WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles |
---|
|
Miscellaneous |
|
This project’s sub-pages have lists of Wikipedia articles that were included in the
original listing of article topics, and may have inadequate or outdated information. They seemed to correspond with entries in the 1911
Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, or once had a {{
1911}}
or {{
EB1911}}
reference template added. Many of these Wikipedia articles contain largely identical copies of the century-old text, which brings with it two significant problems:
Editors can help on three fronts: detailed attributions, verification, and general reference notation.
If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it's important to acknowledge the source explicitly to avoid plagiarism charges.
'''Attribution:'''
, and then use the {{
EB1911}}
template with parameters (see below). In addition, mark each paragraph (or sentence if appropriate) using the {{{
sfn}} template or equivalent.{{
EB1911}}
template with an inline=1 parameter. This will make the footnote text explain that it’s a copy.The choice of method may take note of the article's current citation style (mostly inline or mostly harvard-style). If the source article is longer than a page, it is advisable to use the first method with a |p=
parameter to help a reviewer locate the original text.
Since the main project's activity in 2006, incremental changes by Wikipedia editors have fixed many of the issues outlined in this section. You will occasionally find an error to be fixed, but they are now much less common than they were. Ideally, though, these steps should still be taken because a small number of errors can still be found.
If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it may need some basic copy-editing. Try to use an authentic copy, such as that at archive.org, for reference.
First, check for scanning errors. The original scans were of good quality, but there are occasional mistakes and garbled text, and often missing diacritics. Sometimes, a footnote in the original book was included as part of the article that happened to be at the bottom of the page. Compare with a good-quality scan to be sure.
Next, be alert for outdated information, or inappropriate point of view, and
edit boldly. If you feel that the article is still in serious need of updating, include the template {{
Update-EB}}
in the main page or talk page.
If the Wikipedia article does not contain verbatim text, but does contain statements that rely on the Encyclopaedia as an authority, use the {{
Cite EB1911}}
template with appropriate parameters, either in a <ref> or in the References section.
If the Wikipedia article needs neither attribution nor citation, but you think the Encyclopaedia article is interesting for additional (particularly historical) insight, then add an entry to Further Reading or External Links:
{{
EB1911 poster|ArticleName}}
template — with the Wikisource article name as the only parameter.{{
Cite EB1911}}
template — with at least |wstitle=ArticleName
and |short=x
.Both the {{
EB1911}}
and {{
Cite EB1911}}
templates should be used with the appropriate parameters:
There are some rare cases where you can add EB1911 text to an existing article. If you don't want to do so immediately, you can use the {{
Include-eb}}
template to indicate to another editor that the article could usefully have 1911 text added to it.
Eventually, tagged articles should be fixed. They can be found in
Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates or
Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911. When the article has been fixed, the template can be removed. It would be polite to leave a note on the talk page.
Finally, when an article has been checked, edit the appropriate subpage: remove the {{
search}}
template and add a note after the trailing hyphen. This will help with automatic calculation of the statistics. It's possible we will want to do another review pass, so lines should not be deleted, but articles can be considered done when they have been basically checked for accuracy and appropriateness, and have at least one of the 1911 templates.
See the guidelines at the project page for detailed instructions on creating new articles.
Letter | Pages | Initial | Remaining | % completed |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1 2 3 4 5 | 2430 | 0 | 100% |
B | 1 2 3 | 1198 | 0 | 100% |
C | 1 2 3 4 | 1888 | 0 | 100% |
D | 1 2 | 734 | 0 | 100% |
E | 1 2 | 942 | 0 | 100% |
F | 1 2 3 | 1048 | 0 | 100% |
G | 1 2 3 | 1227 | 0 | 100% |
H | 1 2 3 | 1094 | 0 | 100% |
I | 1 | 247 | 0 | 100% |
J | 1 2 3 4 5 | 2147 | 1418 | 34% |
K | 1 2 | 540 | 489 | 9% |
L | 1 2 | 948 | 838 | 12% |
M | 1 2 3 | 1217 | 1120 | 8% |
N | 1 | 454 | 427 | 6% |
O | 1 | 334 | 0 | 100% |
P | 1 2 3 | 1317 | 1202 | 9% |
Q | 1 | 59 | 0 | 100% |
R | 1 2 | 823 | 754 | 8% |
S | 1 2 3 | 1245 | 1137 | 9% |
T | 1 2 | 977 | 0 | 100% |
U | 1 | 94 | 0 | 100% |
V | 1 | 361 | 0 | 100% |
W | 1 2 | 746 | 0 | 100% |
X-Z | 1 | 202 | 0 | 100% |
Wrong'uns | Suggestions for non-inclusion | - | - | - |
Totals | 22,272 | 7,385 | 66.8% |
WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles |
---|
|
Miscellaneous |
|
This project’s sub-pages have lists of Wikipedia articles that were included in the
original listing of article topics, and may have inadequate or outdated information. They seemed to correspond with entries in the 1911
Encyclopaedia Britannica Eleventh Edition, or once had a {{
1911}}
or {{
EB1911}}
reference template added. Many of these Wikipedia articles contain largely identical copies of the century-old text, which brings with it two significant problems:
Editors can help on three fronts: detailed attributions, verification, and general reference notation.
