![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is there some way to make an entry sort properly on the Category page? So you could add something like {{1911|LastName, FirstName}}. —wwoods 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Templates should not have categories.
I don't even know why we have this template in the first place—the content is public domain, so there is no right of attribution to Britannica, and it doesn't help us in any way further edit or understand the articles. But slapping a category on the template is definitely a problem. Postdlf 04:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I entirely concur, at least with the parts wrt the category. I disagree about the template itself - I think that it is, at the very least, polite to our readers to tell them when an article derives from a source from 1911. john k 04:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The only use of having a category, first of all, for articles from a common source is if that source requires some verification or updating, as is the case with a 1911 encyclopedia. So I can understand grouping those together to some extent. But after that has been done, the 1911 Britannica is a mere reference, not a defining feature of the article. List it under the "References" header and be done with it—no category. I think the template should be changed to reflect its temporary importance, perhaps adding a phrase like "After this article has been edited and the information verified to be current, please remove this template and list the Britannica under references." Postdlf 16:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From my talk page:
==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter==
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent talk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter==
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent talk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
More from my talk page:
Sorry if my 'venue' for bringing it up was inappropriate... I didn't want to actually suggest deleting the code from the templates themselves because of the possibility of a later reversion to an article reactivating the deprecated parameter. These are only very recently empty, because I ran through the members and fixed them the other day. I've actually been working on the various categories like these as a 'group', at this point really just fixing the fact that most aren't marked as tracking categories or empytcats. In the process I've found some that had been deleted, but are now populated, and I assume that they were at some point in the past empty.
I'm actually not going to push on with it now, because it does work the way it currently is. I do think it would make a lot of sense to, eventually, break out parts of the code for the 'more functional' ones of these templates into a set of 'subroutine' templates for writing these things. There are quite a few that give very poor attribution (just boilerplate text) , or don't have the error tracking functionality, or don't use CS1 and so don't add COiNS, and it would be a lot easier to deal with them as a 'set' rather than trying to rewrite 100-odd templates individually. At the same time, some of the 'best' of these templates actually sort into a single error category, and use 'sorting names' for those categories to group the articles by the specific error. This seems to me to be a more sensible system, at least for the ones that don't have a massive backlog, because there's less to keep an eye on. Revent talk 05:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The parameter Wikisource was originally used by me in this code, but after discussions it was decided to use wstitle (a parameter with is now used in dozens of templates). The wikisource parameter has been deprecated in the documentation two years, and as you have now flagged it, it is time to remove it from the code as this simplifies the code (which is always a good thing).
In my opinion it is also time to remove the other unused parameters because they have been removed or deprecated in the documentation for as long. The only parameter which is possibly contentions is the unnamed parameter, but removing that makes it much easier to check for errors or to pass the variable on into CS1 so that CS1 can flag it.
I think I owe you an explanation for the different categories, the primary reason is that for editors who do not use AWB (or something similar) or are not familiar with regular expressions; having specific categories is easier for them to use for editing purposes. The second is that Wikisource used to contain a lot of entries and was an easy one to fix, and the problem with article was it was not clear if the parameter article should be replaced with wstitle or title (in most cases title is more appropriate) but as it was an old parameter in some case the article now exists on Wikisource so wstitle is more appropriate. The secondary reason is not breaking something that ain't broke: Error checking for Wikisource was added before the other parameter checks so leaving well enough alone is less likely to break code.
-- PBS ( talk) 11:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
|article=
and |wikisource=
go to the 'incorporating text' categories, while |footnote=
and |no-prescript=
go to the 'incorporating a citation' categories. It works, but it's not the most 'obvious' thing to figure out without having an explanation or looking at the code.@ user:SMcCandlish See its entry in the OED aide-mémoire (which says it is in use in both American and British English) as does the online oxforddictionaries: aide-memoire -- PBS ( talk) 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It is my intention to alter the code so that in future unnamed parameters are passed through to {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
to handle. Currently it handles them thus:
{{cite encyclopedia|author=Fred |Book title (no parameter)|publisher=Modern Books}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "Book title (no parameter)" ignored (
help)Given that this is the default behaviour of all the standard citation templates, I think it is time that this template started to handle unnamed parameters in the same way. -- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopaedia}}
behavior at the time, if I had known about it. And I started writing this reply on the side of consistency, which is important, but I come down on the side of our occasional casual reader.
David Brooks (
talk)
18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "Book title" ignored (
help){{cite encyclopedia|author Fred |title=Book title |publisher=Modern Books}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Text "author Fred" ignored (
help)@ user:Wikid77 please explain your thinking behind this edit, because I have reverted it as it seems to work as I expected and I do not understand what it is that you mean. -- PBS ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Copied from Template talk:Cite EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)@ user:Wikid77: That is the point we do not accept unnamed parameters which is why they are passed on for error-handeling. -- PBS ( talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
EB1911|pagename}}
with parameter 1 intended as 'title=pagename' or also {{
cite EB1911}}." what is your evidence for this? I ask because there is a category "
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unnamed parameter" (that was created in March 2011) and I have not noticed lots of entries in that category recently (only the two I mentioned above). So please can you provide some diffs to support your assertion. --
PBS (
talk)
20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@
user:Wikid77 I looked at the history of your changes around the time that you say you came across error in EB1911 that justified your changing the template. But most of the inline text were the type of mistakes that we want to pick up. eg missing out the = in volume3 or placing a | between page=|354, so far from justifying the change the mistakes highlight why passing on such errors to be processed by {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
is desirable.
