The purpose of this page is to provide the basic range of ideas for the successful conversion of raw Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) text into Wikipedia articles. The assumption will be that a new article is being written from scratch. Expansion of an existing stub article is also an important process: it is not so very different, though.
The conversion is best thought of as quite a large number of separate steps: the walkthroughs given are in ten basic editing stages, for clarity and to allow commentary on particular points. With experience some steps are easy enough to combine.
While the gap between old DNB text and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style may seem daunting, it can actually be safely bridged by taking things one at a time, as they arise. This guide, naturally, is written in the belief that this approach is valid and well worth doing.
It really is easier for everyone if the initial stages are carried out as drafts, rather than in the main article space. The discussion here is deliberately divided into two:
The options for drafting are (a) offline in a text processor, (b) using your own userspace (can be on your user page, or in a subpage created by adding [[/Draft]]). Each has some advantages. Practiced users of DNB text can draft directly, in an open editing window in mainspace, and using preview, but it is probably easier to work up to this as an aspiration.
Starting with the original text (from Wikisource or elsewhere—we'll assume the text exists on Wikisource and can simply be copied in here) there are a number of basic steps, with the beginning and end of the potential article first needing attention. Once the text is there, some footers should be added.
One factor that complicates many longer adaptations is that the order of the material in the DNB article can make for confusing reading in a WP article. Another point to look out for is that rather antiquated language and bloated prose style needs to be changed; and some content is simply not suitable, especially if it is opinion rather than fact, or diffuse. Victorian "soft soap", or any moralising editorial, should just be omitted. There can of course be POV problems, too.
There is a general list of unlovable DNB prose on the project page at /Prose. "Padding" is common enough (blame the penny-a-line culture of Victorian periodicals); WP's house style isn't to encourage repetitious writing but concision.
This is a relatively short and simple case. James Plumptre was drafted in userspace, being adapted from s:Plumptre, James (DNB00), and its early history has numbered edit summaries:
The article was then moved into mainspace ("move" tab). For what next, see the section on "upgrading" below.
Once there is an article created from DNB text, and that can pass muster as WP article, there are actually numerous ways to go next with it. To some extent the most urgent upgrade depends on the type of content. Things to do include:
There is also the interesting but less focussed class of "matters arising". From fact-checking or extra reading, from the WP articles that link in, or from researching redlinks found in the new article, other facets or directions of the subject may appear. Redlinks can lead to further DNB articles to convert, for example. Depending on the area and your own interests, creating one article may spark off further work (create a new list or category, investigate the engraver of a portrait, look at authors writing books about the subject ...)
Adding wikilinks, and then wondering if they should be there (notability issue) or are possible to disambiguate, can also in itself be significant in generating "matters". The DNB assumes tacitly that any reader could identify "Dr. Johnson" as Samuel Johnson; but in some cases goes much further in referring to people just by a surname, and it can be an effort to recover the intended person (e.g. Talk page diff to identify the default meaning of "Gough"). Putting in full names by itself is "encyclopedic" work, making the version here better than the original.
Another surprising fruitful area is the annotation given in lists of works: later editors, translators, dedicatees and so on may have to be tracked down and can be of independent interest.
Is always possible on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography.
The first edition DNB (1885–1900), and the supplements from 1901 and 1912, are in the public domain; later DNB articles are not. The Wikisource project to post the approximately 30,000 PD biographies from the DNB is over 50% done. You can browse from s:Dictionary of National Biography.
For a specific biography you can ask for it to be posted at Wikisource for you (for example on WT:WP DNB). Otherwise the text is available on the ODNB website, and can be referenced from what is there.
The purpose of this page is to provide the basic range of ideas for the successful conversion of raw Dictionary of National Biography (DNB) text into Wikipedia articles. The assumption will be that a new article is being written from scratch. Expansion of an existing stub article is also an important process: it is not so very different, though.
The conversion is best thought of as quite a large number of separate steps: the walkthroughs given are in ten basic editing stages, for clarity and to allow commentary on particular points. With experience some steps are easy enough to combine.
While the gap between old DNB text and the Wikipedia:Manual of Style may seem daunting, it can actually be safely bridged by taking things one at a time, as they arise. This guide, naturally, is written in the belief that this approach is valid and well worth doing.
It really is easier for everyone if the initial stages are carried out as drafts, rather than in the main article space. The discussion here is deliberately divided into two:
The options for drafting are (a) offline in a text processor, (b) using your own userspace (can be on your user page, or in a subpage created by adding [[/Draft]]). Each has some advantages. Practiced users of DNB text can draft directly, in an open editing window in mainspace, and using preview, but it is probably easier to work up to this as an aspiration.
Starting with the original text (from Wikisource or elsewhere—we'll assume the text exists on Wikisource and can simply be copied in here) there are a number of basic steps, with the beginning and end of the potential article first needing attention. Once the text is there, some footers should be added.
One factor that complicates many longer adaptations is that the order of the material in the DNB article can make for confusing reading in a WP article. Another point to look out for is that rather antiquated language and bloated prose style needs to be changed; and some content is simply not suitable, especially if it is opinion rather than fact, or diffuse. Victorian "soft soap", or any moralising editorial, should just be omitted. There can of course be POV problems, too.
There is a general list of unlovable DNB prose on the project page at /Prose. "Padding" is common enough (blame the penny-a-line culture of Victorian periodicals); WP's house style isn't to encourage repetitious writing but concision.
This is a relatively short and simple case. James Plumptre was drafted in userspace, being adapted from s:Plumptre, James (DNB00), and its early history has numbered edit summaries:
The article was then moved into mainspace ("move" tab). For what next, see the section on "upgrading" below.
Once there is an article created from DNB text, and that can pass muster as WP article, there are actually numerous ways to go next with it. To some extent the most urgent upgrade depends on the type of content. Things to do include:
There is also the interesting but less focussed class of "matters arising". From fact-checking or extra reading, from the WP articles that link in, or from researching redlinks found in the new article, other facets or directions of the subject may appear. Redlinks can lead to further DNB articles to convert, for example. Depending on the area and your own interests, creating one article may spark off further work (create a new list or category, investigate the engraver of a portrait, look at authors writing books about the subject ...)
Adding wikilinks, and then wondering if they should be there (notability issue) or are possible to disambiguate, can also in itself be significant in generating "matters". The DNB assumes tacitly that any reader could identify "Dr. Johnson" as Samuel Johnson; but in some cases goes much further in referring to people just by a surname, and it can be an effort to recover the intended person (e.g. Talk page diff to identify the default meaning of "Gough"). Putting in full names by itself is "encyclopedic" work, making the version here better than the original.
Another surprising fruitful area is the annotation given in lists of works: later editors, translators, dedicatees and so on may have to be tracked down and can be of independent interest.
Is always possible on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography.
The first edition DNB (1885–1900), and the supplements from 1901 and 1912, are in the public domain; later DNB articles are not. The Wikisource project to post the approximately 30,000 PD biographies from the DNB is over 50% done. You can browse from s:Dictionary of National Biography.
For a specific biography you can ask for it to be posted at Wikisource for you (for example on WT:WP DNB). Otherwise the text is available on the ODNB website, and can be referenced from what is there.