Talk:Dictionary of National Biography

Untitled

This page should be used to discuss the content of its article. If you wish to discuss the use of the DNB or the ODNB as a resource for Wikipedia articles, Please go to: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography and its talk page.

Wikisource version

This page now links to volumes of scanned DNB posted at archive.org. On the other hand, the DNB is being posted at Wikisource, gradually (currently more than 20% done) in a more readable and convenient format, namely divided up into its articles. I would propose that as volumes are completed on Wikisource, by which I mean all biographies posted, the links here should be replaced for the reader's benefit by interwiki links. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:05, 16 June 2010 (UTC)

Update: about 30 complete volumes (all biographies present, that is) are now posted at Wikisource. Interwiki links could therefore be added to the table. Charles Matthews (talk) 12:44, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I see no harm in having a link to a facsimile of the original hard copy in the external links (I find it useful), but I think it would be a good idea to link the volumes that are complete on Wikisource directly into the table in the section "First series contents". -- PBS (talk) 00:29, 28 September 2011 (UTC)

ODNB ON-LINE

"The online version has an advanced search facility, allowing a search for people by area of interest, religion and "Places, Dates, Life Events". This accesses an electronic index that cannot be directly viewed. Unfortunately a recent analytical examination of selected ODNB articles has revealed them to be both inaccurate and incomplete, particularly the older biographies; this issue will have to be addressed by new Editor Sir David Cannadine who takes over the editorship from October 2014."

2.30.190.118 (talk) 13:50, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

You can't use original research in Wikipedia, also use Neutral POV. ~~ Sintaku ^Talk 13:52, 15 March 2014 (UTC)

If we are going to include this "recent analytical examination", we have to be able to cite it. We can't simply refer to a study without any details by which the reader can assess its validity or relevance. I'm not saying it shouldn't be included (goodness knows, errors in a work this size shouldn't surprise anyone) but please make sure this is published somewhere before continuing to add it back in. Andrew Gray (talk) 13:07, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

ODNB online access

If somebody has online access to the Oxford DNB, the editor could possibly assist with a query on Commons. Schwede66 01:20, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Apocryphal biographies in the Dictionary of National Biography

The topic of apocryphal biographies is not notable on its own, nor is it long enough to justify a standalone article. (Alternatively, the apocryphal article could simply be deleted.) Pburka (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

The apocryphal items barely look like notable content even within an article. Suggest just drop the merge and put the Apocryphal up for deletion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:54, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

NB: there was a deletion discussion a year ago which leaned towards merging with this article. I'm not sure what, if anything, is worth merging. Tagging AfD participants @Agricolae, Vorbee, Cavrdg, Coolabahapple, Rich Farmbrough, Ealdgyth, Hzh, and Peterkingiron:. Pburka (talk) 19:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• only if it is a null merge, i.e. a redirect. I am the one who nominated it for deletion before, so there will be no surprise where I am coming from. It is basically an entire article that is nothing but an errata summary. If these non-individuals are deemed individually notable, then they should have their own article (as a notable 'hoaxes' or fictional individuals), but the fact that DNB contained non-people should not be included in the DNB article unless someone has gone and published an article about 'DNB included some people who didn't actually exist' or featured the fact prominently in a broader retrospective article on DNB. Otherwise the fact that it includes non-existent individuals is just a personal editorial observation, and those is not supposed to be put in articles (let alone serve as the basis for articles). Including it in the DNB article without anyone who has written about DNB calling attention to this phenomenon ignores WP:PROPORTION entirely. This whole page arose because someone created a page for Kirkman Finlay based on a Wikisource DNB entry but because it was deemed inappropriate on some level to have a page for a non-person it was 'fixed' by turning it into a page summarizing multiple non-people, with the other entries added via OR/SYNTH; there was never any 'source' that supported Apocryphal DNBians being a notable group, any more than were I to write an article on DNBians born on Leap Day. So yes, that page has no business being a stand alone article, but it doesn't really have anything to merge that actually belongs here. Agricolae (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2019 (UTC)
• The fact that a non-existent person from the recent past was believed in for many years is important. If we do not document these things moreover, they will resurrect from time to time. You can see this on List of best selling books which regularly adds the claim, debunked on the talk page, and in the Times Literary Supplement, that Tale of Two Cities has sold 220 million copies.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:48, 23 June 2019 (UTC).

Are there reliable sources you can point to which discuss this topic (i.e. non-existent people in the DNB)? Pburka (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

• I'm going to go ahead and make the redirect. The article's history is still present should anyone wish to salvage any of the content. Pburka (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"the dictionary was becoming less and less useful as a reference work"

Added {{Original research inline}} to this sentence, since even if "written from a Victorian perspective and had become out of date due to changes in historical assessments and discoveries of new information during the twentieth century" (this sentence itself is unsourced), this conclusion is not up to the level of WP:BLUE. ネイ (talk) 16:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Without a cite, this seems to be editorializing. I just removed it and put a 'citation needed' for the remainder of the paragraph. Agricolae (talk) 17:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

History

A section on history and precursors is needed. There is a good overview in the introduction of the work.

1. Several general purpose English biography dictionaries exist before this one.
2. A mention of existing similar works for Europe countries should be made as the motivation for this work
3. A mention of how this work was assembled. Name lists published every three months, selecting authors for each name, editorial work structure, publication mechanics
4. statistics on the edition versus how long each volume took to produce

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Dictionary_of_National_Biography,_1885-1900/Statistical_Account 2600:1700:D591:5F10:394A:9A22:92A4:E073 (talk) 19:41, 1 January 2023 (UTC)