Summary

Dictionary of National Biography… (1886)

Yes, before implementing radical change, we should at least go through the volume seeing exactly where all the problems are. And I think that suggests priority for a "mapping subproject", identifying:
progress with adding text; images so corrupt as to be useless and in need of replacement; calculation of the "offset" (image number minus page number) which should be constant if there are no glitches; progress with the master volume lists; progress with adding titles to author listings. Ouch. Plenty of work. But we really need some of these project management tools to open up areas of work.
Source: Wikisource

Dictionary of National Biography… (1886)

If it is too hard to work out what a parent structure is for Portal page, it won't happen, or it will sit somewhere weird, and that is less than helpful. — billinghurst sDrewth 04:27, 16 September 2010 (UTC) I'm in favour of structuring, not yet in favour of this proposal. A portal, in library terms, mixes features of a display of books and a card index. A hierarchical structure, analogous to a category system, seems less inviting than an invitation to stroll around the library until you find an area of interest.
Source: Wikisource

Dictionary of National Biography… (1886)

Sometimes, but not always, the linked person also happens to be an author: When this is the case we should have a link in the "info" section of the named DNB article to the author page. This is metadata, not wikisource transcription. On the other hand, a [see...] link, or other inline ref, or an entry in the list of authorities, was clearly intended to guide the DNB reader to the correct reference material outside of DNB. In these cases, we should link the author name to the author page, because the original intent is clearly to provide the name of an author, not the name of a DNB article.
Source: Wikisource

Get perspective with Kwize: daily news enlightened by great literature