User talk:Charles Matthews/Archive2

Thoughts on co-transcluding

Hey ho. Wondered whether you would mind investing 20p on giving feedback on A Compendium of Irish Biography/Abernethy, John. The work has the main bios, then has additions/notes/etc. at the end of the work. Where there are notes, rather than having two separate pages, I was thinking of co-transcluding the various parts of the work to the one page (as shown) and was seeking feedback on what others thought of that methodology. This page may add a little clarity A Compendium of Irish Biography/Index. Happy for others who read this to invest their 20p or 20c (or insert your currency). Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:23, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

And sometimes when one clicks that add section button, then contributes, then saves and gets to view what is immediately above. Spooky. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:25, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I agree with adding the Addendum to the biography page. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:23, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Actually I am on a wikibreak and happened to pass by. That system seems to work fine, so I would have no objection. Back in a few weeks and might have some time to invest. Cheers Ww2censor (talk) 22:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Implemented and have added notes about how to do at Talk:A Compendium of Irish Biography. Only one table of authorities in use, eg. A Compendium of Irish Biography/Aengus Culdee and I have only added Addendum when there are the two parts to combine, not when it all appears in the addendum. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:54, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Did some transferral

For the sake of (in)sanity, I have transferred the bios written by Bullen and Thompson to their subpages (which I have expanded the name) and set into the tables. Now with the extra columns it may not make it more useful, hence why I stopped at two which we can revert. — billinghurst sDrewth 17:43, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

OK, what I had in mind was a programme adding names from the first volume, second volume etc., as we consolidate. That was the original intention. I switched from "horizontal" listing, to "vertical" listing to get complete listings of authors done, when that became possible for me. It doesn't really matter, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:17, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

I think that the lateness of the day (earliness of the next) has muddled my brain, not quite getting your drift. Will review post sleep. — billinghurst sDrewth 18:24, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

Thx

Thx CM ... I didnt see that symbol. Cheers Victuallers (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks for fixing Author:Joseph Knight (biographer)‎ @ Hartley, Elizabeth (DNB00) I thought I already did.Daytrivia (talk) 18:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

'TsOK. I use the Magnus tool sometimes to check that author page links are in order, and it picks up on a range of such issues where the linking to-and-fro isn't quite kosher. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:47, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Wolfe Tone

I created, proofed and transcluded Wolfe Tone. If you get a chance could your verify it and if possible also add some appropriate links that I am sure it needs but I don't know how much or little should/could be linked, i.e., Cornwallis. TIA Ww2censor (talk) 16:49, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

There are a few things to fix. As far as adding wikilinks, it is surely enough at this point to add in the qvs, and the "see Hobart, Robert". You can make them to the DNB articles as redlinks. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:46, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

DNB Project

Charles

Thanks for your comments. I am placing transcriptions here for use by editors.--Longfellow (talk) 14:50, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Linked name separated by pages

Hi again Mr. Matthews, I have used a template for a hyphenated word that is split by pages, but I cannot find one for linked name split here [1]for Mrs. Mary Anne Clarke. Any ideas? Daytrivia (talk) 23:57, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

(Sorry for intruding) I answered at Daytrivia's talk page. -Arch dude (talk) 16:49, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah good. I wasn't getting anywhere. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:52, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

{{CotW}}

I reckon that we can hijack the CotW for a couple of weeks and utilise it for Portal:British Museum. I think that to do that we just need to have some text to point to at the target page indicating the sort of contributions people can make. Happy to do the CotW end, just not comfortable capturing your desired outputs. — billinghurst sDrewth 16:24, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

OK, I had in mind a broad scope:

• Improvement of Portal:British Museum both for content and for looks and presentation: for example w:Poets' Corner#Burials shows a neat way of using images in a table such as already exists for author pages.
• Work on any of the author pages linked from the portal (biographies, addition of works).
• Creation of any of the works from those author pages; EB1911 and DNB projects both should be interested in this specific task.
• Adding any further author pages to the portal that should be there because of association of the author.
• Creation of relevant biographies.
• Addition to WS of works about the Museum, also.

Charles Matthews (talk) 16:39, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Created Portal:British Museum/Scope and have updated {{Collaboration}} and {{CotW}} — billinghurst sDrewth 17:04, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

DNB accuracy

Hi Charles while proofing this page [2] I became curious about the accuracy of the actual text because towards the end of the page they mention a Robert Abbott but he would have only been 14 years old. After looking into it I found this [3] which indicates George Abbott instead. Now my question is although this project protects the integrity and posterity of DNB should a note be made somewhere else (perhaps Wikipedia) indicating the seemingly inaccuracy of DNB in this case? Thanks much. Daytrivia (talk) 13:30, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

I've quickly checked the 1904 DNB Errata volume, and it seems not to be mentioned there. I think if you enter your observation in the "extra notes" field of the header, that will do for the present. I'll try to check this tomorrow, also. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:58, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

This will become a larger issue when we begin to add material from the 1904 errata volume and from later editions. Fundamentally, we must decide the goals of this Wikisource project. In my opinion, the (initial) goal is a faithful transcription of the original 63-volume DNB: this means that we make no corrections whatsoever. If a reader wants accurate modern information, the reader should go to the Wikipedia article. We have a general disclaimer to this effect. I do not think we need to explicitly identify each error in the original. After we complete the transcription of DNB00 (where "we" is mostly Charles) we should consider how to incorporate the 1901 addendum, the 1904 errata, and the later editions. However, I feel very strongly that we need to preserve the ability to view the original DNB00. Wikisource is not really the place to create a fully-corrected version of the DNB: Wikisource exists to faithfully capture original sources. If we ultimately decide to create a modern corrected DNB, we should move to Wikibooks. In my view, we should instead rely in Wikipedia for a modern synthesis. NOTE: is should be possible to create multiple "views" of the same article here at Wikisource, by adding conditional wikisyntax. I feel that the default view should be the original DNB00. Another view can be DNB04. Yet another view can include modern annotations. If the reader clicks on a link to the annotated view, then modern corrections can be shown. -Arch dude (talk) 01:07, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I basically agree. An article with suffix (DNB00) represents the first edition text, nothing more and nothing less. What needs to be decided can be taken as an issue of how to "configure" the errata, the annotations people come up with, and if necessary the "diff" with later versions. For short annotations there is the "extra notes" field, and I use it occasionally (e.g. Sullivan, Barry (DNB00) where there was much later correction). For the Errata volume we haven't decided: it would be possible to transclude these both to a page of their own and the DNB00 article. For "diff" versions, some of which User:Eclecticology has posted, I think we should move them to their own suffix, and use {{similar}} to keep track. In quite a number of cases I have met, the DNB article in its original state has bad errors (for example misidentification), and the only sensible thing is to rely on the Wikipedia article to sort out the modern view. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

I checked the 1922 compendium, and the article is greatly different (shortened by a mile, and that reference not existing). For the sake of the exercise, I agree that the DNB00 article should reflect the image as that is true to the work. Errata in later versions can be handled by a number of means, transclusion to page, linking to another page, disambiguation, annotation (this is different from where I started the project). At this stage I feel that we deal with any variation when we get to the correcting text, and when we get to that point, we can play and look at the possibilities with a reality view point. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:47, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

For DNB counting purposes

Incidental tool User:Hesperian/Script, however if you scroll down you can see the DNB XX listing. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:06, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

not covered in directions

Magnus did the innards to Clay, William Keatinge (DNB00) and for the publications he has used wiki #, and I must admit that it looks good. Apart from MM, I (we?) haven't done it elsewhere, and thought it worthy of consideration. — billinghurst sDrewth

I wasn't sure about it when I first saw it, and that was under the #section style. It does look rather better now. Where would it stand under the "purist" thinking on style (all and any features of the text that carry information, no others)? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:01, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

• I see a hiccup, but I know a little about solving pataphysical problems. I thought of a few ways the numbering in a paragraph can continue across pages, or columns when we get to that, each more intricate than the last. We can also get a bot to search for numbering in paragraphs, then implement the wikicode and templates automatically. I haven't gone into the testing phase yet, but we will need a couple of templates: 'DNB numbering style override - begin' and 'DNB numbering style override - end'.

  If the purists object, tell them that a numeral is just a piece of code being faithfully transcribed into wikicode, some java, and a bit of multiple transclusion to make the whole thing work :P Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:37, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, there are obviously two points of clarity, I suppose that the my pre-eminent thought had been on the output being different and clearer to read for the presentation of the style, rather than on the tool itself. To also note that at that hour of the night, I didn't consider lists that span pages.

• style of presentation. We are moving away from the original production typeset of running their publications as contiguous list. That should be a conscious decision. Looking at how it presents, I prefer that look, though it may not be worth it for the hassle.
• use of # versus hard numbering. To continue across pages one has to stop using # and use <ol> and <li> as per w:Help:List#Specifying_a_starting_value, and presumably that can start on the new page. We would need to test the transclusion page-spanned lists, though I thought that the first thought on principle should lead the technical. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:37, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

There are actually three separate issues here:

• should we deviate from the original format in page space?
• should we deviate from the original format in article space?
• if we decide to deviate, what syntax should we use?

Basically, we need to first agree on how the text should be displayed, and then decide on what wiki markup will accomplish this objective. My personal preference is to not deviate at all, but to use the original format in both spaces. If we must deviate, Then I very strongly prefer to NOT deviate in page space, but only in article space. If we decide to deviate in article space but not in page space, then we need to agree on syntax. A simple solution might use explicit numbering instead of the "#" wiki syntax. If we can find a way to start each item on a new indented line in article space, shile NOT starting each item on a new line in page space, than we will achieve our purpose. NOTE: this scheme would work for both the "works" and for the "authorities". Perhaps we can create a template that adds an html line break and two spaces when in article space, but which adds nothing in page space. Note that hard numbering is actually preferable to the "#" syntax. The "#" syntax is intended to permit later renumbering, but in our case the text will never be renumbered. -Arch dude (talk) 02:02, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB

Thanks for the tip, I will check for spaces in future and I'll check out the project page. I stumbled upon the DNB and i'm fairly new to this so any feedback is welcome. Battlecatz (talk) 21:07, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in. The learning curve is perhaps a bit steep initially, but there are quite a few active DNBers who are willing to help out. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:10, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

being lazy & to test

Being sick of trying to get something like John Wall (1708-1776) this into the right format for a wikilink, I am trialling {{subst:d|John|Wall|(1708-1776)}}. If it is good bad or ugly then happy for the feedback. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:24, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

This would be for wikification, and I have yet to develop any very strong feelings about how to tackle that. I did fool around a little with the Catholic Enyclopedia text, to get some feel. What I think about this specific one is that I'm generally a fan of redirects (economical solution to many problems, improve navigation). I don't see the objection to creating redirects to DNB pages that reverse the inversion. So my first instinct would be to encourage the construction of such redirects as a way of filling in redlinks, reasoning that this can be a once-for-all fix for popular links. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:37, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Small proofread

