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

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)

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)

is copying these from gutenberg fair game or are they copyrighted?[edit]

Hi, is copying these fair game, which I presumed because of it being Gutenberg or is Aussie copyright law not compatible with US law or something? Anyway, there is william Sorell which i've listed as copyvio but i'm confused. Dunc|☺ 13:14, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

They're public domain. No issues at all. Ambi 14:20, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Thinking about it, I really don't think it is. Printed in 1949, copyright expired 1999 in australia but 2019 for the rest of the world. Dunc|☺ 3 July 2005 11:20 (UTC)

Referencing[edit]

Hows this for a reference?:

Serle, Percival (1949). Lastname, Firstname In Dictionary of Australian Biography. Angus and Robertson, Sydney. From Project Gutenberg Australia. {{cite book}}: External link in |title= (help)

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)[reply]

Okay I created one [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]] Usage is:

{{Australian Dictionary of Biography|First=First name|Last=Last name|Link=link to article on person in dictionary}}

I also created a category Category:Dictionary of Australian Biography, the template links to the category automatically.

-3mta3 14:38, 9 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Categories covered[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Copyright in US[edit]

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 [1] - 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)[reply]

Removing blue links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

The bars look really good, are you using 1 point for blue and 2 points for good?--Peta 02:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

{{Ausbio}}[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

DAB and ADB[edit]

I'm finding that almost every entry that I add from the Dictionary of Australian Biography (DAB) has a corresponding (more up to date) entry in the new online edition of the Australian Dictionary of Biography (ADB). So I'm adding a link to the ADB whereever I can.

I'm using the ADB publication details, which are always listed at the bottom of the biographical entry. I am linking the subjects name and years to the ADB entry, and the ADB title to the wikipedia article. For example, Louisa Ann Meredith's ADB reference becomes:
Sally O'Neill, 'Meredith, Louisa Ann (1812 - 1895)', Australian Dictionary of Biography, Volume 5, Melbourne University Press, 1974, pp 239-240.

Because I would like to complete the DAB transfer as quickly as possible, I am adding the ADB link under External links, rather than melding the information into the article. I haven't used the information to build the wikipedia entry, so I think that it would be misleading to put it under References. --Jonathan O'Donnell 23:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, sounds like a good idea, but aren't the hardcopy publication details redundant? An External link is a link to a non-Wikipedia webpage, not to a book. Based on the above example, I propose the entry should be:

Meredith, Louisa Ann (1812 - 1895)', Australian Dictionary of Biography

-- Diverman 12:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The ADB asks that you cite the author (ie the print ref), which you should do if you do use it as a ref, I have on a few occassions to get dates of birth that are missing in the DAB etc. I don't really think we should just include it as an external link on every DAB article, since some people might not be able to make the distinction between the two and well end up with a whole lot of copyright problems.--Peta 12:45, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been including the a link to the ADB biography because they usually give a more comprehensive, and more up to date, biography. While the DAB provides a solid, copyright-expired starting point, Serle can be a bit idiosyncratic at times. Having a link to the ADB helps to balance that.

I have been using the print reference because it is (a) comprehensive: it lists the subject (with life years), the author, the date, the publication details, and the publisher; and because it is (b) easy: it is right there, at the bottom of the article. I have to do a search to see if there actually is an article, so I may as well grab it while I am there. --Jonathan O'Donnell 13:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I've got a bit of a soft spot for ADB on-line. I did the useability testing (some of which they took on board, and some of which they ignored - such is life). :-) --Jonathan O'Donnell 13:44, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be clearer if it was headed Further reading rather than External links? --Jonathan O'Donnell 03:49, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links is fine.--Peta 03:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DAB and ADB copyright[edit]

From my reading of the copyright notice at [2] part of which reads ..the ANU grants users of this site a licence to print, download, copy and paste text and search results into other web-based documents and link particular articles within the ADB Online to a user's website, for non-commercial purposes only. it seems text from adbonline can be put into Wikipedia, is that how others read it? Diverman 07:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that this is what they mean. A bit further down they say: "The moral rights of the authors of online ADB articles must be respected, therefore any text that is copied from the website must be fully identified as an author's work and must not be altered in any way." That would seem to indicate that we can copy it, but we can't change it (which wouldn't work in Wikipedia).

