Template talk:DNB01

Add topic
Active discussions

Compatibility between DNB00 and DNB01Edit

I have just finished two templates on Wikipedia to link to DNB01 ("cite DNBSupp" and "DNBSupp"). Two of the demonstration links are to Busher, Leonard (DNB01) and Bucknill, John Charles (DNB01) it is apparent that the header format and parameter are not similar to those used on DNB00. I would like to change the header on DNB01 so that it appears the same and has the same parameters as that for DNB00.

I am in the process of doing something similar for the {{EB1911}} see Talk:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Header -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 23:46, 10 October 2010 (UTC)

Am trying to follow your description...when comparing {{DNB00}} to {{DNB01}}, how are they incompatible? JamAKiska (talk) 00:07, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


Category:DNB00 calls using article


Category:DNB00 calls using article


Category:DNB00 calls using article

DNB00 includes displays the volume and places the author below the page name. I have modified the DNB01 code in DNB01/sandbox to replicate that appearance. But note there are also some other changes to the bottom line that I have not yet altered in the sandbox, and there also seems to be some undocumented debug type stuff in the DNB01 template using "zzz" which is not entirely clear to me. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:30, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Exactly right...looks like you are heading in a favourable direction with this...suggest you keep working the template until you determine that the bugs won't bite us later...I will set some time aside tomorrow to go into greater detail on this. Thanks for providing the momentum in our direction.

Is there a need for more than one link on a given page? From previous discussions, it seemed like disambiguation pages (eg. Arthur Annesley) would provide the side by side comparison from a variety of sources. There are a number of these examples available in the completed volumes. JamAKiska (talk) 01:28, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Whatever you do is fine with me. I don't know anything about complex templates—I only know about transclusion and adapting simple templates. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 09:15, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

From studying your well designed examples (thanks!)...

Initial observations for the title line. The "#if:" statements can be greatly simplified by renaming the navigation pages: Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement, Volume 1, 2, or 3, which will simplify the link structure to that of DNB00. Expect that to happen by tomorrow. Y

  • Data Fields...do not need Translator for DNB bios, as all authors wrote primarily in english (though an occasional line in a foreign language can be found); Also need to swap "volume" for "section" to enable one click to the destination page. The DNB01/sandbox presentation mirrors the current format of DNB00. It looks sharp.
  • The wiki link...is desirable only when a wiki page exists. At present less than half the DNB biographies have supporting wiki articles, and many of them have dab entries that make the existing link format EXTREMELY inaccurate. When I see a link, I expect it to lead to a page that adds value to the reading experience. So my humble opinion is that more often than not the reader will be disappointed by a dead end link. The sister project link discretely invites the reader to another biography on the same person. From a reader friendly perspective...

Am still working on the bottom section as well...JamAKiska (talk) 03:20, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

You and I seem to be in agreement. The zzz stuff was added by user:Billinghurst on 1 May 2009, I'll ask. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:27, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
  • The text at the bottom seems to be tied to maintenance tags that indicate the presence of a data field. They would need to be included on a follow-on template if still in use, otherwise lighten the load. JamAKiska (talk) 23:14, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
It had some horrid artefacts from the pre-{{header}} version and some of the conversion stuff that was undertaken at that time, so I have been through given it a good cull and updated to the tests used in DNB00
  • Wikipedia is now inbuilt into header, so I have converted all that stuff to align, which yells why we shouldn't overly complicate and overbuild spinoffs.
  • To my way of thinking we should actually build {{DNBxx}} and then put DNB00, DNB01 and DNB12 or whatever as sub-builds. I would even go as far as updating {{DNBset}} to cater for this, default would be 00, other parameters can be added for other years
Note that I have changed one of the tests to now identify where article = is empty or missing, and it puts those into Category:DNB00 calls missing article yes even for non-00 pages. Whereas the previous method one needed to do it by difference (ugly) unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2010.

I have put those changes into the sandbox version. I would like to test the sandbox and if it works OK move the code up into the production version so that we have a similar visual appearance to DNB00. Anyone think of a reason I should not do this? --~~

Suggested direction forwardEdit

  1. Create Template:DNBxx that has all the underlying parts required and all the tests for valid and missing fields
  2. Update DNB00, DNB01, DNB12 (others?) to call the base template and only to set the fields that are required and that change(perhaps DNB03 with consensus)
  3. Update DNBset so that it has parameter to identify non-DNB00 files and calls respective templates
unsigned comment by Billinghurst (talk) 10:46, 15 October 2010.