Would you mind checking the Greek characters at Page:Indian fairy tales (1892).djvu/268, just a couple of words in the last paragraph. Cygnis insignis (talk) 17:11, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:32, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks, :) Cygnis insignis (talk) 22:51, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

naming convention exception request

Hi Charles,

I am nearly ready to create Catherine of Braganza and am wondering if her name here[4] could be changed from "Catherine (1638-1705)" to "Catherine of Braganza". One of my reasons is simply that there are quite a few Catherines' that would, it seems, be easier to identify than the normal variable of their b/d dates. I personally prefer using the dates but in this case it would be easier "one click" to locate. Especially when the rest of the Catherines' are listed. Just curious. Thanks.Daytrivia (talk) 02:15, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

I guess that's OK - the DNB article starts "Catherine of Braganza". I have been coming round to more general views about names led off by a Christian name in this way, but mostly for the medieval cases. I went through a list of 16 people called Ralph, and it seems to me that including "Ralph of somewhere" names was going to help the reader. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:00, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

Hyphenated author pages

Generally we have been handling the hyphenated/double-barrelled names as Author:Ernest Gambier-Parry‎ listing as Ga, and Author:Ernest Gambier Parry‎ as Pa, and then a redirect to the preferred. Giving us the best of both worlds, changing one in isolation is probably going to be problematic. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:24, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I've added a category to the new redirect, and tweaked the page at the new title to conform, so I hope that is OK now. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:00, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

List 7

Wikipedia: OK, section 52 is done except there is an outstanding one needing expansion rather than creation and I need the four bios remaining in the section which you missed. I've dabbed section 1 of the 7 page too. If you could donwload those I'll start them tomorrow and dab section 2 and so on...

Bond villains aren't entitled to SUL? Veeery interesting. I have just given you three bios back in the other place (the fourth was a redirect). I'm not keeping up very well with all my tasks, what with everything, and it is bedtime now. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)

I've started http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athanasius_Allanson. Perhaps you have something on him somewhere?80.3.26.54 11:41, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

He is in the ODNB, not the old DNB. In the ODNB he is Allanson, Peter - Athanasius is his name in religion. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:45, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Obituary here. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

How about Captain George Edgcumbe? Saw him red linked somewhere..80.3.26.54 11:46, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

DNB vol. 16: - text follows:-

Edgcumbe, George, FIRST EARL OF MOUNT-EDGCUMBE (1721–1795), son of Richard, first baron Edgcumbe [q.v.] and brother of Richard, second baron [q.v.] was born 3 March 1720–1. In 1739, while serving as midshipman in the Mediterranean fleet, he was made lieutenant by Vice-admiral Haddock, and in 1742 was promoted to be commander of the Terrible bomb. In the course of 1743 he was appointed acting captain of the Kennington of 20 guns, was confirmed in August 1744, and commanded her in the Mediterranean till 1745, when he was advanced to the Salisbury of 50 guns on the home station. In her he remained till the peace of 1748. From 1746 to 1761 he was M.P. for Fowey, although he rarely attended the house. In 1751 he went to the Mediterranean as senior officer in the Monmouth, and the following year in the Deptford of 50 guns. He was still in her and with his small squadron at Minorca, when the French invaded the island on 19 April 1756. He hastily landed the marines and as many of the seamen as could be spared, and sailed the next day for Gibraltar, before the French had taken any measures to block the harbour. At Gibraltar he was joined by Admiral John Byng [q.v.] , by whom he was ordered to move into the Lancaster of 66 guns. In the battle off Cape Mola on 20 May the Lancaster was one of the ships in the van, under Rear-admiral West, which did get into action, and being unsupported suffered severely. In 1758, still in the Lancaster, he was in the fleet under Boscawen at the reduction of Louisbourg. On his return to England, with the despatches announcing this success, he was appointed to the Hero of 74 guns, in which he took part in the blockade of Brest during the long summer of 1759, and in the crowning battle of Quiberon Bay on 20 Nov. He continued in the Hero attached to the grand fleet under Hawke or Boscawen, till on the death of his brother on 10 May 1761 he succeeded to the title as third Lord Edgcumbe; and on 18 June was appointed lord-lieutenant of Cornwall. On 21 Oct. 1762 he was promoted to be rear-admiral; was treasurer of the household 1765–6; and from 1766 to 1770 held the command-in-chief at Plymouth. On 24 Oct. 1770 he was advanced to be vice-admiral, and in 1773 again held the chief command at Plymouth, whence in June he went round to Spithead and commanded in the second post when the king reviewed the fleet. He held no further appointment afloat, though on 29 Jan. 1778 he was advanced to the rank of admiral. On 17 Feb. 1781 he was created Viscount Mount-Edgcumbe and Valletort, in compensation, it was said, for the damage caused to the woods of Mount-Edgcumbe in strengthening the fortifications of Plymouth. From 1771 to 1773 he was one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland; from 1773 to 1782 captain of the band of gentlemen pensioners; and from 1784 to 1793 again one of the vice-treasurers of Ireland. On 31 Aug. 1789 he was created Earl of Mount-Edgcumbe. He died 4 Feb. 1795. He married, in 1761, Emma, only daughter of Dr. Gilbert, archbishop of York, by whom he had one son, Richard [q.v.] , who succeeded to his titles. A manuscript journal, kept by Edgcumbe and Captain William Marsh, from 30 April 1742 to 1 June 1744, is in the Bodleian Library. A letter from Edgcumbe to Garrick is printed in the latter's ‘Private Correspondence,’ ii. 109. Sources

Charnock's Biog. Navalis, v. 293; Naval Chronicle, xxii. 177, with a portrait. J. K. L.

Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice one. I'll get on with transferring some existing DNB pages here directly into wikipedia, save you the time. I did a few last night actually of your recent uploads. It would still be a good idea to work through page 7 but your workload here is tremendous so I'll transfer a few myself and then reference it to wiki source/DNB. I'm impressed at your workload here. Aren't there something like 63 DNB volumes?.80.3.26.54 11:58, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Plus three 1901 supplement volumes, plus another in 1912 (all therefore PD). Plus Errata. I guess probably also a 1922 supplement that is PD too, somewhere on the horizon. I aim to proofread 30 pages a day, producing a variable number of finished articles (around 30). The complete volumes are something like 1, 28, 50-55. More on the way, butn one volume takes about two weeks. Category:DNB No WP may be helpful, but there are thousands in there for which there is a WP article, just no link as of now. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Edgcumbe article did exist but under his title so I redirected. I added quite a bit from the above to make it more comprehensive. Some of the dates are slightly inaccurate, not sure which is correct, I'd imagine if the ODNB is more up to date that is probably more accurate. Thanks for the link. That's a great tool. I think I can be more more productive this way. Dabbing and just seeing the missing article pages scares me! I know it has to be done sometime to ensure we have everything but it needs more than one or two people working on them to fully sort them out. OK I'll make a start on the No WP category. I'll let you know when a batch is done so they can be removed from the category.80.3.26.54 12:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No need. If you fill in the "wikipedia =" field in the article header, the article automatically drops out. (Yes, we do have technology even out here in the sticks). NB that there is a software glitch placing most articles under D there (long story, but we also have technology with bugs in). Charles Matthews (talk) 12:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The first 10 in the category are done, but for some reason they are still showing...80.3.26.54 13:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't understand. There may have been some lag or caching for you? Currrently for me the first entry in Category:DNB No WP is Acherley, Roger (DNB00). A lawyer, mentioned in w:Thomas Vernon (lawyer). Charles Matthews (talk) 13:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

So you have just made w:Roger Acherley, I've added the link from here. And the category updated at once. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:56, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I have also started these on wikipedia

• Ackland, Thomas Gilbank (DNB00)
• Addison, John (fl.1538) (DNB00)
• Ady, Joseph (DNB00)
• Aikin, Charles Rochemont (DNB00)
• Airey, George (DNB00)
• Allan, Robert (DNB00)
• Allenson, John (DNB00)
• Allestry, Jacob (DNB00)
• Allibond, Richard (DNB00

As I said, I started 10. Will do another batch this evening.80.3.26.54 14:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I meant "just" as in "just now", not as in "only"! Tell you what, log in here under SUL and I'll get you autopatrolled so that the RC patrollers will have less to look at. Once you fill in the DNB attribution template, you can click over here and fill in the WP field in the header - five seconds. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

The reason why I'm not logged in is at an earlier date I altered my user name slightly so after the new system came in it didn't work for me. Annoying. I'll create an account here then. You'll have to show me where to fill the header. Got an account, what do I mark?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:01, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

{{DNB00

|article= Acherley, Roger
|previous= Accum, Friedrich Christian
|next= Ackermann, Rudolph
|volume= 01
|wikipedia = Roger Acherley
|extra_notes= 
|contributor = Arthur Henry Grant

}}

Like that: simply add the WP article name in the field. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:06, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Now let me see. 3400 odd articles. Now if one or two could help me and get 34 done a day we'd have that listed cleared by the end of October.... It may be possible with a helping hand, I doubt I'll want to do that many a day, I could probably manage 20 in one go if I was feeling in the mood and had plenty of time to do so... Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:30, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

There's a project page: Wikisource:WikiProject DNB. I know User:Battlecatz did work recently adding WP links (not article creation on enWP, I think). You could ask on Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB. User:Jan1nad did article work on enWP: not contributing there or here currently. It's a big task, surely, and I suppose the way is to take a reasonable bit at once. For example I have added all of letter S (except for two paras on an awkward Welshman who got into the DNB twice). Letter Q is complete and I'm working on R. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Well, I'll make it a goal to try and get it done by the end of the year, doubt it but who knows. Most of the work I do on wikipedia is on foreign countries, reducing systematic bias, but I think it is something of a priority to merge such a major work as the DNB and as far as I can see the numbers working on this are practically non existant. Given that you are putting in a tremendous and highly commendable effort to upload these text to here you could definately use a helping hand to put them on wikipedia. I only wish I was aware of what you were doing earlier. I can't promise that I'll work on them "every" day, some days I won't feel like it or will be busy but I can certainly make it a priority to add a few as often as possible.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Don't be "too hasty" - we are coming up to 7000 articles done out of 27000, so there are a couple of years left in this project. I'm fairly single-minded about add stuff here, right now. User:Victuallers adds DNB material on enWP, certainly. I know of others; User:Tagishsimon has worked at it systematically. I added plenty of articles of immediate interest to me to enWP; and then got involved in the current drive. We'll get there, but years not months. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Mmmm on second thoughts that is a pretty tall order. We are barely past 1/4 overall then. Sheesh... Well I'll promise to do as many as I can anyway. Is there any tool somewhere you have for monitoring how many have been created out of the 27,000? That would be interesting to see I think. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 16:31, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yup, the Magnus tool. You only need the first line. There is actually another tool I use to pick up Google Books links to the DNB (to replace them - you've perpetrated a few, I know). I can explain that another time though. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:35, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Oh well we can forget about the 3400 figure then, its crept up to 3500 now. I'll just go by the biggy 7000 out of 27,000. 20,000 articles will naturally take several years.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:03, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

