User talk:Billinghurst/2008

Hello?
Please have a look at Style guide. Thanks, Yann 17:17, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes, and it is actually part of DNB project aimed at transcription, not specifically at the author. Page has been recreated, though you are most welcome to the text.  If there are means in which our transcription project can benefit yours, then please do not hesitate to start that discussion.  -- Billinghurst 02:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Deletion requests
Hi. I've spotted a couple of your requests, but it's better if you add a Sdelete request to the page.-- Poetlister 17:56, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks :-)  I will do so in the future.  I was just following the instructions provided following a move action. -- Billinghurst 10:52, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Author:Robert Adamson
Hi. I noticed that you created this author page. According to Wikipedia here, this could refer to one of several people. I was wondering which one you had in mind. Thanks. Wild Wolf (talk) 19:31, 17 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Ah, and that is of a bit of a question itself. :-)  I had seen some of your edits and have been meaning to come and chat. (see third para)
 * To the specific question, probably none of the above [I have been meaning to say hello and give a basic run down on a project underway.]  If you have guidance on how to better/readily differentiate authors of only a known period, where further details are not known, then that guidance would be welcome.
 * There is a project in hand at WikiProject DNB, and we have been setting up the framework, and part of that has been to work on the contributors. Some of the contributors are renowned, some are reasonably easy to identify, and some simply are not.  The issue is that we don't know which contributor did which biography until it is transcribed, however, we want the authors in place ahead of time (simplification). What I probably need is a Category tag to identify the author against the work, so it is a little more evident that more info will appear.  Your feedback is welcome as I approach this from the DNB perspective, not from the full knowledge, interactions and politics of WikiSource. --Billinghurst (talk) 02:01, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * This is most likely the one for 1852-1902, whose own biography appears in the second supplement. (It's one of the volumes that I have misplaced or I would have a more definitive answer.) Eclecticology (talk) 04:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Bingo! I will update. The volume is available at archive.org.  I updated the list of available volumes at w:Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/DNB  -- billinghurst (talk) 05:11, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I asked the question at Scriptorium and you may wish to contribute to the discussion on that page. -- billinghurst (talk) 11:49, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinion sought
I would very much like your opinion at Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB. I have hesitated to respond to Arch Dude until you have commented. So far, he and I differ in that he prefers the version as originally published, while I prefer the reprint editions which incorporate the 1904 errata. Eclecticology (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry mate. I have been umm'ing and ahh'ing over the difference of opinion, and the clear cogent thought has been escaping me. I will get to. :-) -- billinghurst (talk) 22:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

DNB sources
Hi!

It looks like you are doing a fantastic job of finding page acans and moving them to Wikisource. In particular, you have found some volumes on archive.org that were not listed in on the Wikipedia page.

I have been using brute-force techniques: I download the entire PDF and the entire OCR txt file separately, copy the OCR scan of my target article, and then check it by eye against the PDF. This is somewhat clunky but it works. In particular, since I am using a crude PDF reader, I can expand magnify the image to check questionable parts. I notice that the djvu indexes you are creating have a tool of some sort associated with them. Are you having success with it? How do you use it?

Do you think we should link our articles to the original page scans? -Arch dude (talk) 18:59, 27 November 2008 (UTC)


 * G'day AD
 * I think that the side-by-side proofreading that JayVB has in place is the means forward, especially for getting occasional transcribers. Gives reasonable systems.  You can look at one that I have been undertaking at Index:Fasti ecclesiae Anglicanae Vol.1 body of work.djvu and then the resultant (trial) product at User:Billinghurst/Fasti Ecclesiae Anglicanae/Volume 1/Introduction
 * Those images that I have uploaded need to have the text layer applied by a bot, and that means Jay or Matt only at this point in time. They know that they are there and I am pretty certain that I can have at least one set up for an exhibit.
 * Linking? If we use the build, you will note that they automagically link. As I see it for this text, it becomes about how we do the sections and the resulting link pages. Some thought required, though not rocket science from my perspective.  Your template customisations will still work fine.
 * -- billinghurst (talk) 01:47, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Congratulations on finding all the volumes, and particularly the infamous vol 51. I took the liberty of linking to all of your work from the Wikipedia project page.
 * I saw that. It had been my intention to link to WikiProject DNB/Djvu files‎ from the project page once I had completed and double-checked it. It is there as a sub-page.
 * I am still deeply confused (a normal state for me) on how to proceed. Would you consider doing a subject article as a worked example?
 * Yes, it was my attention. I have been waiting for the text to be processed by the bot so I can start. I have obviously being doing implicit, not implicit messages.
 * perhaps the first article of the first volume?
 * starting on the volume at the moment
 * I guess that the correct way to proceed is to first create and/or correct the text page or pages in the "index" thingee, and then introduce the magic section syntax there, and finally create a subject page in our DNB project that includes the sections and/or pages. Is this correct? Assuming that this i scorrect, is is counterproductive to create individual text pages "by hand" instead of waiting for the 'bot?
 * Counter-productive, umm, no. Possibly duplicative at worst.
 * How long until the 'bot creates all the pages? If I add a page, will this upset the 'bot and cause it to sulk and refuse to to the other pages, or will it arrogantly over-ride my work, or will it just skip the page?
 * The bot does all the work of making the pages, adding the text and having the image beside. No point in touching.  Some have been done, and I will update those when I have a chance today. Index:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu I have started.
 * After you (or we, if I can help) do a worked example, we should probably document the work on the project page as a worked example. -Arch dude (talk) 16:17, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Most definitely. -- billinghurst (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * First example at Abbadie, Jacques (DNB00), we now we need to complete our article ending author templates. -- billinghurst (talk) 01:35, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * Nice work. I noticed earlier and added the templtaed fo the first two articles. I guess it's time to ree-emptively add all 600 of them. -Arch dude (talk) 09:26, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
 * I just finished adding the missing templates for writers in the writers' list for vol 1. It was slow going, with about 50 missing templates. I propose to slowly work forward on a volume-by-volume basis: presumably it gets easier as less new writers appear. -Arch dude (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Transclusion project versus "best source" project.
Now that you have made all 63 original sources available, we need to revisit the goals of the existing DNB project. I want do do a pure transclusion, with no correctins or additions from later editions, as a baseline. If we also want a "best DNB" document, I feel that we should create a second document hierarchy to support it. Thoughts? -Arch dude (talk) 09:38, 29 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I wish for the most historically correct information to be available. Exactly how that is achieved, I am willing to listen to what is possible.  I am not so sure that a duplicating hierarchy is necessary or desirable.  That sort of discussion is probably something for Scriptorium as they have that level of corporate knowledge. -- billinghurst (talk) 22:28, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

DNB Poor Quality Scans
Billinghurst, please add your comments to here.

problem with the "similar" keyword in template:author
Hi, and thanks again for your DNB work.

We seem to have a problem with the "similar" keyword in the "author" template.

Look at Author:Thomas Hamilton (university administrator), where you used the "similar" keyword. It does not yield a worthwhile result. I think we should take this to the scriptirium to ask for a change to the template. Agreed? -Arch dude (talk) 23:38, 21 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Already done, and done at the time of its use yesterday. I have asked for it to be namespace alert, and to put in applicable text to the scenario. So, rather than remember where I had to get back to, I have added the template and will await its update, rather than create new issues. :-) billinghurst (talk) 05:28, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

What options do you use on DJVU
Sorry mate, can't help you. I've never used Any2Dvju for OCR. Until recently I would type out the text by hand. Since I started taking advantage of OCR, I've had the luxury of using archive.org dvju files, which are already OCR'd. Hesperian 10:08, 28 December 2008 (UTC)