Extended content
|
---|
|
However this exercise did throw up an mismatch in the logic of the if statements around the categories. The articles with an unnamed parameter were not being placed into the unnamed category by the template {{
cite EB1911}}
if either wstitle= or title= were present. I have fixed that. Thanks for discovering it. --
PBS (
talk)
19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Once the fix mentioned in the last paragraph was put in place (05:41, 27 April 2016) six articles were found to contain an unamed parameter all of them have now been fixed:
This is why it is useful to pass unnamed parameters to {{
cite encyclopedia}}
--
PBS (
talk)
10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Zackmann08 and PBS, you are edit warring on a template instead of discussing. Please discuss.
I suggest two items for discussion:
1. How should unknown parameters be tracked, if at all, on this template? The deprecated parameter categories may have been empty, but what should happen if someone uses one in the future?
2. Should this template be merged with {{ Cite EB1911}}? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
EB1911}}
is like it says an attribution template. It exists to meet the requirements of
WP:Plagiarism guideline. {{
Cite EB1911}}
is a wrapper used by this template and it is useful as a citation template for those articles that include facts based on a EB1911 article, but the text is not copied from an EB1911 article. There are dozens of template pairs such as this. Eg {{
DNB}}
and {{
cite DNB}}
{{
Cite EB1911}}
does still contain some (all?) of those redundant parameters so the category is still needed.-- PBS ( talk) 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently,
Category:Pages using EB1911 with unknown parameters seems to be occupied by articles that contain the parameter |short=x
. I can't remember what this used to be for. What should replace it?--
Auric
talk
17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
|short=
described there. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)It might be nitpicking, but in my experience the archive pages for this talk page are confusing: Archive 2 only has discussions from 2004 while Archive 1 has discussions from 2004 to 2014 but in a random order. Bever ( talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Before I post an edit request for it: Would wikilinking Cambridge University Press in the template be considered excessive? Trivialist ( talk) 17:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a redundant header on the main Template page - "quick explanation" by itself is enough, the term "aide-mémoire" is unneeded. Shearonink ( talk) 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
Is there some way to make an entry sort properly on the Category page? So you could add something like {{1911|LastName, FirstName}}. —wwoods 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)
Templates should not have categories.
I don't even know why we have this template in the first place—the content is public domain, so there is no right of attribution to Britannica, and it doesn't help us in any way further edit or understand the articles. But slapping a category on the template is definitely a problem. Postdlf 04:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I entirely concur, at least with the parts wrt the category. I disagree about the template itself - I think that it is, at the very least, polite to our readers to tell them when an article derives from a source from 1911. john k 04:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
The only use of having a category, first of all, for articles from a common source is if that source requires some verification or updating, as is the case with a 1911 encyclopedia. So I can understand grouping those together to some extent. But after that has been done, the 1911 Britannica is a mere reference, not a defining feature of the article. List it under the "References" header and be done with it—no category. I think the template should be changed to reflect its temporary importance, perhaps adding a phrase like "After this article has been edited and the information verified to be current, please remove this template and list the Britannica under references." Postdlf 16:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
From my talk page:
==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter==
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent talk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter==
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent talk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)
More from my talk page:
Sorry if my 'venue' for bringing it up was inappropriate... I didn't want to actually suggest deleting the code from the templates themselves because of the possibility of a later reversion to an article reactivating the deprecated parameter. These are only very recently empty, because I ran through the members and fixed them the other day. I've actually been working on the various categories like these as a 'group', at this point really just fixing the fact that most aren't marked as tracking categories or empytcats. In the process I've found some that had been deleted, but are now populated, and I assume that they were at some point in the past empty.
I'm actually not going to push on with it now, because it does work the way it currently is. I do think it would make a lot of sense to, eventually, break out parts of the code for the 'more functional' ones of these templates into a set of 'subroutine' templates for writing these things. There are quite a few that give very poor attribution (just boilerplate text) , or don't have the error tracking functionality, or don't use CS1 and so don't add COiNS, and it would be a lot easier to deal with them as a 'set' rather than trying to rewrite 100-odd templates individually. At the same time, some of the 'best' of these templates actually sort into a single error category, and use 'sorting names' for those categories to group the articles by the specific error. This seems to me to be a more sensible system, at least for the ones that don't have a massive backlog, because there's less to keep an eye on. Revent talk 05:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
The parameter Wikisource was originally used by me in this code, but after discussions it was decided to use wstitle (a parameter with is now used in dozens of templates). The wikisource parameter has been deprecated in the documentation two years, and as you have now flagged it, it is time to remove it from the code as this simplifies the code (which is always a good thing).
In my opinion it is also time to remove the other unused parameters because they have been removed or deprecated in the documentation for as long. The only parameter which is possibly contentions is the unnamed parameter, but removing that makes it much easier to check for errors or to pass the variable on into CS1 so that CS1 can flag it.