We should probably talk a bit about project pages on WP. Technically, there, it's all a subproject of the Missing Articles WikiProject, and doesn't have a discussion forum of its own. But I can bring to mind other people I know of, who are adding DNB text in particular fields, or using it as a reference, or whatever. The whole thing could certainly have a higher profile over there. What do you think? It would be easy to leave talk page messages like "if you're interested in the DNB material, drop by page X and meet like-minded editors". The question is, what should X be? Charles Matthews (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm certain there are a handful of editors who would be willing to work at this. The DNB project definately needs resurrecting. We should also have a percentage complete system which I've seen on other MEA pages. At present we'd be about 26% complete I think in terms of missing articles, probably less in terms of the number of existing articles needing DNB text. You have a high profile in the wiki community, perhaps you could slip it onto one of the main noticeboards that the DNB project needs volunteers to help transfer and process the wiki source texts. Its pretty important, encyclopedically I think. Perhaps you could address it at the Cambridge Wikimedia meetup in a few days time and try to get some of those who attend into it. Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:22, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

High profile, eh? No doubt for all the wrong reasons. I was thinking just now is that the obvious move is to spin the DNB out of the MEA project, into one in its own right. At present all the serious discussion goes on in the WikiProject here; what is clearly required is a "sister" project, like twin cities. I think this is the right idea, but I'll cogitate some more, and wonder who needs consulting. According to Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Statistics there are only just over 10% of DNB articles here completely accounted for (linked across to an existing Wikipedia article). That number can be pushed up, but there are deliberately 10 stats kept (too many fronts to fight on, aargh), representing different objectives. Anyway, the timing seems good shortly to set up a WP WikiProject, and inform possible volunteers. (I think mentioning the DNB drives people away, though. Dsp13 who got me into this mess as well as the meetups is off in West Africa.) Charles Matthews (talk) 19:33, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Yeah the problem is that its the same small group of people who end up doing all of the grunt work. As useful a project is for coordination unless there are at least 5 people actively ploughing through them and planning out/setting targets I wouldn't bother. I set up a project about a year ago on the Intertranswiki to try to get some coordinated approach at translating articles from other wikipedias and finding reliable sources to back up the transferred text . Perhaps you've compared a few categories on non anglo subjects with the German and French wikipedias in particular, frighening. But the project is only really running by the few people who informally translate the odd article. To successfully transfer what appears to be on the higher side of 5 million missing articles from other wikipedias which may be notable is not going to happen without active numbers. Its literally an impossible task without automation and high numbers of workers. Wikipedia has massive potential but in my view the coordination in important parts of the project is very poor where it matters. More people will be happy to sit around discussing whether to make the Pokemon charatcer infobox pink or yellow than set up a plan for merging old tradiational encyclopedic material. Obviously there are many interested in the formal subjects but haven't the time to actively contribute.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 20:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Actually at the last meetup Rich Farmbrough expressed an interest in getting AI techniques going. Which would help, and sounds like a possibility based on what I know of commercial approaches. I suppose the question is how to get beyond putting information into some kind of infobox, just to get it out again. But there is no doubt, outsiders already think something interesting has already been done! Actually my fundamental approach, pushed on by the DNB work, is now rather different. It's as if the information is a hugh jigsaw puzzle, and the real challenge is joining it all together, not just heaping it all up. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Certainly is a huge jigsaw puzzle. I've having a break from DNB today, I've been encouraging Albanian church growth and creating a few stubs to try to encourage Albanian translation... I'll resume tomorrow.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

How did the meet up go? Did you mention DNB?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 09:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

It went well. A couple of people were interested in the DNB, and others had to listen anyway. Discussion about maps: in particular historical maps from old atlases. There seems to be a gap in where to put them (would WS house old atlases?), and there is a serious format question. Also some talk about new aspects of handling replacing cropping on the toolserver. Not anything where I have expertise. Charles Matthews (talk) 09:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Old maps? What's wrong with the commons? Well I did propose a WIki Atlas project to jimbo a while back but nothing came of it, surprise surprise. I've mentioned a possible new sub project for DNB to Boleyn who is showing signs she may return. The funny think is BrownHaired Girl has been creating equally short stubs but she sources them well. If Boleyn did the same, maybe the length would not be an issue, it certainly isn't with me.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:57, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Commons (in terms of single bit-mapped scans) is beginning to seem a bit limited. There is the issue of replacing jpg with SVG graphics, too. Things tend not to happen instantly.

As for the WP situation and Boleyn, just keep it steady. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

A bot is definately the way to go for this. Mostly the work needing doing is minimal and it would save a massive amount of editing time. I'vve asked Kotniski if he would be able to code something. The biggest outstanding problem I think would be dabbing all of the articles to make way for it. Hopefully something can be done.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:15, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

I'm not really convinced, I have to say. On the other hand the tool under discussion at w:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles#Catching 'near misses' in lists of missing articles is definitely useful: I have been finding a number of matches with it. What might be even more useful would be a version of that with a laxer form of matching, not restricted just to the redlinks either, and with an interface that displayed suggested matches in such a way that the summaries could be compared with the lead sections of articles. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Well a trial run will be proposed in a few weeks. If you still have doubts then it probably won't happen. I think you'd be surprised that actually it could be done efficiently with minimum problems.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 17:39, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Lancelot Ridley

Thank you for your help guiding my proof reading of volume 48.djvu/291 then creating Ridley, Lancelot. I am keen to continue the process to create the wikipedia version of the page. In this case, Lancelot Ridley was rector of Stretham and father of Mark Ridley, born in Stretham. Therefore, from my viewpoint at least, he is notable. Actually, even if he is not, it is a good exercise for me to do. After completing this I would like to be allocated a work-package of say 10 items I can work on over the next month.

Thinking this through. Let me try and identify all possibilities. If we assume 0-djvu means a scanned source exists but has not been proof read yet, 1-djvu means it has been proof read; similarly 0-source means no wikisource version exists and 1-source means wikisource exists; 0-pedia means a wikipedia version exists and 1-pedia means a wikipedia version exists then am I correct in believing the following cases fully itemise all possiblities?

djvu	-source	-pedia	comment
			does not exist anywhere
x			only djvu
	x		can this case exist?
x	x		-source created from djvu; no -pedia exists yet
		x	-pedia exists; perhaps someone created it already?
x		x	-pedia exists; do we need to proof read?
	x	x	can this case exist?
x	x	x	all done

--Senra (talk) 19:00, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you mean 0-pedia = No Wikipedia version exists? It is actually helpful to note another status, namely that a Wikipedia version exists, but is sufficiently stubby to require expansion from DNB text to achieve respectability.

Just so you are aware, there is a standard template w:Template:DNBListing in the other place. The status I have just mentioned is the tick-cross status mentioned there. There are the 63 per-volume listings accessible from that template, where the effort to check and fill in is supposed to go on.

So, we can discuss a "work-package" in some terms related to those volume listings. If you really want to go down that road ... and I'd have some comments about "raw material" as under Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Raw materials#Scans elsewhere (assuming you have a library card).

Back to Lancelot. The first pass through such a DNB text (in a text editor or draft) should be to remove the inline references:

He failed to appear on the day of visitation, but ten days after pleaded guilty in the chapter-house and was deprived (16 March 1553; Hist, MSS. Comm. 9th Rep. p. 101; Strype, Cranmer, p. 472).

should become

He failed to appear on the day of visitation, but ten days after pleaded guilty in the chapter-house and was deprived.

We'd always intend to link back to Wikisource with the templates {{DNB Cite}} (citation) and {{DNB}} (attribution) anyway, so goodbye to the references.

Then you have text that needs a lead section, with sections such as "Life" and "Works" in this case. I'd make

He married Mary, daughter of Christopher Paterson, and had two sons, Henry and Mark [q.v.]

into a short "Family" section at the end, obviously making that [[Mark Ridley|Mark]]. At this point the text looks like a Wikipedia article, but will need a copyedit to update old-fashioned expressions, and some cuts. For example I'd probably make

Under Edward VI he was a vigorous defender of protestantism, and bishop Ridley seems to have meditated his promotion to the chancellorship of St. Paul's on the translation of Grindal to a bishopric November 1551

into

Under Edward VI he was a reformer considered for promotion by [[Nicholas Ridley (martyr)|Nicholas Ridley]].

This part of the story looks like it needs some expansion with outside references.

Then add some categories, and the article should be ready to create. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:27, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Think you mean 0-pedia = No yes, correct. I must learn to proof-read my posts --Senra (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

assuming that from Back to Lancelot..., the above describes a procedure for creating a wikipedia article from a wikisource article, I will go ahead and do this and see what happens --Senra (talk) 20:56, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

OK. I was looking over the Feltons on Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 18 Esdaile - Finan, and they would be a reasonable "package" of nine articles (varied, nothing too long), starting at Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 18.djvu/311. But the text is unattractive in parts, so I'd let you into some trade secrets. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:03, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

without causing you too much extra work (I hope) please check over Lancelot Ridley and please do let me know any issues I have caused; hopefully it should be close to correct. I think I may have struggled with the authorlink of {{DNB_Cite}} but otherwise it was just a slog. I am sure it will get easier for me --Senra (talk) 22:38, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

I have done a fair amount on w:Lancelot Ridley by now. It still hasn't really got to the point of his prominence in the religious debate, so I'll add at least one more reference later. It is generally better to use interwiki rather URL references to pages here (more stylish, and also actually gets round nofollow). Also particular citation styles are more stylish than generic citation templates. I can explain any of this in more detail if need be. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:55, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Thank you. I have examined the diffs carefully for my own future reference, documenting them here

• diff agreed DNB template moved to end of article; lead re-written; short-cut DNB Cite; attribution subsection added; defaultsort; category:English Anglican priests
• diff query new reference added {{Venn|RDLY521L|Ridley, Lancelot}} which is a reference work I was not aware of. Not sure how I can fix this issue myself as I am likely to lack knowledge in other subject matter too
• diff agreed rm peacock terms; wikify
• diff agreed added named reference to DNB as {{DNB Cite|Ridley, Lancelot}}
• diff agreed copyedits; wikify; rm peacocks. I might debate Six Preachers and suggest it is six preachers
• diff query converted {{Cite book|...url=s:...}} to [[John Foxe]], [[s:The Book of Martyrs (Foxe)/Chapter XVI#Archbishop Cranmer]]. Is this a matter of personal style or a cross wiki requirement?
• diff agreed typo
• diff query added reference to subjects tenure in Willingham (VCH) - is this overkill as it is mentioned in DNB anyway?
• diff query added yet another reference to subjects tenure in Willingham (possibly w:WP:SPS?) - now it is overkill?
• diff agreed New sentence added from referenced source George Steinman, A History of Croydon (1834)
• diff typo

On reflection, finding additional referenced sources for information is what I do over at -pedia so it is no different here. It is simply that I am not as familiar with this particular subject matter. The change I am most annoyed (with myself) about is the change to {{DNB Cite|Ridley, Lancelot}}. I had read the template documentation and must have missed the fact that you only need last and first. Anyway, thank you for finding the patience to fix my work.

