This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the template. Is it possible to add a parameter ref=[<id> as has been done for the cite XXX family and the citation template? The reason for asking is that if NHLE is used in a bibliography along with citation entries, the latter generate anchors that can be referenced in line by sfnp or Harvard citations. Might I suggest that either using just the desc or desc(num) would be suitable anchors? Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
==Article body== * Fred 1066 {{sfnp|fred|1066}} * Church of St Giles 1060971 {{sfnp|Church of St Giles|1060971}} ==Notes== {{reflist}} ==Bibliography== * {{anchor|CITEREFChurch_of_St_Giles1060971}}{{NHLE | num = 1060971 | desc = Church of St Giles | accessdate = 18 March 2013 | separator = , | ps }} * {{citation| author=fred | year=1066 | title = fred's invasion}}
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have started to use this template rather than generate my own links, but I've noticed that when multiple links to NHLE are on the same page it results in gross over-wikilinking in the reflist. Can there be a parameter where you can turn off/on the blue links ? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UCT)
Please see Template:NHLE/sandbox. I have rewritten the template as a wrapper around {{ Citation}}. I think that the the only visual change I have made is to add an author. This coupled with the hidden ref= parameter will allow this template to be placed in a references section and linked to a short citation in the body of the text. -- PBS ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Testing by another editor would be appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
ref={{SfnRef|{{{author}}}|{{{num}}} }}}
then the call in the short citation would become {{sfn|English Heritage staff|1086410}}
. I have
altered the code in the template's the sandbox (but have not tested it) see what you think. --
PBS (
talk) 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)The anchor example was just to show how I had done things before your work on the template. Getting the template right is by far the best solution, so thank you. I like what you did with SfnRef, I've tested it against my new article (and cleaned up a minor typo). Although you mentioned dates, using the number in the way you do is far better; a lot of the entries originated at the same date.
Personally, and I accept that this is a matter of preference, I would leave the "staff" off. Some of the work comes from other people, for instance the descriptions may quote earlier authors. Generally I have found that corporate publications with no identified real authors take the corporate name in library filing systems. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed, the new template does not support accessed. Is the date of retrieval important for NHLE entries? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As you did not number your choices and there are only two pairs, I am confused! However I have altered {{Template:NHLE/sandbox|num=1086410}}
to display
which will link to {{sfn|English Heritage|1086410}}
[1]
Notes:
Will this do? If not then as DavidCane suggests we could use "NHLE" as the author, with English Heritage as publisher.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |chapter=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help).which will link to {{sfn|NHLE|1086411}}
[1]
Notes:
-- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just changed St Giles over. The numbers are clickable links to the note, but hovering links through the note to the actual bibliographic entry. Likewise clicking on the text of the note links to the bibliography, so I would call that a 100% successful test. I'll wander around a few more and report back later - then I'll get back to my sandbox! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I have become an avid user of this template as I write many articles on churches and create heritage lists. But I have hit a problem when I made a nomination at FLC for List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley. The reviewer has made a number of comments, the last three of which (dated 1 September 2013) relate I think to the template; his comments are here (citations 127 and 128 are today numbered 128 and 129). I think the first of these refers to the fact that the publisher, English Heritage, displays at the start of the citation rather than, as is more usual in citation templates, towards the end (just before "retrieved on..."); the reveiewer is arguing for consistency in the appearance of the citations. The next point (now citation 138) is partly because of my choice of title, but I think the name of the church is a reasonable title (and I've added the location to make a bit more sense). The last point is about the use of the definite article; it's true that the actual title of the List does include the definite article (whether WP likes it or not). Can (should) the template be amended to make it display as:
-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Having slept on it (a few times), I am continuing with the nomination. But this has resulted in an "Oppose" from a reviewer; his/her argument is in the collapsed box here. It is in my interest, and I would argue in the interest of all those who use this template, particularly at FAC and FLC, to have this dispute resolved. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see your "Oppose" has been withdrawn, TRM has the right idea IMHO. I've edited out the link to my sandbox, I'm about to clean it up. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone else found this ? When the proposal was made that the short version of this template should be removed, all EH temps in articles had the special link to the discussion. These links seem to be still there and the only way to remove them seems to be to make an edit in articles. This is not ideal - is there a way that all templates could be automatically reverted without having to edit each article ?