I think I owe you an explanation for the different categories, the primary reason is that for editors who do not use AWB (or something similar) or are not familiar with regular expressions; having specific categories is easier for them to use for editing purposes. The second is that Wikisource used to contain a lot of entries and was an easy one to fix, and the problem with article was it was not clear if the parameter article should be replaced with wstitle or title (in most cases title is more appropriate) but as it was an old parameter in some case the article now exists on Wikisource so wstitle is more appropriate. The secondary reason is not breaking something that ain't broke: Error checking for Wikisource was added before the other parameter checks so leaving well enough alone is less likely to break code.
-- PBS ( talk) 11:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
|article=
and |wikisource=
go to the 'incorporating text' categories, while |footnote=
and |no-prescript=
go to the 'incorporating a citation' categories. It works, but it's not the most 'obvious' thing to figure out without having an explanation or looking at the code.@ user:SMcCandlish See its entry in the OED aide-mémoire (which says it is in use in both American and British English) as does the online oxforddictionaries: aide-memoire -- PBS ( talk) 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
It is my intention to alter the code so that in future unnamed parameters are passed through to {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
to handle. Currently it handles them thus:
{{cite encyclopedia|author=Fred |Book title (no parameter)|publisher=Modern Books}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "Book title (no parameter)" ignored (
help)Given that this is the default behaviour of all the standard citation templates, I think it is time that this template started to handle unnamed parameters in the same way. -- PBS ( talk) 13:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopaedia}}
behavior at the time, if I had known about it. And I started writing this reply on the side of consistency, which is important, but I come down on the side of our occasional casual reader.
David Brooks (
talk)
18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Text "Book title" ignored (
help){{cite encyclopedia|author Fred |title=Book title |publisher=Modern Books}}
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Text "author Fred" ignored (
help)@ user:Wikid77 please explain your thinking behind this edit, because I have reverted it as it seems to work as I expected and I do not understand what it is that you mean. -- PBS ( talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Copied from Template talk:Cite EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling
{{
cite encyclopedia}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)@ user:Wikid77: That is the point we do not accept unnamed parameters which is why they are passed on for error-handeling. -- PBS ( talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
{{
EB1911|pagename}}
with parameter 1 intended as 'title=pagename' or also {{
cite EB1911}}." what is your evidence for this? I ask because there is a category "
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unnamed parameter" (that was created in March 2011) and I have not noticed lots of entries in that category recently (only the two I mentioned above). So please can you provide some diffs to support your assertion. --
PBS (
talk)
20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
@
user:Wikid77 I looked at the history of your changes around the time that you say you came across error in EB1911 that justified your changing the template. But most of the inline text were the type of mistakes that we want to pick up. eg missing out the = in volume3 or placing a | between page=|354, so far from justifying the change the mistakes highlight why passing on such errors to be processed by {{
cite encyclopaedia}}
is desirable.
Extended content
|
---|
|
However this exercise did throw up an mismatch in the logic of the if statements around the categories. The articles with an unnamed parameter were not being placed into the unnamed category by the template {{
cite EB1911}}
if either wstitle= or title= were present. I have fixed that. Thanks for discovering it. --
PBS (
talk)
19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
Once the fix mentioned in the last paragraph was put in place (05:41, 27 April 2016) six articles were found to contain an unamed parameter all of them have now been fixed:
This is why it is useful to pass unnamed parameters to {{
cite encyclopedia}}
--
PBS (
talk)
10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
Zackmann08 and PBS, you are edit warring on a template instead of discussing. Please discuss.
I suggest two items for discussion:
1. How should unknown parameters be tracked, if at all, on this template? The deprecated parameter categories may have been empty, but what should happen if someone uses one in the future?
2. Should this template be merged with {{ Cite EB1911}}? – Jonesey95 ( talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
{{
EB1911}}
is like it says an attribution template. It exists to meet the requirements of
WP:Plagiarism guideline. {{
Cite EB1911}}
is a wrapper used by this template and it is useful as a citation template for those articles that include facts based on a EB1911 article, but the text is not copied from an EB1911 article. There are dozens of template pairs such as this. Eg {{
DNB}}
and {{
cite DNB}}
{{
Cite EB1911}}
does still contain some (all?) of those redundant parameters so the category is still needed.-- PBS ( talk) 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently,
Category:Pages using EB1911 with unknown parameters seems to be occupied by articles that contain the parameter |short=x
. I can't remember what this used to be for. What should replace it?--
Auric
talk
17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
|short=
described there. –
Jonesey95 (
talk)
18:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)It might be nitpicking, but in my experience the archive pages for this talk page are confusing: Archive 2 only has discussions from 2004 while Archive 1 has discussions from 2004 to 2014 but in a random order. Bever ( talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
Before I post an edit request for it: Would wikilinking Cambridge University Press in the template be considered excessive? Trivialist ( talk) 17:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)
This is a redundant header on the main Template page - "quick explanation" by itself is enough, the term "aide-mémoire" is unneeded. Shearonink ( talk) 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)