--Senra (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

http://venn.csi.cam.ac.uk/, the Venn database, is certainly worth knowing about. It is a web version of the reference work of John Venn, on Cambridge graduates. That is 100,000 or so people: since Oxford graduates were often "incorporated" at Cambridge (this is common before 1800), and so included, this sweeps up a big chunk of English university graduates. There can be problems with spelling variants of older names, but generally it's a very intetesting source. For example, full text search for Stretham comes out as this. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

I will start on the Feltons on Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900/Vol 18 Esdaile - Finan from Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 18.djvu/311. Please do not expect miracles here. I will plod along over the next week or so and pop back here with questions and or progress every now and again --Senra (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Whilst I am here, what are these, erm, trade secrets? --Senra (talk) 15:07, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Assuming you have ODNB access (as your edits suggest), for (say) Felton, Henry, go to the DNB archive link on the ODNB site's page on him. This text will save you a lot of time: it is not the first edition text, but the 1912 revision, AFAIK. It is much easier to proofread this text for updates (against the djvus) than to fix the OCR text. Assuming you get the hang of this, I can explain my "batch method" for systematic use of pre-processed text, which is the way to gain speed. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:13, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Nice trick! I have worked from page 311 (page 305) through to page 318 (312) inclusive. The code for (my first solo) DNB article looked like...

{{DNB00
 |article= Felton, Henry
 |previous= Felltham, Owen
 |next= Felton, John
 |volume= 18
 |wikipedia = Henry Felton
 |extra_notes= 
 |contributor = William Arthur Shaw
}}

<div class=indented-page>
<pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 18.djvu" from="311" to="311" fromsection="Felton, Henry" tosection="Felton, Henry">
</pages>
</div>

which (I hope is fine) but does not help with the next one as he spans two pages. So, before I create the next article, verify the above was correct and also let me know how to create an article where the source spans two or more pages please.

For longer articles: the template is the same, except filled in with the page range (from and to, naturally). The markup is like this: the section begin and end need to appear (both of them) on the first and the last pages. So for Felton, John (fl.1430) (DNB00) what you have already done will work out fine. Caveat: there is another John Felton, following. You will get away with your section marking in this case, because the first article ends at the end of a page. Obviously enough, if you have the same section name twice on a page, the transclusion will be imperfect. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:23, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

So let me get this straight, the section marking is only used for transclusion. Therefore, I can afford to (one way or another) make the section marking unique. I have not looked at it, but sya if there were two Felton, John's on a page then I could section mark one of them Felton, John (a) and the other Felton John (b)? Or is there a preferred method? --Senra (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you can choose your own section markings. I always use the article title (no thought involved, and when I paste down a long list of templates it's easier anyway). But nothing is prescribed. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

also, I think I missed the wikisource naming convention of these people. You used Felton, John (fl.1430) (DNB00) above and I used Felton, Henry (DNB00). I guess mine needs to move. So the convention is "surname, other names (b. d.) profession (DNB00)"? --Senra (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Naming conventions - ooof. Well, yes, I moved Felton, Henry to Felton, Henry (DNB00) since that is standard (name alone isn't enough, given that Wikisource hosts all sorts of works). DNB00 means the first edition, DNB01 is the 1901 supplement, DNB12 the 1912 supplement. The disambiguation convention here is different from Wikipedia's, in that dates are used as dab form, with all other things essentially nowhere (the dab by profession may occur just once in the 27,000 articles). There are no spaces between b. or d. or fl. and date. It all gets more complicated for medieval names, royalty and so on. Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual is what is written down - doesn't cover all the corner cases yet. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Phew! I have completed a work package. I am not saying it is correct. I would like to correct gross errors myself (or I will not learn) so if you would have a look through, I would appreciate it. Pages 311 through to 318 creating

• Felton, Henry (DNB00)
• Felton, John (fl.1430) (DNB00)
• Felton, John (d.1570) (DNB00)
• Felton, John (1595?-1628) (DNB00) (I am used to putting ndash betrween dates but I assume here we use hyphen?)
• Felton, Nicholas (DNB00)
• Felton, Thomas (d.1381) (DNB00)
• Felton, Thomas (DNB00) (I do not understand this one - the article is Felton, Thomas (1567?-1588) (DNB00))
• Felton, William (d.1367) (DNB00)
• Felton, William (1713-1769) (DNB00)
• Fenn, Eleanor (DNB00) (again, this one has been moved whilst I been writing this)

So - ok then. No worries. I cannot learn if you do it this way. I have done a work package. I tried to help. Changing stuff whilst I am doing it is not going to help me learn how to do it properly. Thank you for your input so far. Have fun. I'm done now --Senra (talk) 21:03, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

OK, it's late Saturday night. Sorry if my admin instincts have proved awkward. Try again later. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:06, 31 July 2010 (UTC)

Roger Wilbraham

Just started here. Wondering if he has a DNB entry. If not it is mind boggling how many Tudor people are missing!Dr. Blofeld (talk) 19:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

No entry. He is mentioned a few times in the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

How about Thomas Browne Wallace?Dr. Blofeld (talk) 12:10, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

pLEASE SEE William Stanley (1640-1670). She is trying to speedy it again.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 13:45, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's the problem with you creating those articles, which is they come up recently created. You weren't very receptive to the idea of leaving it to me to recreate with the full history, and I didn't see the hurry for those that cannot be put into good shape. Anyway that's about another wiki than this one, and I answered {{who}} over there. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I was rushing to try to restore them to stop Boleyn from leaving wikipedia and show that people care about those articles but I was too late. She's left. So I guess there is no rush now, I will now be receptive to the idea of leaving it to you, but I was certain you opposed this yesterday as you are extremely busy on here. Thanks for all your help today anyway.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2010 (UTC)

I missed something

Hi Charles, I just noticed the DNB articles no longer have the edited page links on the left margin. How does one get back to the page without having to look for it in a voluminous "watchlist"? Daytrivia (talk) 13:01, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

nevermind, I see the links in template used area. Sorry. Daytrivia (talk) 13:16, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Ichabod Charles Wright

Hi I started the article here. Given that his son is also called Charles Ichabod Wright I wondering when you have a moment if you could check both articles. Which one was the colonel? I'm sure I saw somewhere in a google search he has a DNB entry, the MP's father anyway.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:03, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found his article on ODNB. I'll use it as a source to expand it for a DYK later. If Ichabod senior though does have a DNB entry also it would make sense to use the info from that first. His son though needs verification and a little work.Dr. Blofeld (talk) 11:19, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Ichabod Charles is in the DNB; Charles Ichabod is not in the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Judging by the ODNB entry and no mention of it is the MP son who was the colonel it would seem. I've resumed transferring some articles, quite interesting ones stage actresses to Moravian painters..14:15, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

If you like theatre history, you should look at Author:John Joseph Knight. His articles have a huge amount of detail, and it would really benefit from wikification. In particular w:Mary Ann Yates is a needy stub on an important actress, and it could be expanded in a major way. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:48, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

DNB v18 p179

Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 18.djvu/185 I have copy edited the rest of the page and proof read the two sections you had already done. If you check my edit you can then promote the page to "proof read" and it will allow us to place another article "FANE, PRISCILLA ANNE" in the article area. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:14, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Fane, Mildmay (DNB00) and Fane, Priscilla Anne (DNB00) created. By the way, it is not too obvious on the scans (though one can magnify them using the "plus" icon at the top of the editing box) but bold in the subject name generally applies only to the surname. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:30, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Crockford's Clerical Directory

Naive question (although I did try a search) is there a wikisource version of Crockford's Clerical Directory? --Senra (talk) 11:07, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

No. It is a not a neat work to transcribe due to it being an annual work with incremental change. There are a couple at archive.org and have you checked Google Books? — billinghurst sDrewth 12:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

List of clergy associated with St James' Church, Stretham

The draft form of User:Senra/St James' Church is missing a list of clergy associated with the church. I have such a list here which is taken from a board inside the church itself. I am trying to WP:RS the list. I have identified the following sources:

• 1200–1900 ACAD on-line
• 1540–1835 CCED on-line
• 1835–1967 Lambeth Palace paper
• 1968–        Crockford's on-line no subscription

Are there any other sources which might help me? For example, is there an equivalent alumni database for Oxford? --Senra (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

• Index:Alumni Oxoniensis (1715-1886) volume 4.djvu and there are links to the other vols, though we haven't worked on it yet. There are also earlier vols, some are hosted at British History Online.
• even utilise The Times
• if you have a specific lookup, I have access to some older Crockfords

All that said, have you looked at what civil and parish records are available? NA; Family Search, Cam Arch genuki and don't ignore the genealogy websites like RootsWeb (find the appropriate Cambridgeshire forum) for finding fellow researchers, or people who may be willing to do look-ups. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:59, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I discovered this afternoon that I actually do have on-line access to Crockford's from home via my local library card. Draft is here.If you can do anything with the pre-1523 entries and the problems between 1662 that would be cool. I will go to the library tomorrow see if I can fill in the missing entries between 1869 and 1974. None of this is essential, so do not feel you have to do anything; I won't be offended --Senra (talk) 18:33, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Pre-1523? Register entries started for the parish in 1558 (Phillimore) and I doubt that there is much online that is going to help with those early years. It will be trawling original records. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:49, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries. Thank you anyway. Incidentally, what does Phillimore mean? I checked Phillimore but could not find St James nor Stretham using their search index nor using for example [google:Stretham +site:http://www.phillimore.co.uk/]) --Senra (talk) 14:02, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Hales

Hi, can I interest you in doing Hales, Stephen (DNB00)?—trying to reduce the number of redlinks in a FTC. Hesperian 00:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Charles. :-) Hesperian 01:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Wrong scan question

Hi Charles, this page [5] has the wrong image scan and the next page has the correct scan. In order to create Livingstone, James (1616-1661) (DNB00) I had to copy and paste from "405" to "404". Is there anything I could have done to bypass 404 because the page sequence is now compromised? Daytrivia (talk) 00:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)

Talkback

You have new messages

Hello, Charles Matthews. You have new messages at John Vandenberg's talk page.
Message added 05:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC). You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

want to add? — billinghurst sDrewth 05:47, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

Page:Devonshire Characters and Strange Events.djvu/524

Is WILLIAM GIFFORD in the DNB also? Regards, Another editor (talk) 17:01, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes he is. The Wikipedia page is taken from "Cousin" text: it is a fair bet that anything that gets into Cousin is also in the DNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:08, 11 September 2010 (UTC)

fl. and spaces

I don't mind either way (I have moved the page back). As the convention on Wikipedia is to use spaces, (and as you can see I guessed that spaces were the norm -- and I won't be the only one), I think it a good idea if redirects are encouraged for "fl. " as otherwise there can be links to pages that do not exist (which is why I moved the page yesterday) or the assumption that the page has yet to be created and no attempt at a link is made.