Also, can we extend the discussion - see discussion in section above - on the rendering of this template ? My view - as was mentioned in the short template removal discussion - is that the "English Heritage" appearing at the start of the render can be a problem when reading a list of them in an article, the subject of the temp not being immediately apparent, as it is in the Pastscape template. A counter view, if I got the gist, was that EH was not just the publisher but the creator/author of the text, thereby being correct to be the first item. However, if we look at the entries on their web site, EH is sometimes not the author, but it takes stuff from other sources, particularly Pevsner, to build up their text. If the EH listing text is purely EH's, I still can't see how an organisation can be the author, that attribution should be with the field officer who noted the information - they never mentioned of course. Acabashi ( talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why this has been resurrected, I thought that a satisfactory solution had been found a couple of months back. Regarding the special links: do they help the reader? WP:RF really is applicable here, the casual reader is not interested in a debate about Wiki's internals and house style. I do agree that an automated removal would be a good idea, in the mean time an edit-save really doesn't take that long. Turning now to the author issue. The template has an author field, so if there is a clearly defined author they can be credited. If there is no named author, EH corporately is the default. Consider a newspaper: if there is a by-line the journalist is credited, otherwise the paper gets the credit. As a further example, earlier this evening I was citing the Methodist Hymn-book. Do I list the several hundred authors, or just the authors of the first six hymns? What about composers? The book was assembled by a committee of the Methodist Conference, and so I would suggest that the MEthodist Conference corporately was the only sensible "author" (possibly editor). The only alternative is to use "Anon" which adds nothing. We must be careful to find the best solution, not to straitjacket every citation into a format designed for books when we are not handling a book. To quote from the very first page of WP:MOS:
This
guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with
common sense, and
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
When short form citations are used within the article (either <ref>{{harv...}}</ref> or {{sfn...}}), then CITEREFs are important for the reader to navigate to a usable citation. In addition, keeping the inline citation short helps editors to deal with the content, not to wade through multiple lines of citation (IMHO).
I am also concerned about the worries over a publisher. Including the publisher in a citation was essential in the pre-ISBN days of book publishing. It is possible to argue that a publisher and place are redundant if the ISBN is given: who cares which office organised the printing and binding, it is content and authorship that matter and the number identifies the book to the trade. For an online database the author is the "content provider" and the publisher the "web site host", is the host relevant to any researcher given that they have a URL? Online pages might retain the distinction between the page author and site webmaster, but that doesn't apply to NHLE.
PBS's comments about Goodraise's points are bang on the nail. Keep the citation style constant - yes. Is it relevant to this particular discussion - no.