What we need to know to do these changes are

  • identify how we wish to describe/label and identify the different parts of the supplements and errata, eg. DNB00 uses volume numbers, what do we want DNB01 to use?
  • identify any other tests that we wish to have slipped away in the header

This is where we stand at present...

  1. Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement, Volume 3 links to the 3rd and final volume of the 1901 Supplement. Both the 1903 and 1912 editions are each one volume of roughly 1400-1630 pages. Looks like best way forward with these two options would be to break them up into three parts for their respective djvu index pages. So for DNB03 and DNB12 there would be three parts labelled: Part 1, 2, and 3. As you already have a 2 digit volume requirement for the 63 originals, would it be easier to use leading zeros for all editions after the original (Volume 03, or Part 03 as the case may be...)...see {{DNB link}} for citations through 1912 supplement. We will want to have these templates in alignment moving forward.
  2. The Header must mirror current look of the green portion of the Header in DNB01/sandbox above. The edition link and Volume (or Part) number as a separate link on the top line, the contributor on the 3rd line, and only one visible wiki-link (which you have already addressed - thanks).JamAKiska (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2010 (UTC)
  3. Errata options: Extra notes, footnotes, and link to errata page.JamAKiska (talk) 00:21, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Not to be overlooked...Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Errors and errataJamAKiska (talk) 11:36, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

See Talk:1911 Encyclopædia_Britannica/Header Bob Burkhardt suggests that what is needed is a new parameter for the underlying header template something like "section-author" and I would also suggest a "volume" parameter be added possibly some others for projects like DNB. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Sub-author has credence IMNSHO, though feel that there are many ways and means to handle volumes, and that it is more likely that if there are multiple sub-pages with volumes that we would either handle differently for web (vs. why printed volumes existed) or wrap into a different header derivative. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:23, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't fully understand what you have written (had to look up IMNSHO). It is the next sentence I may not fully of grasped, so apologies in advance if my answer is off. I see the volume and page number as information that anyone who uses the page needs for a full reference. That it is now on the web via Wikisource does not matter because Wikisource is not an authoritative source. If we were the ONDB then the link itself is a valid reference, but we are not, so we need to give the reader some way to check that what we have is a genuine copy, and to satisfy any requirements they may have to give a full citation. It may be that if a volume contains many many entries we may wish to partition the menu into more manageable chunks and that we need to provide a link to navigate to a sub menus instead of a main volume menu, but that is of secondary importance to providing a full citation of name, volume and page number in the header of the article. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 03:48, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Happy New YearEdit

Using {{DNB01}} for John Charles Bucknill produces Bucknill, John Charles (DNB01), the header of which implies that Darcy Power wrote the entire supplement, which we all agree is not the case. And yet, when I view Buckeridge, John (DNB00) using {{DNB00}} the header presentation aligns the author with the specific biography in question. What has become clear from this discussion (1911 included) is that the WS master templates are not quite flexible enough to allow accurate entries made in these biographical and other types of dictionaries in a user friendly manner. From what I have read in reviewing the WS templates, there were allowances made some time ago to allow this type of resource specific deviations from the WS master templates to accommodate exactly this type of situation. In light of the fact that all three 1901 Supplemental volumes are now available for editing it would be wise to bring this to closure. There is a distinct lack of symmetry when comparing the headers previously mentioned. Specifically the "volume" parameter which performs two functions: it accelerates the progress of experienced readers navigating these pages and also enables accurate citations that facilitate the verification process. The page numbering is revealed upon removal of the "div class" wiki elements when using transclusion. This page access allows the reader to verify the authenticity of the text, and provides a reference for citation purposes that align with printed versions found on shelves. JamAKiska (talk) 19:58, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

Fairly certain the display of DNB01 now mirrors the DNB00's layout but didn't have enough courage to press on and address the missing {{{volume}}} parameter and it's resulting function(s). Prior to editing, there was an extra (((wikisource|))) call in place of {{{override_author}}} in case my changes aren't clear enough. -- George Orwell III (talk) 20:53, 1 January 2011 (UTC)