The ONDB uses index numbers so the DNB page that they have is under http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/olddnb/64 but the text description of the page is "Acland, John (fl. 1753–1796)", in that case anyway they do use a space. So if an editor is basing the name on the name used at the ODNB, in this case, and others like it, they are likely to assume a space is used.

This is also of a possible problem for users other than Wikipedia editors -- although usually in such cases the search facility will put them right.

Is the convention not to use spaces written down anywhere? I would like to add the suggestion about redirects to it. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 21:21, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

There is a DNB manual - at Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual - and this point is mentioned there in the bullets under disambiguation. (More is said there about the actual choice of titles, which is a more ticklish issue as far as I'm concerned.) We don't expect everyone to know all these things, at least to start with. In general the titles are "minimal" with nothing in them that isn't required. I have a few aspects of medieval naming on my conscience, where I'm not sure that there is a consistent rule, and some titles of nobility that are not the English, Scottish or Irish peerages are treated ad hoc. Apart from that I think there is pretty much a definite policy on titles, though the manual may need an update. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

ascii

Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/ASCII list.txt — billinghurst sDrewth 13:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Wow! Charles Matthews (talk) 21:06, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

DNB01

Have outlined first step to DNB01 on John's talk page. Time permitting please review.JamAKiska (talk) 15:52, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the help with the template. JamAKiska (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Header template

Time permitting...Am experiencing technical difficulties creating articles. Could you please provide some insights as to why I might be having these difficulties? The default Header template seems to be over-riding the DNB01 template but not the DNB00 template. The Header template does not automatically create the lateral links, based upon my limited use so far. Thank-you JamAKiska (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I thought about this earlier today. The way I figured it, {{DNB01}} should now be based on {{DNB00}} as it was about a year ago, before Billinghurst made ambitious changes. That would be for a transitional version, assumed no djvus yet. It ought not to be too hard to adapt templates, just placing the name of the new work where it says the 1885-1900 work, and putting DNB01 where it says DNB00. But then it would be a sophisticated template, and the current DNB01 articles would have to be redone. For a compromise, go back in the history at Template:DNB00 for an older version and edit that. (No time for more now.) Charles Matthews (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! JamAKiska (talk) 17:09, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Using "Revision as of 11:29, 18 October 2009 by Billinghurst" as a baseline for {{DNB01}}, will create a template {{DNB01.t}} that performs the desired functions of {{DNB00}}. This transitional template can then be incorporated into {{DNB01}}.

Related follow-on observation...What I find puzzling as I look through the documentation for the current {{DNB00}}, there are two listed parameters, "overprev" and "overnext", that do not have corresponding Blank fields on which to provide an input (a mismatch), suggesting that this documentation was not properly edited when introduced, or the explanation for it is woefully lacking. Would be good to have someone more familiar with the software take a look at this as this may be a source template issues if the software is reading misaligned Blank fields. JamAKiska (talk) 14:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You know what those do, I take it? Just for the beginning and end of volumes to override "previous" and "next", permitting a wikilink to previous and next whole volumes respectively. It could be that these functions are in some way not ideally integrated. And if they are not documented then it is desirable that they should be. I'm not a template expert, but it would surprise me if they were causing problems. They do have to be edited in after subst-ing. But given that their function is at the margins of the work, you could strip them out of any adaptation.

By the way, I have done DNB authors down to M in search of DNB01. I don't mind doing the rest, because I'm picking up numerous small points on the pages on this pass. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank-you, big time saver for me...I noticed I was duplicating your effort. I'll go ahead and remove mine from the main page. Redirected my efforts to acquaint myself with the templates and supporting software...this will take some time, but should help later. If you are comfortable that the "overrides" only perform as described I am good with that. While the basic function of the following logic statement provides a uniform presentation to the page, I am currently struggling to understand the logic of the following: the role of the bold comma on the first lineis of interest, as is the logic sequence of a "volume" term, without a corresponding Blank field.

[[Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement]]{{#if:{{{volume|}}}| , [[Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement {{{volume}}}|Volume {{{volume}}}]]|[[Category:DNB no volume]]}}<br />{{{noarticle|{{{article|{{#ifeq:Dictionary of National Biography, 1901 supplement|{{BASEPAGENAME}}|| - [[{{BASEPAGENAME}}|{{#titleparts:{{BASEPAGENAME}}|1|2}}]] }}({{SUBPAGENAME}})}}}}}}

From my research so far it appears as though there was a master template that has been taylored by each of the projects. I am not aware of any articles requiring translation...though portions of articles are written in other languages. That being said, we need a volume field. I am presuming the BASEPAGENAME = article and SUBPAGENAME = subarticle. JamAKiska (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

You'll probably get better help from WS:SCRIPTORIUM than from me just now, on detailed template syntax. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:59, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

DNB01 - DNB lkpl and link templates.

Thank-you for the author data. The {{DNB lkpl}} was correctly adjusted by Billinghurst in July. The suffix entry uses a slightly expanded format "|year=01" so for example {{DNB lkpl|Busher, Leonard|year=01}} produces the expected hidden DNB01 format. I just finished converting all eight article links written from the 01 supplement on the page, with favorable results.

Have added logic based "comments" inside {{DNB link}} template for proper cite alignment for the 1901 and 1912 supplements. Publication switched to Oxford after the 2nd Supplement in 1912. I will amend to include the 1903 Index and Epitome, and 1904 Errata to complete the process.

While the Volume II and III index pages are completed, was waiting to release all three Supplemental volumes at the same time into the proofread category. Time permitting, take a look, John on the upload side, and Billinghurst pre-screening documents on cite tell most of the story.

Am still studying the {{DNB01}} template.

JamAKiska (talk) 23:15, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Still working as small group (3) on DNB01, both DNB templates (lkpl and link) now support the 1901 Supplement. The 1901 Navigation pages are almost complete. The Vol II dabs have already been returned to author pages. Upon completing Vol. I review will return Vol. I and III Dabs to their author pages later today. Intention was to open all three index pages simultaneously upon completion of volume I. I'll defer to your sense of timing on this ... the support from all sides has been tremendous :^). JamAKiska (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I think you could just go ahead. This should function as a successful newbie-friendly area, with many fewer hidden reefs for those wanting to learn. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Okay...the ToC pages are complete. Found 4 categories of errors: author pages not included, no author page available (PN or anonymously written, so 2 orphans), lkpl links without 2nd parameter, and finally, an author that did not include 1901 articles on their page...this has been remedied for 1901 supplement. Expect the index pages about noon your time Tuesday. The links from the Navigation to the index pages will help. The author listings were a huge time saver...thanks...JamAKiska (talk) 23:59, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Have spent more time studying {{DNB01}}. Have renamed the volume Navigation pages to simplify formatting the logic statements within DNB01. Currently awaiting feedback from remainder of group to realign this template to mirror existing DNB00 pages. Volume II has text layer, while Volume III has been moved to "needs OCR text layer." The images in Volume III permit page validation. Volume I djvu file continues in the creation process... My latest comments on this can be found on Template talk:DNB01. JamAKiska (talk) 13:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Volume XLIV

Through trial and error managed to reload the alternate source to the index page of volume 44. There will be some patch work required, but the replacement pages are in much better condition. Djvu pages 250-257 have edges that are folded impacting a couple of characters per line. The text images are all aligned for volume 44 index page except djvu pages 296-303. Pages 296-7 duplicate djvu pages 294-5, while djvu pages 302-303 have no text images in this source. My guess would be to use the split function to slide the images into alignment with the text on djvu pages 296-301 thereby opening a gap for two replacement pages. Thought it would be good to get a second opinion…JamAKiska (talk) 22:18, 22 December 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an informed opinion. But it is certainly good to have you working on this maintenance work. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:20, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Catholic Encyclopedia - what is it that you want?

If you have indicated previously that you want something different in terms of a header for Catholic Encyclopedia then it has escaped my attention. What is it that you were wanting? A derivative header for CE like we have for DNB, or were you looking for a tidy up of the variants that exist within the current work? — billinghurst sDrewth 11:45, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I worked on Template:CE13 at the time when I was having a look at migrating the CE to djvu (which is much needed, reasons at WS:CEU). It was a straight adaptation of Template:DNB00 at time of creation, and is just used on a couple of pages. Working on the CE is really incompatible with doing the DNB volume-by-volume, just in terms of my time. Apart from the missing 3% of CE that appears in letter E (which I might be tempted to "batchify" if I need a break from routine), there are about five major maintenance steps to do with existing CE text in migrating it.

All I needed to do a trial was a template that would transclude from pagespace. The non-transcluded CE pages have a header that is really pretty basic ({{header2}}). The "multiple authors" thing is probably unhelpful, and there is no field for a Wikipedia link. Previous and next are done in relative style. To encourage work on linking to WP, and getting the contributors added (with author pages set up), an intermediate dedicated header would be useful. But it is a substantial upgrade in terms of scale. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Think that I have this all working. Done the update to the template, and have the AWB scripted worked through. Please check Special:Contributions/SDrewthbot, as I have done about 50 replacements. — billinghurst sDrewth 10:21, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I put in the Wikipedia link in Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/St. Aphian but it's not showing up? Charles Matthews (talk) 17:41, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed. cygnis insignis 17:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

• Index:The Catholic encyclopedia and its makers.djvu no plans to do anything particular with it at this stage, it is there as it will be needed to build author pages, and we may as well do transcripts and builds at the same time. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:32, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

btw, I also tripped over Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Header which is {{CE1913}} which complicates things a little and will need some tidying, especially noting that there is both a title and label parameters in CE1913. I also see that there is voluming of the work for display purposes, and will need to be looked at separately. So is it just the bio pages that are going to utilise the CE13 header, or is it all parts. (no brain cells used there yet). — billinghurst sDrewth 02:49, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what the right approach approach is yet. For information, those volume listings in which that header is used are disreputable: they do not follow the published volumes. The "previous" and "next" as posted are somewhat arbitrary artefacts of the mode of bot posting, and have some articles displaced right out of the order. So my feeling is that all that work is just a first pass at posting, and needs to be treated as provisional. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:41, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

all done, it was about 11k edits. Presumably we will pick up the extra cpts as we start to transclude, or now what we are doing (is that rash?). I think that we are now set up till end of 2026 (or thereabouts). — billinghurst sDrewth 09:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

It's not straightforward transclusion, sadly. It took the Pope to get the CE online, and unfortunately our current text shares most of the defects of the postings at New Advent and elsewhere. There is wrong format and clumsy adaptation of the first sentence. There is Greek and Hebrew text that needs to be put back in the original form. Most seriously from a scholarly point of view, the references sections are often simply omitted. (Sometimes they are up at New Advent, sometimes not. The "Old Catholic Encyclopedia" posting is in some ways better, since at least the articles are in the right order, but not in this aspect.) There is also a kludge used to do small caps: see for example Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Magnificat, where the references start off in wikitext as V<small>IVES,</small> ''Expositiones SS. Patrum et Doctorum super Canticum "Magnificat",'' etc. (Rome, 1904), a royal 8vo of 827 double-column pages, containing homilies and commentaries on the Magnificat distributed through every day of the year, prefaced by the Latin paraphrase of U<small>RBAN</small> VIII, in thirty-two iambic dimeters;. This can prove awkward, and apparently screws up search. Add in some articles that are simply missing long chunks, or have artefacts imposed by the transcribers.

