Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB

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

Maintenance of WP links[edit]

Big advance via Wikidata: Petscan queries on d:User:Charles Matthews/Queries#Petscan allow one to find rapidly the English Wikipedia articles corresponding to a DNB article here, but not yet linked. This is done separately for DNB00, DNB01 and DNB12; takes just a couple of seconds each time.

Caveat: this approach does of course depend on data being in Wikidata. So English Wikipedia articles have to have a Wikidata item; and item must be the one to which the data item of the DNB article points under "main subject". If an English Wikipedia article A has an item D1, while the article B here that corresponds has its data item pointing to D2 which is different, the query will only pick it up as and when D1 and D2 are merged.

A few misidentifications of "main subject" are showing up.

All this said, these long-sought one-click queries (to which User:Jheald helped me) are going to be really helpful. Other works here can be treated the same way, if the essential infrastructure is put in place, analogous to Category:DNB No WP here, and a set of "main subject" links. The special situation is that the ODNB property on Wikidata has been maxed out.

Charles Matthews (talk) 05:42, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

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I see much of this page has been archived.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)

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)