Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB

1921 volume, which?

@Charles Matthews: which 1921 scan do you think is preferable?

• https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.94832/page/n7/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.186926/page/n7/mode/2up
• https://archive.org/details/dictionaryofna1912smit/page/n7 (which is a 1966 reprint)

— billinghurst sDrewth 13:40, 3 February 2020 (UTC) striking that they are 1927 publication. A few more years to wait. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:44, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: 1927 publication should be PD in the US now. Guess this discussion can be revived. ネイ (talk) 13:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Indeed @Charles Matthews: ^^^ — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: https://archive.org/details/in.ernet.dli.2015.186926/ looks somewhat clearer. In any case the 1966 reprint is problematic because of the limited IA access. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews, @ネイ: Up at Index:Dictionary of National Biography, Third Supplement.djvu. Basic framework constructed. I note that while it says 1927, it is a later imprint, specifically not known. I will be working on the contributor pages as my priority. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:13, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: OK. I have numerous other things literally on my desk, but I guess I'll try to make a start on the articles in the traditonal way. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:54, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Not making any suggestion that it is a priority, just that it is available. The mechanics of the integration is what I will work upon as it takes some of that remembering of what we did last time around, and I heavily had my fingers in that pie from multiple directions. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:58, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

DNB errata

Hi @Charles Matthews, @Billinghurst:. I saw an issue with {{DNB errata}} when the last article in the errata page is referenced. See e.g. Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Haigh, Thomas. I noticed that the last section in the errata page includes also the end table mark-up and this is a wanted choice as it is present also in other errata pages. I do not have all the history behind it, so I will just highlight it here to those who are more familiar with it.Mpaa (talk) 20:00, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

@Mpaa, @Charles Matthews: I have been through a search and found two further cases of the section tag appearing after the table close and have now amended the three instances. I will further investigate.

On a side note, I hadn't realised that we have multiple cases of errata not being attached to the original biographies, and we are going to need to look to address those, and have a means to audit the numbers of sections per page against number of transclusions of that page to see that we have some matching. [Not certain how else we would check for inclusion unless there is a record somewhere of which biographies were corrected.] current transclusions — billinghurst sDrewth 00:03, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

I made a check of proofread/validated pages. Results here: Wikisource:WikiProject_DNB/Errata_transclusion. Where you see "transcuded": null, it means the section exists but it is not transcuded. I hope there are no mistakes. Mpaa (talk) 14:30, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Redirects for non-biography pages

I wonder if it is allowed to create such redirects as Statistical Account (DNB00) -> Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Statistical Account, so as to allow citation of these pages in Wikipedia using Cite DNB templates. An example is the w:ja:シドニー・リー (Sidney Lee) article, where I used Cite wikisource to cite these pages instead. ネイ (talk) 16:16, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I take this back - no longer needed since this is solved by updating w:ja:Template:Cite DNB. ネイ (talk) 14:41, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Time to do something about the per volume ToC subpages

We set up pages like Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 1 Abbadie - Anne years ago, and they really are ugly, and don't serve a great purpose, and they especially don't work on mobile devices. Time to rethink what it is that we consider important, and how we wish to best present our lists. Single column or what? @Charles Matthews: for first opinion. :-) — billinghurst sDrewth 14:28, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Three columns, articles only? Charles Matthews (talk) 14:33, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

Means losing the subtitles, and we would need to introduce some sort of divider/anchor. Do we think completely outside the square? How pertinent is retaining a "by volume" listing? inductiveload said something about maybe some css coding that could enhance display but keep simpler list form. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:14, 14 June 2021 (UTC)

contributor templates

To note that I have been updating the underlying components of the contributor templates so we can look to consistency, lessening the visible code (I have put {{sc}} into the parents so not needed to do per item), and migrating all the detail to WD on a per publication level, and to see if we can record initials to the specific volumes we have identified

I am also looking to see whether we should do contributor templates and assignation for the first supplement. At this stage we have it rolled into the 1885-1900 set. — billinghurst sDrewth 21:35, 2 March 2023 (UTC)