Is there an automated solution to that business of small caps? That would be one priority for me. The other two at present would be completing all the articles (around 300 to go), and starting in on the author pages to conform to WS norms. NB that the author handbook is quite good on biography, but the lists of articles there are not complete in many cases. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

reference notes

Seems like everytime I turn around something changes. Now, it seems, I cannot get a paragraph between art. & ref. note automatically, e.g., [6]. Maybe I am doing something wrong; I'll double-check. Perhaps the "small" is no longer recognized? On succeeding articles I had to paragraph manually but will leave the example above for now. Daytrivia (talk) 01:28, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Fixed this example, it needed a hard return between the <div> and <pages>. One of the reasons that I prefer <p style="font-size:smaller">, well that and its better line spacing. — billinghurst sDrewth 02:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Thank you so much Billinghurst. Your reasoning is also appreciated and food for thought. Thanks again. Daytrivia (talk) 02:58, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Will <p style work across page breaks? eg. Graham, Robert (d.1701) (DNB00) I'd been using {{smaller block}}, and breaking the contents into and out of the sections when a page break occurred, i.e., the transclusion gets <div style="font-size: smaller;">\n from the first page and the </div> from the section on the second. I'm guessing that would work as template, simplified start and end components like {{float center/s}}. The other solutions create smaller text with normal spacing, not a smaller block. cygnis insignis 05:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

John Forster (1520?-1602) (DNB01) has been created

Wasn't sure which direction to go with your Warehouse...also fixed the link citation in wiki article. JamAKiska (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:28, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

John Edwards (1700?-1776)

Charles, would you mind checking this entry (DNB00 vol 17) and letting me know what is wrong with the section begin/end, i'm going crazy trying to add this article, i'm pretty sure I must be doing something very silly. I don't usually have a problem adding.

Ingenious, but Edwards, John (1700?-1776) (DNB00) is fixed now. By putting <poem/> where you meant </poem> you sabotaged the rest of the page in some way. Thanks for all your contributions. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:26, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

small request

I guess I can wait, but would you mind doing me a favour at the other place. cygnis insignis 17:02, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevermind, I'll do something else :( cygnis insignis 17:05, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Not a bad idea. I have expressed an opinion at w:User talk:Yousou, but waiting it all out is a reasonable approach. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:13, 31 October 2010 (UTC)

Robert Reynolds Steele (1860-1944) should have a wikipedia entry?

I think that R. R. Steele should have a wikipedia entry because he appears to be the most important editor of the works of Roger Bacon. See his obituary at www.jstor.org/stable/225459 — do you agree? 7:16, 4 November 2010 suslindisambiguator

I.e. Author:Robert Steele. Yes, my impression on researching him for the author page was that he was notable in WP's sense. Slightly odd career, but interesting. Unfortunately I can't read JSTOR and I often wish I could (and think of steps to take). But then I might spend my entire life online. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:22, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Wellesley

I really enjoyed proofing and reading the Duke of Wellington. The information about him was awesome, oh I knew a little, but as I found out, very little. I think my curiosity is the catalyst, e.g., David Livingstone and Thackeray. Daytrivia (talk) 16:03, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, you saved me a day's work too. So perhaps this is all worthwhile! Charles Matthews (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Abbreviation

Because the DNB project is a model for emerging projects, I think it worthwhile being fussy. How about 'see' or 'q.v.' instead of 'lkpl' for template titles, or even something more descriptive, we could keep the current name as a redirect. I am also thinking that a generic template might be developed, which could be coded to detect the work it is appearing in, then there would be just one name to remember. I think this has been suggested before, but I can't remember where. cygnis insignis 00:05, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Part of the issue is that the link is not solely an internal link to the work. We use DNB lkpl on Author/Contributor pages to provide a link to compact list of contributions, and we can utilise it to provide links from other works to the referred articles, eg. an obit. I look at links based on the name of the work, however it relies on corresponding naming of the work in both main and page ns and just got a little awkward. Doing a generic template is easy, however, it is such a simple template it became an issue about was it worth it only for a standard practice. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:02, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

In its conception, it was part of a family: {{CE lkpl}} with {{CE lkqv}} and {{CE lksc}} to add to {{CE link}}. So the naming was meant as mnemonic (pl=plain). It happens that the DNB version is much more used currently (40,000 places). My feeling is that it might be premature to redesign one part of the family, ahead of a clearer view of what the hypertext DNB effort is going to end up attempting. There is just a little bit of model text at Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 1.djvu/29 which is what I then had in mind. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I won't distract you with an extended response, I'll write an essay and you can read it if you want, however, I believe that what the DNB project is currently attempting is essentially the same as what other works have or could do. I'm approaching this from a broad view of our catalogue, any developments should not interfere with your routine. Your explanation may help me to remember what to type or search for. cygnis insignis 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Another quick query, forgive me taking the lazy way if the answer is in a help file somewhere. Are you aware of entries that deviate from what I thought was the DNB's style, that quotes and book titles are always given in single quote marks? cygnis insignis 20:19, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

No, that doesn't ring a bell. The "house style" develops a little over the 63 volumes; and there are some things that are not consistent (references to manuscript collections may or may not be in italic, seems random). But the single round (non-straight) quotes you mention I would expect to see everywhere. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:24, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

That is what I thought, so the pages around Arundell of Cornwall (DNB00) had me perplexed. cygnis insignis 20:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The quotes are straight, I see: so the answer is that there is a comment in the style guide, going back to the early days, permitting that. I thought you meant on the printed page. Does that answer the question? Charles Matthews (talk) 20:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It is the use of italic that I thought unusual, its not related to style (straight or curly) of the character used for single (or double) quote marks. I noted the guidance in the DNB wikiproject's during a discussion of them. cygnis insignis 20:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Still missing the point, then. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

I think that every inline mention of a book was styled 'Memoirs of Missionary Priests', not Memoirs of Missionary Priests, and in the same form as quotes, eg. in America, called 'Old Brazil,'. Subsequent and preceding pages revert to this style. It's probably not important. cygnis insignis 21:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

The Times/1923/Obituary/Samuel Waddington

I see that you had a redlink from one of your WP pages to the Samuel Waddington. I was creating the author page, saw the obit and have transcribed it, just in case it is of interest. — billinghurst sDrewth 13:25, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Yes, of interest. There is a solid biography of Gosse by Anne Thwaite. I wonder if he gets a mention in it. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:12, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

CE contributor

Saint Wiki I (talk • contribs) — billinghurst sDrewth 06:16, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Previous question...

There is a usage question for Author pages in particular: should there always be a subsection for DNB01 links?

Reviewing the template, currently the answer should be yes…though I just stumbled across a 00link that correctly redirected to the 01 article…JamAKiska (talk) 03:05, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

Taking a typical case like Author:Walter Armstrong, what I see is this. Firstly, we haven't yet got a standard main heading. In that case it says "Contributions to the DNB". And DNB redirects to Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900. Probably that redirection should now be changed: treat DNB as disambiguation, because of the supplements. After that, I think the DNB section is best divided up with semicolon headings for DNB01 and DNB12? In any case we should now agree on a standard format (and what to do with the subpage idea). Probably subpages is the wrong way to go, in fact. See Author talk:Thompson Cooper, option 1. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:46, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

That’s how I see option 1… am still processing the rest. On the DNB page there is an obscure link to the Supplement and Errata, though it is not as clear as the other volume links. The redirect page opens the path to follow on options and makes a great deal of sense. JamAKiska (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

OK, thanks for the work on the Thompson Cooper page. It is readable, at least, and there are only two such pages with over 1000 links. I would now prefer option 1 as the standard for long DNB listings. Charles Matthews (talk) 06:52, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Was pausing on Thompson Cooper to ensure we view it from the same perspective, as outlined in my reply found on Author talk:Thompson Cooper. It is my understanding that you are comfortable with the use of subpages for DNB author listings in excess of 1000. If I have correctly interpreted your intentions, I’ll proceed on those "long" author pages and adjust the "main headings" to illustrate the preferred path. To avoid confusion, this guidance should be in place prior to placing the thread you mentioned on the central discussion page. Based upon these discussions, modified Dictionary of National Biography into a disambiguation page to reflect current and future options so that authors with DNB12 articles would have some insight into the unfolding plan, there are over 1000 links that feed into this page. Also included the 1903 Index based upon comments found on TC's talk page, as it included a great option not previously considered. JamAKiska (talk) 15:08, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

15C eng.

At the second line on this page, the extract of a will gives something like "feffo^rs". Does it mean anything to you, and is there a better way to render this sort of thing? cygnis insignis 16:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

It makes sense in terms of the Oxford English Dictionary, where "feff" redirects to "feoff", and a "feoffor" is "one who makes a feoffment to another". I don't see a problem with the rendering; but some sort of annotation might be an idea. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:57, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks very much, I was on the wrong track hunting that one out. I'll see if I can get a citation and note it somewhere [else]. cygnis insignis 18:34, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

request

A hellenic proverb, he [the hare] draws the lion into a golden net, but all I could find on the web was "elkei lagôs lionta chrüsinô brochô". Would you mind helping with the squiggly bits? cygnis insignis 18:18, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. You might be interested in The making of the Catholic Encyclopedia. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 13:05, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Indeed I am - chanced on it earlier today. (I'd used it in the past to put up some author pages here. Something others should know is that the lists of articles there aren't completely reliable and have some omissions.) Charles Matthews (talk) 13:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

upgrade

Do you know if the upgrade problems are close to being repaired? It has been several days now. Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 18:42, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

According to the Scriptorium announcements, most of the issues are just awaiting attention. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

John Boyle clarification.