I'm sorry if this has been a bit critical of some valued contributors. I'm worried that we can drift of into "navel-gazing" discussions when what is required is (1) clear and concise citations for the reader and (2) assistance, not barriers, to editors proving content. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In reply to Peter I. Vardy comment " and don't understand the long/short citation stuff." Using the article List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley as an example this inline footnote contains a long citation:
If the article is to have a consistent style in footnotes it should be moved down into the References section and a short citation placed inline:
Likewise all the English Heritage full citations should have been moved down to the references section and replaced with short citations eg:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)and the long inline citation replaced with a short one:
I hope that helps to explain the difference between short and long citations. It is more generally explained in the citation guideline a link to the appropriate section in that guideline exists it is called WP:CITESHORT. If you have any further questions about short and long citations then please post a message to my talk page and I will try to answer them. -- PBS ( talk) 13:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The NHLE redirect to here, following a merge, seems to be broken - could a template expert look into it please. eg cite 4 in Newbridge, Bath - all the cites on that page seem broken, probably in consequence to the NHLE problem, so it seems to have wide consequences. Rwendland ( talk) 21:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure why the template has been changed recently. The link used to go via the title of the property, which seemed to make sense. It now goes through "National Heritage List for England", which is common to all references, and seems to me a bit odd/ Is there a good reason? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
which underlies this template. In the past, |url=
would be promoted to |chapter=
if |chapter-url=
was not used. With the change, |chapter=
gets |chapter-url=
, and |title=
gets |url=
and the two no longer intermix.|title=
and changed |url=
to |chapter-url=
. This may not have worked as well as it should and at the moment I need to attend to real life. I will get back to it, if someone doesn't beat me to it, in a few hours.{{
English Heritage List entry}}
is essentially citing the English Heritage website. The recent change to
Module:Citation/CS1 took away a 'feature' that this template relied upon. This template, in certain cases, also corrupted the rendered citation's
COinS metadata. When |short=
was assigned a value, {{English Heritage List entry}}
wrapped the value of |num=
in {{
noitalic}}
. It did this because {{
citation}}
without a value for |work=
would otherwise render the short version of {{English Heritage List entry}}
in italics. The problem is that {{noitalic}}
adds css markup to the citation title which is something that no template should do.{{citation}}
to {{
cite web}}
, changes |title=
to |work=
(for the National Heritage List for England text), changes |chapter=
to |title=
, deletes {{noitalics}}
from |work=
, moves {{{num}}}
from |work=
to |title=
, and also restores the wikilink markup for the National Heritage List for England text that was removed by Editor Gilo1969. A diff of the current broken live template and the sandbox is
here.|short=y
behaviour correct, but it's putting it in quotation marks, which the current version doesn't do and isn't really appropriate for just the bare number output. --
Dr Greg
talk 02:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
noitalics}}
template. I think that comparing the sandbox to the current live template is problematic because we wouldn't be here discussing it if the change to
Module:Citation/CS1 had not happened. So why do you believe that the short form should be italicized?|short=y
. I misspoke when I say that it had been always been rendered quoted in upright font. The use of
{{
noitalics}}
accomplished that at the expense of corrupted metadata.{{
harv}}
or {{
sfn}}
reference, no anything else normally expected from a citation) we could simply make a test in the template that would build an external wikilink whenever |short=
is set. New code in the sandbox takes this:
{{NHLE/sandbox|num=1197069|short=y|ps=none}}
[https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1197069 1197069]
|short=
is empty or omitted are unaffected. The sandbox code for these other cases still makes reference to |short=
so there is a bit of cleanup yet to do if this is an acceptable solution.|separator=
has been deprecated and replaced with new parameter |mode=
in CS1 and CS2 templates. Because the underlying template is {{
cite web}}
, |mode=
may be omitted or left blank. When the predominant citation style in an article is
Citation Style 2, setting |mode=cs2
will render {{cite web}}
as if it were a CS2 ({{
citation}}
) template.
|separator=
is still present in the {{English Heritage List entry}}
template so that
Module:Citation/CS1 will properly categorize and emit error messages for those templates that use |separator=
. When those templates have been updated to use |mode=
, |separator=
support in {{English Heritage List entry}}
may be removed.
|ps=
is no longer assigned a default value. The value assigned to |ps=
will override the setting determined by |mode=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|separator=
is discussed.|separator=
, specify either a full stop or a comma.
