User talk:Suslindisambiguator

—innotata 16:54, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion
Hi. Are you aware of the proposal to delete the "EB11" categories? Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't think that deleting the EB11 categories would be a good idea at least in science, anthropology, and psychology — "EB11" serves as a warning label.
 * Do you imagine that some innocent will consult this classic edition for their homework, rather than going to wikipedia or a better site? Do we add a disclaimer to every old book, other than noting the year? If the work has so many short-comings that we need to modify and make it more wikipedia-like, then why bother adding it at all? cygnis insignis 22:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)


 * The science errors and deficiencies in EB1911 science articles are useful in several ways — the errors serve as a historical portrait and also warn today's scientists that their knowledge might be quite obsolete in 100 years. Interestingly, in EB1911 Max Planck had no article devoted to him, even though he was a rather famous scientist even in 1900. Ideally, all the errors and obsolete information in EB1911 should be foot-noted.
 * It also includes things omitted from later editions, the differences are interesting. There are things in EB that are missing from wikipedia, that can be copied and modified to the standards of that community. This is one of the reasons people might view the document, there would be many others, but the point remains unanswered. Wikipedia has similar, why change the original - the value of the unchanged text is inherent, it is what it is?! What if someone disagrees with a footnote, and categorisation, do we add a ref that asserts its notability and provides verification. Will wikimedian contributors improve articles at wikipedia, then come here to update all the 'wrong' information in the footnotes of potentially any document. Where on earth does all this refactoring of old texts stop? This is not a portal to wikipedia, or an appendix to it, readers who want that know where it is; attempting to educate people here is an inversion of the site's scope. We come here thinking like editors, but that is not what libraries do - they provide unchanged copies of information published elsewhere and that is a good thing, cygnis insignis 23:24, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello from the DNB project
I know the name from Wikipedia: I follow the addition of DNB links to Google Books, with the ulterior motive of replacing them with links to DNB articles here. I see your loyalty is mainly to the Britannica project, but we'd be glad to see you at the DNB project at any point. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:17, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Blanked author page for William Backer
Your blanking of the author page for Author:William Backer is puzzling. The page does have an author header, and if it didn't I think the solution is to add one rather than blank the page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2010 (UTC) ** The author "William Backer" does not exist as specified by the author page for "William Backer" — someone misread "William Bacher" as "William Backer."
 * I think the misreader was an OCR software module which unfortunately was fairly consistent about interpreting Bacher as Backer, and I never thought to check the facsimile on this man of mystery. Thanks for your corrections on this issue and contributions to EB1911.  I also find Bacher designated as  Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:01, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Authority control gadget
Hi. As you do such a great job at times with author pages, I thought that I would draw your attention to a recent gadget addition. We have a gadget that sits in the sidebar when author pages are displayed, and its purpose is to query the VIAF data base, and the addition of the authority control template to author pages. An [//en.wikisource.org/w/index.php?title=Author%3AWilliam_Symington_M'Cormick&diff=4105507&oldid=2952361 example]. — billinghurst  sDrewth  00:27, 21 October 2012 (UTC)

Wikisource User Group
Wikisource, the free digital library is moving towards better implementation of book management, proofreading and uploading. All language communities are very important in Wikisource. We would like to propose a Wikisource User Group, which would be a loose, volunteer organization to facilitate outreach and foster technical development, join if you feel like helping out. This would also give a better way to share and improve the tools used in the local Wikisources. You are invited to join the mailing list 'wikisource-l' (English), the IRC channel #wikisource, the facebook page or the Wikisource twitter. As a part of the Google Summer of Code 2013, there are four projects related to Wikisource. To get the best results out of these projects, we would like your comments about them. The projects are listed at Wikisource across projects. You can find the midpoint report for developmental work done during the IEG on Wikisource here.

Global message delivery, 23:23, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

EB1911
I notice that you have been contributing a number of articles to EB1911 and that have also been editing the DJVU transcripts the such as here. I do not know if you are aware but there are instructions of how to create transclusions at WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica under /Transclusion (see also Help:Beginner's guide to transclusion).

If for some reason you wish to continue to create pages as you have been doing (although the long term aim is to have all the pages as transclusion copies), then please use the template so that the page numbers are visible to readers. To do this please place

At the start of the text (immediately after the header template). Place another template with the appropriate page number wherever there is a page break and then at the end of the text (after any footnote template) place.

I edited several of you recent contributions as demonstrations eg see 1911_Encyclopædia_Britannica/Rifleman-bird.

I have wrapped this comment up in a dummy page. -- PBS (talk) 19:54, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

EB1911 errata lists
I don't know. I have copied you question to: Wikisource talk:WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica

EB1911 and text from Gutenberg
Firstly, Hi and thanks for the work you've done in adding "wstitle" in the EB1911 template to Wikipedia articles.

Also, I wanted to make you aware of the EB1911 Gutenberg converter for use in Wikisource (in case you weren't already aware). It saves me time when editing EB1911 pages. e.g. I just edited the page Page:EB1911 - Volume 07.djvu/636 (which contains CUIRASS) with converted text copied from Gutenberg. Already converted text files are available from https://www.dropbox.com/sh/dssahqtjtqleml9/AACOO55819IOefkYIXafYyZva?dl=0 — I recently added some more converted text files, or you can use the converter script to create some more yourself. See also WT:EB1911. Happy to try and answer any questions you may have on this. Regards and keep up the good work. DivermanAU (talk) 20:16, 22 September 2017 (UTC)

Edits in EB1911 Volume 12
Hi, it looks like — by co-incidence — I was editing in a similar part of EB1911 vol. 12 that you were (I had an edit clash). I've been working on finishing vol. 12 using converted text from Gutenberg (which makes proofreading faster; I still compare against the scanned text though). I can continue proofing remaining pages in vol. 12 if you like, and you could create missing articles, perhaps? Or I could start work on vol. 13. Do you have a preference? Keep up the good work. :) — DivermanAU (talk) 21:51, 25 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your prompt reply — I'll focus on volume 12 for now. If you have any requests for proofing of pages in EB1911 volumes 13 to 17, let me know and I'll use the converted Gutenberg text to proof them. Regards, DivermanAU (talk) 22:15, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

EB1911/wiktionary
I noticed this, but EB1911 doesn't support wiktionary. In the cases it's appropriate, is that worth considering? Might be a big task to do it thoroughly. DavidBrooks (talk) 18:59, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
 * In reply to your note on my talk page (it's about the EB1911 template not the project per se): my mistake for reading the documentation and not the source. The actual code quietly passes all the "sister project" parameters to header without them being documented specifically, but I'm sure you know that; I had never needed to drill down to such detail. Thanks for the implicit lesson. DavidBrooks (talk) 20:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)