The reference note at bottom of page 112 concerning John Boyle seems to contradict his educational background in the following sentence. It strikes me as an either/or situation and not both…thought it would be better to check… thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 21:35, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

The Venn ref is at http://venn.csi.cam.ac.uk/cgi-bin/search.pl?sur=Boyle&suro=c&fir=John&firo=c&cit=&cito=c&c=all&tex=&sye=&eye=&col=all&maxcount=50. It is actually possible for a Cambridge graduate to have a higher degree from Oxford. But judging by the updated ODNB entry, the Oxford degree is wrong - worth a note. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Or we can check in another reference like Athenæ Oxonienses. — billinghurst sDrewth 09:25, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Yes, useful, but probably the same conclusion that the Oxford D.D. is unsupported. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my initial reaction to the article…and am fairly sure we all agree it could be worded differently such that it would not leave the reader dangling. The combination of the errata and note seem to eliminate that follow-on statement. Why not use this opportunity to let the wp project research and edit accordingly and pass on to the folks at ODNB? Eventually we could edit that note accordingly. JamAKiska (talk) 02:53, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

WS:S#National Maritime Museum data question

You may be too close to this, however, it would be worth your 20 pence/euro-bits/... I have made a suggestion that it seems like good portal fodder, especially as we have many refs to ships through the DNB. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:08, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

I was saying at the meetup on Sunday here in Cambridge that the issue revealed my total ignorance of policy here (we were talking mainly about RfA on WP, naturally). I haven't formed an opinion about whether this material should rightly be hosted here on enWS. I see the future of WS mainly as exploitation of ProofReadPage, as our USP. That's in the context that what is distinctive about WS is the high degree of technical support for repository-style work that needs it. (Of course the argument is that the community is not huge, and we should do a smaller number of things well - projects the size of the DNB needn't be the only game in town at all, though.) But I also have this concept of "Reference Commons" and the NMN data is compatible with that. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:53, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Greek

Some characters on Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 14.djvu/218 marked with {{illegible}} thx — billinghurst sDrewth 13:09, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Done. See wikt:ὄνος for the alleged humour of it. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:51, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

Volume 18 ToC

Volume 18 ToC page is aligned with the index pages for this volume to include the redirect and subarticles. When time permits please review…thank-you…JamAKiska (talk) 15:44, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You have new messages

Hello, Charles Matthews. You have new messages at JamAKiska's talk page.
You can remove this notice at any time by removing the {{Talkback}} or {{Tb}} template.

Author:William Edward Armytage Axon/Dictionary of National Biography

Just a short note to let you know that I'm adding pages—including redlinks—to the above page from the Author Page. --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:23, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Ah - that system was an experiment, really, and the chances are that we'll not be continuing with it. I have actually been through all the DNB author pages, and by now all the articles (DNB00 and DNB01) are in principle up there. Of course there are a number of errors of omission, typos and wrong disambiguations ... Charles Matthews (talk) 21:29, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

If it's an experiment shouldn't it be deleted? --kathleen wright5 (talk) 21:35, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

You're right of course. But I don't know whether the project has really discussed it. The "worst case" is Author:Thompson Cooper, which has over 1400 DNB names on one page. I kind of assumed that this was going to cause comment. But there has been no feedback about putting them all on one page. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:38, 16 March 2011 (UTC)

Volume 20

Replaced file and updated links on navigation page. Did not intend to introduce confusion by sending the file. Was experiencing some technical issues that was later able to work through. Sent the file in case of unforeseen events on this end. JamAKiska (talk) 14:56, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

OK, I'm glad it's working out. And thanks for all the toil behind the scenes. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:02, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Navigation page completed for volume 20 as well. JamAKiska (talk) 16:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Greek favour

Would you be so kind to have a look at Page:English Law and the Renaissance.djvu/64 and do the Greek. Thx. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:53, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Done. Charles Matthews 12:01, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Me too, again. Looked simple, but searches failed on what I have. Two words, fourth para [7] Cheers, CYGNIS INSIGNIS 17:06, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Those are fine. The point appears to be that without accents (καλαί) the word won't be picked up by Google. But it does say "neo-Greek", i.e. not classical anyway. Charles Matthews 18:03, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, I have created {{language characters}} which may enable me to put these in the one place, and people can get to them when and if they have time, rather than have them tucked away in hiding.—unsigned comment by billinghurst (talk) .

Belated thanks for that explanation, I've had some success with googling phrases in other examples. I tried various ways of unravelling the phrase on this page, but I'm not getting any sense out of it. If you are interested in this curious bit of history you could maybe give a quick check, or provide some insight. CYGNIS INSIGNIS 21:04, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

I've done something, and άστροπελέκιν δεδεμένον μετά χρυσαφίου turns up on Google. NB that the text has άστροπελέκυν not άστροπελέκιν; looks like a typesetting error therefore. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:19, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Ouch - I was naively assuming stuff about Google. "δεδεμένον μετὰ χρυσαφίου" is sensible, because it turns up this page of Gibbon. But search me how μετά and μετὰ differ, whether ἀ and ά are different in Google's eyes. Anyway -κυν and -κιν may both be legitimate readings. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2011 (UTC)

Notes and Queries article nomenclature

Mattwj2002, Inductiveload and myself are implementing a plan to get the Notes and Queries setup, at least the all the series and volumes into Commons, and set up Index pages. Now I am going to look to create {{NQ link}} and {{NQ lkpl}} for requisite linking. Now the former template is going to be less needed, though still necessary, and the latter will be quite needed as we have many crosslinks from DNB et al. So far my experience with N&Q is limited, so I want to discuss some of the nomenclature of the hierarchy with someone who may have a familiarity with the work.

For one of the references in the article Laurence, Roger I have done a proofread run on Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 5.djvu/481, Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 5.djvu/482 and Page:Notes and Queries - Series 2 - Volume 5.djvu/483. The obvious means to transclude this snippet is into Notes and Queries/Series 2/Volume 5/Nonjurors Roger Laurence; a neglected biography, etc., which should work for major articles. However, looking at the third page, we have something labelled minor queries. Obviously no value in transcluding that into bits, so we could get to something like Notes and Queries/Series 2/Volume 5/Minor queries, though I guess that we are going to start to have many through the volume. So maybe something like Notes and Queries/Series 2/Volume 5/Minor queries, 12 June? Or something specific though ugly like page numbers as that would potentially be the means that a reference would occur, though we can still use existing page number anchors, or add snippet anchors. Also, do you know of any other pitfalls in the work that we need to consider for nomenclature? — billinghurst sDrewth 13:42, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

DNB volume 20 reference note

Unable to get clear view of this entire note found here. Suspect this might be a future ODNB adjustment and was hoping you could verify. Thanks…JamAKiska (talk) 15:16, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Not clear to me: there is nothing helpful in the ODNB. There is a portrait known of Augustus Simon Frazer, by Thomas Heaphy (who is in the DNB). This note might be an identification of that picture: Frazer gave papers to the RUSI. I'm not finding anything definite, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:05, 26 April 2011 (UTC)

reinventing

Charles,

Please don't kill me for this proposal I have. I am a teacher, and my class needs to type in the Catholic Encyclopedia. The CE is very rough right now, and I was thinking about totally reinventing it. Here would be my process:

• 1. Establish a new "main page", so to say, where I could then have all of the pages branch off from it.
• 2. Make redlinks for EVERY article (entry) in the encyclopedia, which will begin the transclusion process by setting it up.
• 3. Taking the Index: files on the CE, get rid of crummy OCR readings and have my class type it in. The program we use is very good at checking their lines they would type in. This would take a while, but my class NEEDS this greatly.
• 4. As I finished articles, I could break them into sections and make them look great with the transclusion job.

I know this sounds weird and unnecessary, but it is a MUST for my class. I'm hoping you can help me with numbers 1 and 4 from above.

- Tannertsf (talk) 04:15, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

For #1, it is certainly going to be easier to take the pages like Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/Volume 1 and put them into good order. By that I mean a few things: use the order from the original volumes, which is something that can be obtained online; establish proper consistent title conventions for the articles (e.g. Saint becomes St., Bl. for Blessed, Ven. for Venerable); proof read the titles. As for #3 and #4, any ways of producing proofread pages opposite the djvu images is considered legitimate. Typing in is probably needed for some sections, for example the references sections at the end of articles that are too often omitted in the available online versions. But it is going to be easier to copy in the existing article text to the Page: namespace as a basis, for most of the transfer. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:11, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Should we start a new Project for this? - Tannertsf (talk) 10:57, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

See WS:CEU. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:58, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I saw it earlier...but its not really what I want...maybe we can change it a bit? Especially including number 3 from above. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:22, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

It's a wiki page and has a discussion page. Obviously it can be edited. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Ok. I will sandbox a page and then let you take a look at it before we put it on the project. - Tannertsf (talk) 15:33, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I will start with Vol. 6 and will create my "proposed page" for 6 soon. - Tannertsf (talk) 20:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Author:Gordon Goodwin

in your reference material, do you have much detail about Goodwin? All I have fathomed so far is the dates of life, and that seems insufficient for so much bio material. If you have hints or leads, it would be good to be able to have some of that data. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Yes, curiously anonymous, and apparently not a Cambridge graduate, at least. The ODNB site calls him a "man of letters". Other works were a catalogue of the library of Samuel Harsnett, and an edition of the poems of William Browne of Tavistock. More books came up just now when I searched Abebooks. It kind of underlines a need to collate more on those DNB authors not getting a WP article. Or to get an outside academic interested. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:03, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

I can get basic genealogical data, 1850s through 1900s, that stuff is pretty easy to pull together. Son of William Goodwin of the Clerical Ecclesiastical Office, married Emily (choice of Springett or Jones) in 1881. Lived in London (Middlesex and Surrey parts) through life. No probate. No obituary identified in The Times' though as Q2 1915 that death amongst war dead would make it hard to get noticed. I can pull that stuff together, it was more that much biographical material compiled to reflect other DNB contributors, I wasn't sure whether there was an omission or I just hadn't asked. Agree that neither at Cambridge or Oxford. I am pretty sure that I have checked London, but I may need to do so again. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

John Owens

Hi Charles, I thought that dates were not needed unless there wasn't a middle name that distinguished articles of the same given names. Going forward then should we include dates for every article where the given names are the same regardless of an identifying middle name? Daytrivia (talk) 02:13, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

I believe this point has been discussed a few times now. For Owens, John (DNB00), I added dates because of Owens, John Lennergan (DNB00), the next article. Relying on the middle name is what you could call "tacit" disambiguation, and as I recall the view taken affirmed that "explicit" disambiguation with the dates in such cases is helpful. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:34, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

edit question

I don't know what happen but I don't see scans on my editing pages. Perhaps I need to do something on my preferences? Daytrivia (talk) 01:32, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

I restored default settings and everthing is good. Thanks anyway. Daytrivia (talk) 15:31, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew Help request w/Two Treatises of Government

page 27 to page page 31 use Hebrew that could benefit from a more experienced eye. Thanks is advance...JamAKiska (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

I have no special skill in Hebrew, unfortunately. That is pointed text, and there ares sources (I'd look in Word). Some of the DNB Hebrew goes beyond that, though. Charles Matthews (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2011 (UTC)

Catscan tool

What exactly does the Catscan tool you just added do? Just wondering. - Tannertsf (talk) 13:06, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Initially there was a tool needed to "intersect categories". This one goes further, and allows one to check pages that carry both of two templates, for example. There are many possible uses; but the basic idea is to produce a list of pages on a wiki that satisfy certain conditions, and sort them in a given fashion. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:15, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Thanks for the information. - Tannertsf (talk) 13:19, 13 June 2011 (UTC)

Re: Edward Smith in PSM

Thanks for pointing out the disambiguation. I will create the new pages required for the disambiguation, as well as the Edward Smith (1819–1874) page. Birth & death years seem to be the preferred method of identification, rather than the words like (physician) etc. - I am aware of some additional discrepancies in the PSM author list. I marked them on my browser to be dealt with, and thus not visible to others. It will take me at least a few days to straighten everything out. — Ineuw talk 20:39, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Existing WP articles

I layered some code on top of Magnus' tool, so I am knocking out a fair few DNB No WP's. Unfortunately the "over 50" exception means a significant number are missed, but it's still a big step forward. Rich Farmbrough, 17:50 5 September 2011 (GMT)

Ah, good. By the way, no documentation for the tool, but it does work with two initial letters, and you perhaps didn't know that?