Module:Citation/CS1 has, for a very long time preceding the most recent update, used the content of |separator=
as an indicator flag to switch modes from CS1 style to CS2 style. I have seen a few cases where editors used |separator=;
but they are quite rare and, when used, create a non-standard style. I have yet to find an entire article of CS1-like citation templates that specify a separator character that is not one of the two default characters.|ps=
has not been removed from {{English Heritage List entry}}
nor |postscript=
from CS1. Because
Module:Citation/CS1 sets the default postscript character according to the template that invokes it, in this case {{
cite web}}
via {{English Heritage List entry}}
, there is no need to specify that same default character in {{English Heritage List entry}}
. Otherwise, |ps=
→ |postscript=
continues to function as it did previously.|style=
to |mode=
but objections were raised so it's |mode=
.I think you miss the point. Just because something is not widely used that is no reason to remove it, particularly when the decision is made by less than half a dozen participating editors. You have come here to change a template and are basically telling anyone who objects lump it or leave it. It does not even seem to cross you mind that perhaps you ought to roll back the change and instead of removing parameters just add the new one and see if it is adopted. -- PBS ( talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In this case, notwithstanding lack of discussion elsewhere, the parameter is unnecessary because the template formats with a dot without it anyway. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
|separator=
in {{
English Heritage List entry}}
was to allow editors to style this template like {{
citation}}
which uses a comma for the separator character. The comma also forced
Module:Citation/CS1 to leave off terminal punctuation and render certain static text provided by the template in lowercase, for example the text added for access dates; all this, same as {{citation}}
. That functionality was replaced with |mode=
which it is hoped more clearly defines what happens.So called public fora are not really the place for technically oriented discussions because, for the most part, editors don't understand or don't care. Trappist, surely the same could be said in reverse: those who are interested in the technical side of things often don't understand or (seemingly) care about the impact on content. - Sitush ( talk) 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@ DrKiernan you ought not to be changing the template while discussions about the changes are ongoing ([[WP:BRD). -- PBS ( talk) 10:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
EH is splitting into two parts (see this) and the part that looks after listing, etc is to be called Historic England. So this will mean a lot of work on the template and to references currently linking to EH. Is there any way of making this easier? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This page suggests that the change only becomes effective on 1 April 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid all of this has broken the linkage between templates. I had a quick look at All Saints Church, Frindsbury. {{sfnp|English Heritage|1107886}} in the text generates "English Heritage (1107886)" as a citation and a CITEREFEnglish_Heritage1107886. {{ NHLE}} in the bibliography has an id of CITEREFHistoric_England11078864, which of course don't link. Is it possible to detect programatically where such breaks have occurred? For instance any page generating CITEREFEnglish_HeritageNNNNNNN must be suspect. Sorry, more problems and no more answers. :-( Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
{{sfn|English Heritage|1001472}}
to {{sfn|Historic England|1001472}}
{{harvnb|English Heritage|1001472}}
(sfn[^\|]*|harv[^\|]*)
to replace sfn, and you may want to add to \|English Heritage\|
some space checking \| *English Heritage *\|
to catch formatting changes. As there is more than one way to skin a cat and you may have used another form of regular expression it would help find a fix if you would show us what it is that you used (and to educate me if you used some other regular expression). --
PBS (
talk) 00:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{sfn|English Heritage|1
, Replace: {{sfn|Historic England|1
(The 1 at the end was used to exclude simple short footnotes like {{sfn|English Heritage|ps=}}
).{{sfnp|English Heritage
, Replace: {{sfnp|Historic England
.See Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Though I will add that moving templates is largely pointless, creating redirects saves a lot of time. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
– These are three related citation templates which each refer to a separate database maintained by Historic England. Ideally the names should be consistant, particuarly when they are being used in the same article; my preference would be for {{ National Heritage List for England}}, {{ Images of England}} and {{ PastScape}}, alternatively the titles should all be preceeded with "Cite" or followed with "entry". Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) PC78 ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There's a citation error on
Wilford Suspension Bridge that says |orig-date=
is being ignored. The documentation here says it's a valid parameter, as long as either |date=
or |year=
are used, and "date" is present. Could someone who understands the template look into what's going on there, and either fix it or update the documentation to make clear it's deprecated?
I've also seen an influx of errors on other articles about |ps=
, which I've dutifully turned into |postscript=
. I mention that only in case it wasn't an intentional change and |ps=
is still supposed to work.
