Wikipedia talk:1911 Encyclopedia topics

message: Are these pages to be pruned of existing articles? RedWolf 17:33, Dec 28, 2004 (UTC)
:If you like - depends on whether you think mixed red/blue or all-red is more esthetic. :-) Incremental deletion does take up time that could be spent on content, and easy to see the undone, unlike the untagged images where done/notdone look the same. Stan 22:20, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  The deletion could be much easier done by a bot. Bogdan | Talk 23:09, 8 Jan 2005 (UTC)

message: As article topics get cleared from the lists, it's clear that 1911EB includes a great many of we would call dictionary definitions - "sciolist" or "scantling" for example. We can choose to make transwikis to wiktionary for these, or just delete from the list of remaining topics. I'm inclined towards the latter, because a little random searching seems to show that these terms don't generally have "red link" references elsewhere in WP, and wiktionarists aren't likely to use 1911EB as a source anyway. Stan 16:19, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dicdefs 

message: Project Gutenberg has proof-read versions of letters a-c... Would it be possible to bulk-upload those that are not yet in WP and wikify later? Tx--J heisenberg 23:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably not desirable - about 50% of the topics already have WP articles, in some cases better than EB's; the topic titles here are often archaic variants. It would be useful to have a link to best Gutenberg bits - I thought they hadn't finished with "a" yet. Stan 17:43, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bulk upload Gutenberg version? 

message: I have found that the  website that is used to get information seems to have an error, weisseufel. This should instead be Weissenfels, as shown on  website. If there seems to be a mistake in other texts, please use the second website as an alternative resource Magicmonster 05:32, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mistakes in standard website 

message: Many articles are also in jrank.org; they seem to be just corrected versions of 1911 material. They also have a copyright mark at the bottom. It is probably not advisable to just copy the material?--J heisenberg 13:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: JRank

message: Wikisource is working on a version of EB1911 which aims to produce an accurate text with illustrations for WP editors to use. See []. The text being posted here has sections missing in the scans, and some of the OCR work is corrupt. It cannot be relied upon for regular WP use. We are working from the Project Gutenburg version. Apwoolrich 14:15, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The OCR text is always corrected before being put in here, and much is not copied anyway because it is innaccurate for one reason or another. P.s. It was me who pointed out this project at the wikisource talk page. thanks Martin 14:21, 15 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  EB1911 on Wikisource 

message: I've been seeing quite of few 1911 articles that have been uploaded without bringing them up to date. For example, one city article had population count from 1901. If the uploader isn't going to the work him/herself, then perhaps the  tag should be used to alert other editors to the problem. -- Kjkolb 18:52, 16 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updating of articles 

message: A lot of the architectural terms in the encyclopedia are only a sentence or two long. Perhaps they should be consolidated or go to Wiktionary. -- Kjkolb 21:42, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Architectural terms 

message: People add the  tag to articles different ways;
==References== 

or
---- 

or simply  on its own.
I want to standardise the way it is referenced, I will do it with a bot so it won't require much effort, the problem is deciding which is the best way. My personal choice is under a references heading, as it looks neater and it more accurate, after all it is a reference. What do you think? Martin 19:35, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you that the ==References== solution is the best.David Björklund 10:04, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardising the 1911 reference 

message: Could someone check the safranine article against a hardcopy of the encyclopedia? There were OCR errors in both online versions and I was unable to correct them by searching through Google. Also, some of the chemicals appear to be unique to the encyclopedia. -- Kjkolb 04:45, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Check chemical formulas with hardcopy

message: I separated the potentially obsolete articles from the potentially obsolete articles and put them in the section for considering non-inclusion. Only a few of them appear to be salvageable and it was odd having them in the law section. I'm going to be working on the few that can be made into articles and I suggest that the rest not be included. Almost all of the law articles are also probably obsolete. I suggest that we get someone knowledgeable about them to tell us. I don't think that they should be included if they are obsolete, unless they are very important for some reason. Perhaps we should stop work on the law articles until we decide what is worth saving. -- Kjkolb 16:36, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Obsolete and law articles 

message: What should we do with articles like the following (one sentence articles):
:"ENGYON, an ancient town of the interior of Sicily, a Cretan colony, according to legend, and famous for an ancient temple of the Matres which aroused the greed of Verres. Its site is uncertain; some topographers have identified it with Gangi, a town 20 m. S.S.E. of Cefalu, but only on the ground of the similarity of the two names."
It seems to me that it might be worth doing the same thing we did with the architectural terms with these one-liners; create a page for town names, and a separate page for dicdefs and redirect the terms; and so on. 
What do people think? 
On a related topic: a lot of the leftover missing articles are place names, some of which may no longer exist or have been renamed; should we create separate articles for these or put them on one page? --FeanorStar7 10:27, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short articles 

message: This project shouldn't end with the adding of the last article. There are a lot of articles that have been added without any updating or even OCR error correcting. The updating should be done systematically. Also, it might be good to have guidelines for specific types of articles. 
For example, city articles should have the current population and the name should be correctly accented with redirects for old names and unaccented names. The other cities and states mentioned in the article should be checked as well. What the city is known for should be checked for accuracy or deleted, as a lot has changed since 1911 (some of the city information is from even earlier). The history of the town should be updated with significant events in the city's history since 1911. 
Other articles won't need as much work, like biographies of people who died before the encyclopedia was written or ancient towns. However, I strongly feel that the articles should not be left "as is", like many of them have been. -- Kjkolb 01:17, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  The end of the project 

message: The Indian chapter has been populated. Thanks for creating the list for us. Regards, =Nichalp «Talk»= 09:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  India chapter 

message: How or who does one ask for a Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopedia topics/Australia list? Is there a bot to generate same? -- Ian ≡ talk 12:08, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate lists 

message: Now that there are only 500 left, I think there's no reason to have them spread over 10 pages. bogdan 18:05, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I consolidated and deleted the remaining pages (1,9,10) into this single page.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 19:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving all of them on one page? 

message: Please be careful when working on articles like these. They often no longer exist, have different boundaries or have different names. Articles about Persia, Burma and India are particularly bad. -- Kjkolb 05:54, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Articles for provinces, states, districts and other political divisions 

message: I have done more than 2000 edits, perhaps 3000 edits, but most of these were EB 1911 edits. What remains are more than 1500 edits. I really did edit EB 1911 more than 1000 times (but wiki has abolished these edits, as the 1911 EB project is done), and so my count is less.
I recognize many of these remainders as my own comments.--FourthAve 06:46, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a tool that keeps track of edits including deleted edits.  Your edit count is ~ 2300 with about 500 deleted edits.  http://tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/count_edits?user=FourthAve&dbname=enwiki_p Just remember though editcountitis can be a real problem.  --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 18:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits

message: Here are a couple: :s:EB1911:Aesopus and :s:EB1911:Adra. Danny 02:10, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing articles

message: The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Helped contribute to 12,181 articles so far. The Encyclopædia Britannica (Eleventh Edition) definitely deserves this. Emmette Hernandez Coleman (talk) 12:20, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tireless Contributor Barnstar for the Encyclopædia Britannica