I was going to contact you here about the general situation, since it wasn't so clear from the thread on w:WT:WP DNB whether you had all the bits of the picture. Anyway, Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Completions relates the basic state of completions by letter and by volume. Currently I'm trying to make it all "tidier", i.e. get bigger blocks of completions done. For the near future, I'm mostly going to be working in the range G to L. There is actually more to be done at B and C, but that's for the future: the earliest articles are the least interesting in terms of standards, by and large. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:10, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

That's useful since it takes up to 15 minutes per letter. I noticed a lot of new pages have the original line breaks, is there a style guide on this? Rich Farmbrough, 11:07 6 September 2011 (GMT)

If you mean the page-end hyphenations: {{hws}} and {{hwe}} give a way to fix that up. I'm too lazy/pressed for time to put those in as I go through, but intend to one day. Wikisource:WikiProject DNB/Style Manual#Style in biographical articles talks a bit about hyphenations, but I have to say that the material there is starting to look a bit ancient. Charles Matthews (talk) 11:23, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

No I mean more material laid out like this

res ip sur lociter res ip sur lociter res 
ip sur lociter res ip sur lociter res ip 
sur lociter res ip sur lociter res ip sur

incidentally DNB No WP is down to about 6,800 now. Rich Farmbrough, 15:32 8 September 2011 (GMT)

Perhaps you could give me an example, then. There are many people who do a bit of proofing for the project. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:38, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I will do so. (I do need to do something else since I have recently dreamed of a fictitious DNB subject who started life a "shenk end trader" in the East End. A shenk end trader (also fictitious) sells bulk "shenk ends" (the closed ends of envelopes) to glue merchants who recover the gum for the furniture insdustry.) Rich Farmbrough, 15:41 8 September 2011 (GMT)

So I'll replenish Category:DNB No WP for you, then ... Charles Matthews (talk) 15:43, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Please do! Though I know there are low-hanging fruit in the opposite direction where "wstitle" is used.

Example:

• Beard, William (DNB00)

He soon learned something of the scientific 
importance of his discoveries, and became an 
eager collector of the contents of the bone-caves of the neighbourhood, at Hutton, Bleadon, and Sandford. He was a reserved man, 
of quaint manners, and with a high opinion 
of his own skill. The nickname of the 'Professor' given him by the bishop greatly 
pleased him, and be was generally called by it. 

A most interesting gentleman... Rich Farmbrough, 15:46 8 September 2011 (GMT)

Those appear to be "soft" line breaks, deemed harmless given that they do nothing on transclusion. "Hard" line breaks can cause trouble, in that they can impose line breaks in the end references section. When I was working with the OCR text (which I'm not now) I used to do a couple of find-and-replace passes on a page first, to take out the "hyphen then space" breaks and para marks in the text; also the "space semicolon" occurrences, which are numerous. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:53, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

Arthur Hall

{{DNB AH}} and {{DNB AH Hall}} appear to be the same. Rich Farmbrough, 15:10 17 September 2011 (GMT)

Presumably the first should be a disambiguator? Rich Farmbrough, 15:17 17 September 2011 (GMT)

Explained at Template talk:DNB AH: it's a DNB glitch. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:42, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Udall, Ephraim (DNB00)

The DNB page appears to be missing its first half (while the page on WP, conversely, misses the works!). I'm not quick with WS stuff, so wonder if you could repair things at the WS end. Dsp13 (talk) 04:41, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, fixed, a markup issue on Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 58.djvu/11 which is typical of troubleshooting here. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:40, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

Author template doc

I removed the override parameter defaultsort from the usage list at the beginning of the doc for {{Author}}. If it is empty, it disables the built-in sort. Like the other override parameters it should be left out of the default usage, and tacked on at the end if needed. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

DNB book scans not showing up

Any ideas why? Thanks. Daytrivia (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, not for me. Sometimes if the connection is slow the scans load only partially. It may be a local problem for you. Charles Matthews (talk) 21:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Better today. You must be right about local problem and slow connection. THanks much.Daytrivia (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

DNB12 and start of the index files

I needed a memoir from DNB12, so today, I grabbed one and have added Index:Dictionary of National Biography, Second Supplement, volume 2.djvu, and started the work up on the surrounding header components and templates (headers are so so so ugly), and embedding some of the other pages that go with it. Started not finish! I don't think that you utilise Template:DNBSet but in case you do, it has been configured to easily grab all the relevant components. Please check the work if you can, as it is late and been a cr*p week, so there may be a gap in the attention to detail. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:26, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

I do use {{DNBset}}. Not busy here with it at the moment (work for WMUK impinging), but I created an article with it yesterday, Kingston, Richard, and it seemed OK. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:35, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

Excellent. I have also found vol. 1, though yet to find any subsequent volume(s). — billinghurst sDrewth 04:22, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Autopatroller

Thanks! Hopefully a bit less spamming RC with ! now :-)

I think I saw you in the Grafton yesterday, by the way, but by the time I realised it was you you'd swept past... Andrew Gray (talk) 14:37, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Early Xmas shopping without bringing cash: I have a tricky problem that took me to Debenhams and BHS with no success. On the plus side I found a book shop I hadn't previously known of; and even more miraculous, it had a book in it I might consider buying. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:50, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

New contributor

Hello Charles, I understood that you are well involved in Wikisource. If I am wrong sorry. I started to contribute on Wikisource today with a big book. Could you check the page I have already checked/done? I have few questions. Do I have to "transcribe" exactly what is written on the raw document? For example, on this page (at the last line), sometimes is cut. Do I keep the cut or should I write the entire word? An other question; should I go to a new line exactly like for the "raw" document (such as here) or not (such as there)? Is there special thing to do for footnotes (example) or is it right how I did? And finally what about the presentation of the text? For example, is it possible to centre the titles (like here)? Thanks in advance for all your answers. Pamputt (talk) 20:56, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, a few answers. You can use <center> and </center> to centre the titles. I have applied {{sc}} in a couple of places to show small caps, and done some other pure format. I would omit hyphens that just show word breaks: the point is to reproduce the text and anything that carries meaning, but those don't. I know least about the footnotes, since I haven't worked on anything where they are involved. Bear in mind that the Page namespace version is not intended for the reader, as such.

Good luck!

Charles Matthews (talk) 21:26, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your answer. About the footnotes, do you know someone who could help me? Pamputt (talk) 22:10, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You can start at Help:Editing#Footnotes. That may well not be enough for you, though, since the work appears to have a complex system. Feel free to raise matters at the Scriptorium. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I will probably post a message on the Scriptorium on the footnote question. I have still a question. I started to transcribe this page and the question is: how to manage a page where there are several columns (2 in my example)? Pamputt (talk) 09:22, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Usually we wouldn't preserve column layout of that kind - e.g. the DNB on which I work. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on volume 32

I see you've acknowledged the replacement of Volume 35 and that brings me back to my original questions on Volume 32.

Seems like the same thing happened where the text layer was first created all at once with a BOT run and somehow & at somepoint the thumbnails became hugely offset compared to the text appearing with them... but you guys didn't do a bulk delete like there was for volume 35. Folks have gone back and PR'd the first 240 pages or so in the interim.

Now that I'm close to processing a new source file for Volume 32, is it worth keeping the remaining 270 pages created in 2008 and now off by as much as 9 .DjVu/ positions or should we delete that range, go back & [re]create any of the previously existing mainspace pages transcluded in from the page namespace, and have the (if I do say so myself) improved quality text-layer pop-in for pages previously not worked yet OR keep all those 2008 based existing Page:s and just re-align them to the thumbnails like before with bulk moves? -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:19, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

You'd better check with Billinghurst also, as I'm by no means an expert on the technical side. I would guess we'd want to renew the whole scan, of course preserving the proof-read text. The page ranges for transclusions will be out, but we can divide up that work of fixing those. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

On the "technical side" there's not much difference in the effort between bulk moving and bulk deleting - a BOT will do either one chosen. The later requires the undeletion of the pages called from the mainspace (basically from Lawder to the end, Leigh) afterwards and the copy & paste to a separate window already opened to create the corresponding correct page. The articles affected mostly seem to be short, single page transclusions so there's little chance something would be lost.

So its up you (or the project) if you can deal with editing the existing pages assigned scan page nos. 251 thru end to proofread status --or-- creating pages in that range after the deletions from the newer text dump (peppering back in the currently transcluded portions along the way). I'm indifferent until at least IA finishes processing the new file just in case it comes back worse than the old one was but you should think about it some. -- George Orwell III (talk) 11:32, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

I've asked Billinghurst to comment here. If it's OK with him, it's OK with me. Charles Matthews (talk) 19:36, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Apologies for late response ... what is Latin for "real life interrupts"? Now i am probably being thick, with the statement about deleting pages, is that meaning that the non-transcluded pages that are not proofread? I would feel that they simply could just disappear, we shouldn't be linking to them except through transclusion to main ns:. The purpose of my transclusion checker was so we could identify which were not being used, especially when needing to move, move/delete.

A bot to update main ns pages with the modified page numbers should be pretty easy. Identify the pages that link to vol. 32, or those that are relevant, know the offset, grep & extract the two page numbers, do the calculations, save page. Would be run in less than an hour. Of course, I could be missing something. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:58, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Hmm, because it is a special tag, the standard functions don't behave and AWB doesn't have an inbuilt expression factor, need to use the wiki parser function ...
Find regex …
<pages index="Dictionary of National Biography volume 32.djvu" from="?(\d{1,3})"? to="?(\d{1,3})"? fromsection="([^"]+)" tosection="([^"]+)" />
Replace with …
{{subst:#tag:pages||index=Dictionary of National Biography volume 32.djvu|from={{subst:#expr:$1+n}}|to={{subst:#expr:$2+n}}|fromsection=$3|tosection=$4}}
where n = no. of pages to displace and this won't account for those pages where there is no starting or ending section. So will need to watch the process, or just rerun those that fail to update (it will log and catch). — billinghurst sDrewth 06:43, 24 December 2012 (UTC)

Kind of late to the discussion - I've already had the range in question deleted and any previously existing proofread pages restored with the corresponding mainspace articles adjusted to reflect the correct page numbering. -- George Orwell III (talk) 17:48, 24 December 2012 (UTC)