Mortee (
talk) 09:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|orig-date=
has never been supported by this template, but |orig-year=
is. I've update the documentation accordingly. Since |ps=
was an undocumented alias for |postscript=
, I didn't think it would have many uses and was tracking to check. Thanks for updating the ones that you saw. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 10:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|orig-date=
error only showed up this morning. If I see more, I'll cut the month/day information and switch to |orig-year=
.
Mortee (
talk) 10:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|ps=
, it's hard to know how common it is since they're trickling into
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, but they're certainly around. Lists of works by architects like
Thomas Harrison and
G. E. Street are the most strikingly affected. Perhaps a more expert AWB user than me could fix them up in bulk.
Mortee (
talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|ps=
at the start of the month.
Keith D (
talk) 01:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the purpose of |access-date=
, for this template? There is no |archive-url=
and even if there was, no URL in the wikisource (only a |num=
) so the archive bots and automated archivers would skip it. Possibly it might be in case the source changes so you can reference an older version, but again, likely no archive to reference. This template is neither here or there the worst of all worlds.
The problem is it breaks the model established by CS1|2. The non-CS1|2 external link templates were meant to be used in places where CS1|2 didn't make sense such as in External links sections or talk pages, not for citations. If the concern is that the source URL sometimes change and to only need to change it in one place, that is easily fixed with a bot run in 30 minutes. That rare and minor problem is far outweighed by the need to maintain citations consistently by the wide number of tools that use and expect CS1|2. -- Green C 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
doesn't refer to archiving, but to the date on which an editor verified that the information in the article was supported by the reference. The reference here is the number in the Historic England database, which fulfils the role of a URL. If you were to remove |access-date=
you would need to substitute something along the lines of |verified-on= which is a pointless duplication of fields.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 15:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)|access-date=
is sort of sketchy in terms of indicating the source says what it should. Theoretically every few years someone checks the source, updates the |access-date=
to indicate it was checked, but in reality it very rarely happens. Usually the |access-date=
is added by whoever creates the cite (and they are not always reliable in terms of what the source actually says), then it never changes. The only practical benefit is for archives in terms of knowing which timestamp to use in case the link does dead. --
Green
C 16:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)|archive-date=
is the parameter which dates the archive; see
Template:Cite web/doc#Date for more information.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 17:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Why has this happened? What is to be done? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed recently that there is peculiar use of the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
families of template when used to link to this template. Particularly, like this:
{{harvnb|Historic England|1188692}}
→
Historic England & 1188692 ← extraneous ampersandbut it does make a wikilink to:
{{National Heritage List for England|num=1188692}}
To make the target anchor ID, this template does this:
|ref={{SfnRef|{{{author|Historic England}}}|{{{num}}}}}
which makes the anchor ID: CITEREFHistoric_England1188692
Rewriting the {{harvnb}}
template so that it makes visual sense, renders a wikilink to nowhere:
{{harvnb|Historic England 1188692}}
→
Historic England 1188692But, it can be rewritten another way:
{{harvnb|Historic England 1188692|ref=CITEREFHistoric England1188692}}
→
Historic England 1188692Because that requires editors hand-code the |ref=
parameter, editors who maintain this template might want to consider writing wrapper templates for {{harv}}
and {{sfn}}
. Consider,perhaps, {{
nhle harv}}
and {{
nhle sfn}}
that each take two parameters: {{{1}}}
for author name or 'Historic England' and {{{2}}}
for the identifier number. For the visual rendering, these two parameters are concatenated, separated as you choose, and provided to the short-cite template as its first parameter. For the anchor ID link, concatenate |ref=CITEREF{{{1}}}{{{2}}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
. Instead of forking, you can wrap as I have suggested above.{{
cadw harv}}
and {{
hes harv}}
) for use with these other templates too.
