Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia/To-do/Dictionary of Australian Biography

message: Canada has a similar list Wikipedia:Canadian wikipedians' notice board/Dictionary of Canadian Biography with a template and some guidelines on how to refer to it. Should we do the same? --ScottDavis 10:33, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry I missed this - please do. I've now added a pointer to the combined WikiProject (which looks like it'll cover this list, the Canadian list, and the three or four general ones), but having guidelines and template here would be handy. Ambi 03:44, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

message: Hows this for a reference?:
*
Since Percival Serle was in the book himself, that would mean there will be an article about him (eventually), though it may be a bit superfluous since there is a link to the article about the book.
The link to the article itself can be changed so it leads directly to the person's article.
Is it worth creating a template? -3mta3 12:14, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Referencing

message: Would it be a good idea to mention on the project page the publication date (so people don't look for people who became noteable after 1949 or whatever), and what kind of people the book regards as notable (for example, do they regard sportspeople as noteable)? Andjam 04:56, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think there's much need; people aren't going to be looking for anyone here. It's just a list to remind people of articles that we may have missed that might need creating. Ambi 05:03, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Categories covered 

message: I just added an article using text from this and was asked about whether it is public domain in the US. Just thought I'd put it here to clarify. From this page  - the Australian Dictionary of Biography comes under "WORKS PUBLISHED OUTSIDE THE US  1923 through 1977" - where it says that "In the public domain in its home country as of 1 January 1996" it is  In the public domain for the United States. Astrokey44 13:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright in US 

message: I've come to the conculsion that removing blue links is probably not the best idea, since as far as I have noticed, many of the blue links are stubs or disambigs. Really we need to be able to verify that all the blue articles are as good as the book and are correcetly categorised and named. I think it is pointless to be in the same situaion as the EB 1911 project - where everything is in wikipedia, but now must be re-verified. I propose that we reinstate the list and all blue linked articles be ranked as stub, partial, as good, or better.--Peta 05:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just when I has started hunting down letters with only a few to do, too.  :-(  But I think that leaving the list there is a good way to go.  How about if we strike out the letters (in the index at the top of the list) when they are done.  That way people have a quick reference to see what is left to do.  --Jonathan O'Donnell 06:34, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think you can strike out something in the TOC. Mabye we could use progess bars for each letter like other Australian Wikiprojects.--Peta 06:43, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have just been putting in a ratio of 'good' to total number of entries for that letter.  I started putting the numbers in so that it was easier to calculate, and a bit more transparent.  --Jonathan O'Donnell 08:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing blue links

message: Is this actually a necessary addition, I tend to think that if the book have been used and cited using the reference template, that we have sufficient information on the source of the text. AFAK there is no problem using this text - and no need to "metaflag" is as text from the PD, this was done for EB1911 and the Catholic encyclopedia - but since we are using the reference template it seems like a rather pointless duplication of information.--Peta 00:23, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It does, however, spell out the copyright status of using it as a source for Wikipedia, i.e. that the information is in the public domain in Australia and the U.S.A.  Diverman 12:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: {{tl|Ausbio}}

message: I just made :Category:Australian federationists, which might be useful for categorising some of these old politicians.--Peta 08:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New cat

message: Would anyone be opposed to using subdivisions on some of the longer lists - I find it much easier and more rewarding to start and finish a small list than get lost in a long one; it might also make it a bit easier to track progress on some of the longer letters. --Peta 14:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Subdivision

message: Some of the articles from ProjectGutenberg Au  are being inserted without any editing or wikifying, and I don't think that's a good practice. Copying them first and upgrading them later may seem very attractive, but experience with other wikiprojects shows that this upgrade does not always happen. And some people who do not fully understand the copyright situation seem to be nominating them for deletion, even speedy deletion., see [[Richard Rawdon Stawell]. (I just removed the speedy tag from it, and I think I did right. ) But any such article attracts unfavorable comment, because the detail is usually inappropriate and excessive as compared to other WP articles. I marked that article "wikify", but I'd be grateful for comments here, because you're the guys with experience at this. DGG 07:27, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, in wikifying or in rewriting, it would be well to remove the flourishes at the end about how much he is loved by the profession, etc. I would advise you to remove them even you do no other editing, because they are the red flag--  children and grandchildren who put in obituary notices tend to do that, and many people look particularly for that because we get about ten a day & those articles usually are valid speedies  It is further necessary to show why the person mets WP standards for N according to the current interpretation, and to say it in the first sentence or two--the older encyclopedias get around to it eventually, but they don't highlight it and for it to work here it has to be put right out front in peoples faces. And specific quotes need to be connected to the person who originally said them. (And it is a good idea to copy the lists of references from both encyclopedias on the bottom--that is fair use and a great help to those following up. Further, an increasing number of these sources are available on line, and will help in the rewriting. DGG 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Need for editing

message: How come this project lists about 1000 articles when the australian Dictionary of Biography lists about 10700? Blnguyen  (bananabucket) 09:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite the name of this page, I think the list comes from Dictionary of Australian Biography rather than the Australian Dictionary of Biography. -- Mattinbgn\talk 12:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article #