Hi there. I've converted these scans to djvu format in 29 volumes/files. All TIFF files are 4Gb together (also in PDF), but in Djvu they are only one Gb/33 Mb per volume. If somebody is interested, I could download it temporarily to uploadingit.com. Please let me know here. Magnentius 08:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Tom — This looks stunning with the AlternaTIFF program. As you say PNG is a washout. Its a great boon to be able to print these pages out to a big size. I have the compact edition and it can be pain scanning small type which gets a bit chewed up at times. It also means I can protect the bindings of the original. Maybe one day we can also have the 3 volumes making up the 12th edition. This is also public domain and covers World War 1. Very many thanks for your efforts. Kind regards Apwoolrich 15:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

This is really super, thank you. And the AlternaTiff plugin works very well (IE 6.0.29 XPSP2). One thought, can you edit the template for the pages to allow the viewing window section to float to 100% of the available width? Perhaps it's not a big deal, as it's easy to go to full screen with the plugin - but it seems like screen space going to waste (and I paid a lot for this monitor!!) 16:24, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much for these scans! By the way, the problem with the pngs results from the conflict between a declared width of 700 pixels in the img tag and a real width of 2240 pixels. It should not be difficult to solve. Perhaps a real width of 700 px is too small for reading and a link to an image around 1600 px would allow single-column reading for everyone. On the other hand, you may want to avoid these problems altogether by using djvu.

You're welcome. --Brian0918 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Britannica scans...Edit

I came upon the scans by chance after noticing the page in recent changes and have installed the AlternaTIFF plugin and I must say your efforts have not gone un-noticed! The WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica will benefit greatly as only volume 1 of the origingal encyclopedia has been produced by Project Gutenberg and it is only in plain-text form, meaning that we have to do a lot of guesswork at headings, formulas, sub/superscript etc. Please feel free to add yourself to the team listing on the project page (even if you are not able to help extensively with the project.) I shall be posting a link to your scans on the project page in a few moments. We will able to procede much quicker now we have a full set of scans to work from. GregRobson 16:38, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. --Brian0918 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)


Perhaps you might considering intergrating these wonderful scans from your talk page into the main wikisource project? I wish to say you have done a great service to both this wikisource project and for general knowlege in general by posting these scans. --LEMPERERUR1988 23:20, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

  • Check out WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. We are using the scans to assist with images and original intent of layout/presentation as Project Gutenberg has only released volume 1 in plain text, and only part of volume 2 is in a HTML version that includes more complex formatting. You're welcome to come and join us in our mammoth task ;) GregRobson 17:54, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

I don't understand why we have to do all that work of transfering it into plain text, cant we just turn the scans into the main project but transfering it from the user page to the actual project?--LEMPERERUR1988 17:09, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

EB1911 classificationEdit

Hi, A discussion has started on Scriptorium [1]about adopting the same classsification for the WS version as was used on the original printed version. This has distinct advantages. Your comments are welcomed. Kind regards. Apwoolrich 18:22, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Linking questionEdit

I linked one of your scans from a Wikipedia article (Wikipedia:Manchester, Connecticut), but then I noticed your request that the extension not be used. (I have since removed the link.) Could you please clarify whether your scans can be linked to? (I am not clear about what extension you are referring to.) Thanks in advance!--GregRM 15:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you!Edit

Thank you, Tim, for organizing and sharing these scans! This is a wonderful resource. You've done a great thing. 20:43, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Is there a possibility to download these scans as images?

You're welcome. --Brian0918 15:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Volume 18, PNG set?Edit

Well, this has been up for a while and it is a fantastic resource. Despite your disclaimer about just vol. 1 being available, the whole PNG set seems fully up and loads fine. But is volume 18 (Medal to Mumps) not there for some particular reason? Maybe a typo in the path or something? Thanks very much for this resource! 16:29, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Vol. 18 is working. [2]. John Vandenberg (chat) 00:00, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


Just to say that You can download the entire collection using BitTorrent through the Pirate Bay website link. This is perfectly legal as the original source material is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License GNU FDL link at bottom, this may be useful if you want to download the entire collection, or large chunks, for off-line browsing.

You can also get it through rapidshare, using the links at the English language Wikipedia page. This is a standard http download service with some limits to ease of download, so if anyone wants to host elsewhere, please feel free to provide download links on the main Wikipedia page.


Just wanted to say thankyou very much to whoever took the time to scan this all. A query about copyright though, is the material (ie. the tiff files) released under the GNU FDL or Public Domain?

The images have no original content on them, making them ineligible for copyright. It would be handy if everyone involve was explicit about this, but it is safe to assume that Tim is not likely be engaging in Copyfraud any time soon. John Vandenberg (chat) 07:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


Thanks, Those are a lot clearer the Google. I found that saving the image to my computer then opening it as an image seems to be the best way to view it while editing (I only have a single screen at home). This allows me to size the image and the Wikisource page optimally for editing. Jeepday 23:14, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What is the resolution?Edit

The resolution for the scans seems to be 300dpi, or at least that's what I'm assuming. It seems to me this would be useful to know for scaling diagrams and other images. Assuming that a typical monitor has a resolution of around 100dpi then scaling by a factor of 3:1 would approximate the size of the the original.--RDBury (talk) 12:55, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


Looking ahead, I think eventually this project will need high resolution gray scale scans of the photographic plates that appear occasionally in the source. The article on Cat has a couple of these. Also, are there any instances where color is used in EB?--RDBury (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)