Probably there are legal needs, i strongly feel there might be some. Otherwise i am not in the situation to re-type it personally. Well, personally i see a need to disclaim "scientifically outdated", i.e. The only way WS can host all the material it does without being biased to not make these sorts of judgements about what is politically correct. I think it is quite clear the info is from 1911 and also every page has a link to the modern WP article which should give anyone accurate and up to date info. Nikemoto2511 07:57, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Reply I strongly disagree. I have not yet taken a look at it, but guess this one might be a "template" candidate.
![2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print 2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print](https://static.digit.in/default/thumb_11249_default_td_480x480.jpg)
the "torpedo" article might glorify torpedos using specific language, which has become "politically incorrect". It should only be required for a fraction of 5 percent of the articles. The templates shall explicitely inform that "the article data is not intend for unprocessed copying into new articles, research etc". Not everyone (especially underdeveloped countries) knows present age political situation, and together with poor english might misunderstand something generally. Well, it can produce a health risk if somone spreads outdated scientific information on diseases. Apwoolrich 07:43, 28 April 2006 (UTC) Reply The introductory pages to EB1911 on both WS and WP make plain the problems of using these texts uncritically, and I feel this is sufficient. WS exists to host texts as they are, not to try and second guess what texts might or might not be acceptable and note them. I disagree with the need for special templates on these topics. These templates are to inform that the data should not be processed without verification. Articles which are scientifically outdated.Articles which are "political incorrect" as of present age.Today i have included the index of volume 27 (T). As for the dog's mess of tables and charts eventually we weill ahve to tackle those issues and we shouldnt rely on Project Gutenberg to do everything for us.- LEMPERERUR1988 23:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Reply En Wikipedia 1911 project As for the particular article ballstics I could see how an article expaining the mathematic principles of artillery could be of intrest especially comparing it to the modern paragraph given by today's Brittanica. And I can see a clear purpose for it, in that therer are some important ot intresting articles that we should attempt to put up instead of waiting for Project Gutenebrg to complete it. The long articles category originally started off on wikibooks as "articles of intrest".
![2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print 2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print](https://laughingsquid.com/wp-content/uploads/EncycBrit1913.jpg)
Is there any reason why we do not have a similar list of 'short articles'! Apwoolrich 07:41, 11 October 2005 (UTC) Reply We have! Special:Shortpages Indeed I wonder at the need for a special category of 'long articles'. Seriously, I am not clear if notice ought to be taken of this entry to the list, and wonder if it in fact a case of vandalism. It is actually 17 columns long, stuffed with tables, graphs, some images and masses of mathematical formulae - a proper dog's breakfast to edit IMHO. Apwoolrich 19:05, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Reply Long articles - Ballistics Anything more that will will open a major can of worms which will be impossible to monitor properly. The aim of the project is to have an accurate resource for Wikipedia editors. I would hope that once the texts have been processed and confirmed as being as exact as practicable with the limitations and conventions of Mediawiki they will be locked and unable to be altered. Taxman 14:59, 17 September 2005 (UTC) Reply As far as I am concerned the text of the WS EB11 will be exactly as printed, with the addition of navigation links to articles in Wikipedia.
![2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print 2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print](http://www.mrodenberg.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/Britannica-31.jpg)
Maybe that's already clear from Wikisource policy, but I'm not familiar with that, and thought this was worth pointing out. It that the goal here, or is the 1911 trying to be improved? The intro to this page isn't clear on that point. On Wikipedia a previous proposal for a similar idea it was made clear the only goal was to proofread the 1911 text until it looked exactly like the EB with no OCR errors.
![2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print 2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print](https://imgc.allpostersimages.com/img/print/u-g-Q19E6GT0.jpg)
Hi, had a question about the focus here in relation to what this page says.
#2010 encyclopaedia britannica final print update
14 Three Update Volumes of the 12th Edition of EB and Older Editions.9 remarks that the usage/meaning, scientific view has changed since 1911.6 Article about the history and value of EB1911.Example article which doesn't use transclusion: Khnopff, Fernand Edmond Jean Marie.Example (for editors) of an article using transclusion: Smith, Albert Richard.This work has a dedicated project at Wikisource, containing sources, and coordinating activities.