I think that the easiest solution is to ask them. I can sent a message to Darryl Bennet, the person at the ADB in charge of the Web project, copied to Gavan McCarthy, who set up the Web site for them. Suggested text for the message is below. Please edit to improve. I will look to send it in a week, if that is OK.

To: Darryl Bennet

cc: Gavan McCarthy

Subject: Clarification of the ADB Online copyright notice

Hello Darry and Gavan

On the ADB Online copyright page, it says (in part):

"Apart from any use permitted by the Act, the ANU grants users of this site a licence to print, download, copy and paste text and search results into other web-based documents..."

http://www.adb.online.anu.edu.au/copy.htm accessed 23 August 2006.

Currently, there is some discussion at the Dictionary of Australian Biography project on Wikipedia as to what the copyright statement means for Wikipedia.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Australian_wikipedians'_notice_board/Complete_to-do/Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography#DAB_and_ADB_copyright

Could you please clarify for us. Does it mean that we can copy and paste ADB Online articles into Wikipedia?

Current practice is for ADB Online articles to be referenced by Wikipedia articles. For example, see:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Gellibrand

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Tyson_Burbidge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shaw_Neilson

Other good examples:

http://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Aen.wikipedia.org+%22Australian+Dictionary+of+Biography%2C+Volume%22

Of course, although people are encouraged to cite their sources properly, some are referenced better than others. Current poor examples (some may be fixed by the time you see this):

http://www.google.com/search?q=site:en.wikipedia.org+%22Australian+Dictionary+of+Biography%22+-%22vol%22&start=10

This discussion has arisen as part of an active project on Wikipedia to transfer all of the information from Percival Serle's "Dictionary of Australian Biography" into Wikipedia. You can see the results of our efforts at:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Australian_wikipedians'_notice_board/Complete_to-do/Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography

I would like to post any corrospondence with you on this matter to the project page, so that others can see what is being discussed. Please let me know if that is OK.

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Jonathan O'Donnell

--Jonathan O'Donnell 02:01, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia cannot use any text that is specifically for non-commerical use. Unless they are willing to licence their text under the GFDL (which is highly improbable given that they have gone ahead and made their own website) you cannot cut and paste these article into Wikipedia.--Peta 02:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't think it was OK at all to copy across the info. There is no reason to duplicate the information in the ADB. --Arktos ^talk 02:12, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification. I will not send the letter. --Jonathan O'Donnell 04:36, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

New cat[edit]

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

Subdivision[edit]

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)[reply]

Need for editing[edit]

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)[reply]

- Actually, Serle's work is still in copyright in the US, which is why it is hosted at Project Gutenberg Australia, rather than the US site. As Wikipedia is hosted in the US, it uses US Copyright law rather than Australian copyright law. Serle's work entered the public domain in Australia on 1 January 2002, fifty years after his death, and not fifty years after the publication of his work. Under US law, as Serle's copyright still existed in 1996 in Australia, it continues to enjoy protection under US law. Copyright therefore doesn't expire in the US until 1 January 2022 (which is probably when it will be moved to the US Project Gutenberg). Therefore, straight copying of text from Serle's work is a breach of copyright no matter how weird that seems, and however unlikely it ever will be for Serle's publishers to sue for breach of copyright when the work is freely available on Australian websites. Wiki editors should modify the text and put it into their own words to avoid any copyright breaches and attribute the factual information back to Serle by way of references. 220.240.6.223 11:08, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - This may well be correct, and I would suggest getting a further opinion on this. I know the US rules only, I do not know the international complications. If it is correct, then all the articles will all have to be substantially rewritten, and it may do them some good. Another alternative temporarily is to write a short stub and then give the references. People will still find the information through the links. Considering the amount of material involved, it may be worthwhile to ask the publishers to normalize the situation and release the work into the PD in the US--assuming they own the copyright and not the individual authors of the articles. DGG 16:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Article #[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]