in their name and that should be respected. ...".

There are some articles that already have redirects from ndash versions, (usually existing because they were created with ndash and then move to dash/hyphen), is there any reason for not creating such redirects? -- PBS (talk) 09:56, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Not quite true what I did. The code that I wrote allowed an editor at en.wiki to choose to write the value assigned to |wstitle= with either a hyphen or an ndash in the birth/death date disambiguator but always set the interwikilink separator to a hyphen so that that link was never broken.
I guess I don't understand why you think that this venue is a better place to discuss a topic primarily concerned with how en.wiki displays wikisource titles at en.wiki. If this conversation is to continue here, and at the moment, I don't see why it should, a courtesy link from the en.wiki conversation is appropriate.
Trappist the monk (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@User:Trappist the monk My appoligies for getting the details wrong. This section it is to investigate the view of people to contribute to Wikisource, because if redirects are acceptable on Wikisource then there is no need for any sort of solution on Wikipedia. If they are not, then we can see what if anything is an acceptable solution on Wikipedia. Once the options here have been discussed and a consensus reach we can have a more informed discussion on Wikipedia-- PBS (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Why would we want to create 1000s to 10s of thousands of redirects? What is the benefit? Redirects have been created when needed and I think that you would find many be me, and even then I faced criticism for it with it being suggested to me that I should fix the underlying links, not create redirects.

The existing (hyphened) pages are linked from Wikidata, and English Wikipedia. They are only changed at enWP when someone incorrectly changes the hyphen to an en dash. I would agree with Ttm that the discussion about the template belongs at enWP, and I previously took my opportunity to comment there. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

It is more than 1,000, but I don't think it is that many as 10,000. Taking the first volume as an example there are just under 100 articles that use a daterange disambiguation extension and just over 90 in the second (call it 95 a volume) that means 95*63 ~ 6,000 in total. -- PBS (talk) 13:41, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I will be very surprised if WikiSource editors think it better to make ~6000 fixes here so that one template fix is not needed at en.wiki.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
As long as the result is that we get en dashes in date ranges, I don't care how it's done or where. SMcCandlish (talk) 11:49, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Here they are labels/page names, they are not date ranges. enWP's MoS indicates that these should not be obfuscated, so I do not understand your position they do not fall under your date range provisions. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:05, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no vested interest in the DNB project (besides mild annoyance that the titles aren't formatted as Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Article name), but my take on the subject is as follows:

  • There is a similar phenomenon in Author pages, such as Author:William Roberts (1862-1940). In Author pages, hyphens are always used in the page name.
  • In DNB, ndashes could be used instead of hyphens provided the usage is consistent with the source text iteslf and also consistent with other page names throughout the DNB.
  • Regardless of the decision, redirects should not be created. Such redirects when created in the past on other works have been found to be candidates for speedy deletion as "unneeded redirects" (M2). This is a general principle for encyclopedia article pages or any other type of work subpage.

Beleg Tâl (talk) 12:18, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment @Beleg Tâl: within DNB we as always transcribe what is there, and most of the dates in the works are en dashes. Hyphens is the nomenclature for the titles used. Re moving the articles to subpages of the work, that discussion is around, and it is still my wish, though CM makes good argument that there needs to be resolution to find these works first in the lookahead search function, and the long names of the work are somewhat obscuring, though steps have been made to resolve this. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:02, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
@Billinghurst: Yes, I was referring specifically to hyphens in the page name/title, not to any page content or the page header or any other place. In other places I would suggest that ndash is always more appropriate. Also: I am glad to hear that there is discussion and interest to potentially move articles to subpages :) —Beleg Tâl (talk) 13:07, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment No clear statement of the purpose or goal of this thread has been made. I personally have some idea of what it is about, because I have been around for awhile and worked on both projects. But for most people here, this thread will be esoteric, abstract, and meaningless. If you want a community to comment, please tell them clearly what it is you would like them to comment about. --EncycloPetey (talk) 16:58, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment i think it is great we can live vicariously, with the broken inter-wiki links, template work arounds, and policy by edit warring. no action required here, they have it in hand over there. it is an instructive lesson in failure to collaborate. Slowking4SvG's revenge 19:14, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
  • Pictogram voting comment.svg Comment So, if I understand this long-standing issue. Certain English Wikipedia templates display currently a hyphen, where the Manual of Style prescribes under its dates section an endash. A solution can lie in replacement text for the link to Wikisource, i.e. link remains with hyphen, endash is shown.
This appears to be an exercise in Lua programming. In other words finding and parsing instances like "1666-1715" and replacing them with "1666–1715", setting up a piped interwiki link.
Not rocket science, I think. Also, as has been pointed out, an enWP problem rather than ours. In a problem-solving tone, I'd like to suggest that someone who cares about this issue find a competent Lua hacker to look at it.
That is apparently what has been done? In which case I would suggest that "defending" the convention here against the convention there is not required. There is no fantastically good reason to impose the MoS convention for text mentions of dates on enWP templates, as far as I can see; but neither is there a fantastically good reason to defend the hyphens, downstream. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 30 October 2017 (UTC)