EdwardUK (
talk) 03:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)An (@ Phoebe MSDS: has created a useful set of records for Protect Wrecks, such as South Edinburgh Channel Wreck. The NHLE listing for a historic wreck has a title such as "South Edinburgh Channel" which gives no indication what it is. The record has a field "Heritage category" which says "Maritime Wreck". I can't see anywhere in the template where I could include this information (I toyed with fudging the description into "South Edinburgh Channel: Maritime Wreck"). Presumably there are other useful categories for Registered Battlefields, Parks & Gardens, where the same thing may apply.
Just as we can include the grade for a listed building, it would be useful to be able to include the category for records which are not buildings - it would make sense to leave this null for "ordinary" listings of buildings. Any thoughts? Pam D 09:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|type=
may be appropriate, having a pre-defined list of possible values, with building not been displayed unless explicitly given. The problem may be the expansion limits on the list articles if the template is changed. May be the switch to use "Template wrapper" could be removed if this were to happen.
Keith D (
talk) 11:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:PastScape#Pastscape end of life which is somewhat related to this template. It is not an especially lively discussion. If anyone has an opinion please weigh in. TiB chat 12:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the space after{{{desc}}}
in the line that begins |title=
. This causes the output to display a double space before (Grade) instead of a single space – as can be seen in the fourth example of the template documentation. This is an identical issue to one found and changed in the lesser used (and therefore less-protected) Scottish and Welsh equivalents of this template – It has been tested in the sandbox for this template.
EdwardUK (
talk) 16:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(Grade {{{grade}}})
to:
#if:{{{grade|}}}
Dave.Dunford ( talk) 12:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
if (<grade> is not empty) then
if (<grade> = scheduled) then
append non-breaking space plus "(scheduled monument)"
else
append non-breaking space plus "(Grade <grade>)"
I made a similar suggestion in 2020.
Dave.Dunford ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Thanks for the template. Is it possible to add a parameter ref=[<id> as has been done for the cite XXX family and the citation template? The reason for asking is that if NHLE is used in a bibliography along with citation entries, the latter generate anchors that can be referenced in line by sfnp or Harvard citations. Might I suggest that either using just the desc or desc(num) would be suitable anchors? Regards, Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
==Article body== * Fred 1066 {{sfnp|fred|1066}} * Church of St Giles 1060971 {{sfnp|Church of St Giles|1060971}} ==Notes== {{reflist}} ==Bibliography== * {{anchor|CITEREFChurch_of_St_Giles1060971}}{{NHLE | num = 1060971 | desc = Church of St Giles | accessdate = 18 March 2013 | separator = , | ps }} * {{citation| author=fred | year=1066 | title = fred's invasion}}
Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
I have started to use this template rather than generate my own links, but I've noticed that when multiple links to NHLE are on the same page it results in gross over-wikilinking in the reflist. Can there be a parameter where you can turn off/on the blue links ? Thanks. Acabashi ( talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013 (UCT)
Please see Template:NHLE/sandbox. I have rewritten the template as a wrapper around {{ Citation}}. I think that the the only visual change I have made is to add an author. This coupled with the hidden ref= parameter will allow this template to be placed in a references section and linked to a short citation in the body of the text. -- PBS ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
Testing by another editor would be appreciated. -- PBS ( talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
ref={{SfnRef|{{{author}}}|{{{num}}} }}}
then the call in the short citation would become {{sfn|English Heritage staff|1086410}}
. I have
altered the code in the template's the sandbox (but have not tested it) see what you think. --
PBS (
talk) 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)The anchor example was just to show how I had done things before your work on the template. Getting the template right is by far the best solution, so thank you. I like what you did with SfnRef, I've tested it against my new article (and cleaned up a minor typo). Although you mentioned dates, using the number in the way you do is far better; a lot of the entries originated at the same date.