If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it's important to acknowledge the source explicitly to avoid plagiarism charges.
'''Attribution:'''
, and then use the {{
EB1911}}
template with parameters (see below). In addition, mark each paragraph (or sentence if appropriate) using the {{{
sfn}} template or equivalent.{{
EB1911}}
template with an inline=1 parameter. This will make the footnote text explain that it’s a copy.The choice of method may take note of the article's current citation style (mostly inline or mostly harvard-style). If the source article is longer than a page, it is advisable to use the first method with a |p=
parameter to help a reviewer locate the original text.
Since the main project's activity in 2006, incremental changes by Wikipedia editors have fixed many of the issues outlined in this section. You will occasionally find an error to be fixed, but they are now much less common than they were. Ideally, though, these steps should still be taken because a small number of errors can still be found.
If the article contains verbatim text from the Encyclopaedia, it may need some basic copy-editing. Try to use an authentic copy, such as that at archive.org, for reference.
First, check for scanning errors. The original scans were of good quality, but there are occasional mistakes and garbled text, and often missing diacritics. Sometimes, a footnote in the original book was included as part of the article that happened to be at the bottom of the page. Compare with a good-quality scan to be sure.
Next, be alert for outdated information, or inappropriate point of view, and
edit boldly. If you feel that the article is still in serious need of updating, include the template {{
Update-EB}}
in the main page or talk page.
If the Wikipedia article does not contain verbatim text, but does contain statements that rely on the Encyclopaedia as an authority, use the {{
Cite EB1911}}
template with appropriate parameters, either in a <ref> or in the References section.
If the Wikipedia article needs neither attribution nor citation, but you think the Encyclopaedia article is interesting for additional (particularly historical) insight, then add an entry to Further Reading or External Links:
{{
EB1911 poster|ArticleName}}
template — with the Wikisource article name as the only parameter.{{
Cite EB1911}}
template — with at least |wstitle=ArticleName
and |short=x
.Both the {{
EB1911}}
and {{
Cite EB1911}}
templates should be used with the appropriate parameters:
There are some rare cases where you can add EB1911 text to an existing article. If you don't want to do so immediately, you can use the {{
Include-eb}}
template to indicate to another editor that the article could usefully have 1911 text added to it.
Eventually, tagged articles should be fixed. They can be found in
Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates or
Category:Articles needing improvement from EB1911. When the article has been fixed, the template can be removed. It would be polite to leave a note on the talk page.
Finally, when an article has been checked, edit the appropriate subpage: remove the {{
search}}
template and add a note after the trailing hyphen. This will help with automatic calculation of the statistics. It's possible we will want to do another review pass, so lines should not be deleted, but articles can be considered done when they have been basically checked for accuracy and appropriateness, and have at least one of the 1911 templates.
See the guidelines at the project page for detailed instructions on creating new articles.
Letter | Pages | Initial | Remaining | % completed |
---|---|---|---|---|
A | 1 2 3 4 5 | 2430 | 0 | 100% |
B | 1 2 3 | 1198 | 0 | 100% |
C | 1 2 3 4 | 1888 | 0 | 100% |
D | 1 2 | 734 | 0 | 100% |
E | 1 2 | 942 | 0 | 100% |
F | 1 2 3 | 1048 | 0 | 100% |
G | 1 2 3 | 1227 | 0 | 100% |
H | 1 2 3 | 1094 | 0 | 100% |
I | 1 | 247 | 0 | 100% |
J | 1 2 3 4 5 | 2147 | 1418 | 34% |
K | 1 2 | 540 | 489 | 9% |
L | 1 2 | 948 | 838 | 12% |
M | 1 2 3 | 1217 | 1120 | 8% |
N | 1 | 454 | 427 | 6% |
O | 1 | 334 | 0 | 100% |
P | 1 2 3 | 1317 | 1202 | 9% |
Q | 1 | 59 | 0 | 100% |
R | 1 2 | 823 | 754 | 8% |
S | 1 2 3 | 1245 | 1137 | 9% |
T | 1 2 | 977 | 0 | 100% |
U | 1 | 94 | 0 | 100% |
V | 1 | 361 | 0 | 100% |
W | 1 2 | 746 | 0 | 100% |
X-Z | 1 | 202 | 0 | 100% |
Wrong'uns | Suggestions for non-inclusion | - | - | - |
Totals | 22,272 | 7,385 | 66.8% |