Personally, and I accept that this is a matter of preference, I would leave the "staff" off. Some of the work comes from other people, for instance the descriptions may quote earlier authors. Generally I have found that corporate publications with no identified real authors take the corporate name in library filing systems. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just noticed, the new template does not support accessed. Is the date of retrieval important for NHLE entries? Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
As you did not number your choices and there are only two pairs, I am confused! However I have altered {{Template:NHLE/sandbox|num=1086410}}
to display
which will link to {{sfn|English Heritage|1086410}}
[1]
Notes:
Will this do? If not then as DavidCane suggests we could use "NHLE" as the author, with English Heritage as publisher.
{{
citation}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); External link in |chapter=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help).which will link to {{sfn|NHLE|1086411}}
[1]
Notes:
-- PBS ( talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
I've just changed St Giles over. The numbers are clickable links to the note, but hovering links through the note to the actual bibliographic entry. Likewise clicking on the text of the note links to the bibliography, so I would call that a 100% successful test. I'll wander around a few more and report back later - then I'll get back to my sandbox! Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
I have become an avid user of this template as I write many articles on churches and create heritage lists. But I have hit a problem when I made a nomination at FLC for List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley. The reviewer has made a number of comments, the last three of which (dated 1 September 2013) relate I think to the template; his comments are here (citations 127 and 128 are today numbered 128 and 129). I think the first of these refers to the fact that the publisher, English Heritage, displays at the start of the citation rather than, as is more usual in citation templates, towards the end (just before "retrieved on..."); the reveiewer is arguing for consistency in the appearance of the citations. The next point (now citation 138) is partly because of my choice of title, but I think the name of the church is a reasonable title (and I've added the location to make a bit more sense). The last point is about the use of the definite article; it's true that the actual title of the List does include the definite article (whether WP likes it or not). Can (should) the template be amended to make it display as:
-- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Having slept on it (a few times), I am continuing with the nomination. But this has resulted in an "Oppose" from a reviewer; his/her argument is in the collapsed box here. It is in my interest, and I would argue in the interest of all those who use this template, particularly at FAC and FLC, to have this dispute resolved. -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Glad to see your "Oppose" has been withdrawn, TRM has the right idea IMHO. I've edited out the link to my sandbox, I'm about to clean it up. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
Has anyone else found this ? When the proposal was made that the short version of this template should be removed, all EH temps in articles had the special link to the discussion. These links seem to be still there and the only way to remove them seems to be to make an edit in articles. This is not ideal - is there a way that all templates could be automatically reverted without having to edit each article ?
Also, can we extend the discussion - see discussion in section above - on the rendering of this template ? My view - as was mentioned in the short template removal discussion - is that the "English Heritage" appearing at the start of the render can be a problem when reading a list of them in an article, the subject of the temp not being immediately apparent, as it is in the Pastscape template. A counter view, if I got the gist, was that EH was not just the publisher but the creator/author of the text, thereby being correct to be the first item. However, if we look at the entries on their web site, EH is sometimes not the author, but it takes stuff from other sources, particularly Pevsner, to build up their text. If the EH listing text is purely EH's, I still can't see how an organisation can be the author, that attribution should be with the field officer who noted the information - they never mentioned of course. Acabashi ( talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm not entirely sure why this has been resurrected, I thought that a satisfactory solution had been found a couple of months back. Regarding the special links: do they help the reader? WP:RF really is applicable here, the casual reader is not interested in a debate about Wiki's internals and house style. I do agree that an automated removal would be a good idea, in the mean time an edit-save really doesn't take that long. Turning now to the author issue. The template has an author field, so if there is a clearly defined author they can be credited. If there is no named author, EH corporately is the default. Consider a newspaper: if there is a by-line the journalist is credited, otherwise the paper gets the credit. As a further example, earlier this evening I was citing the Methodist Hymn-book. Do I list the several hundred authors, or just the authors of the first six hymns? What about composers? The book was assembled by a committee of the Methodist Conference, and so I would suggest that the MEthodist Conference corporately was the only sensible "author" (possibly editor). The only alternative is to use "Anon" which adds nothing. We must be careful to find the best solution, not to straitjacket every citation into a format designed for books when we are not handling a book. To quote from the very first page of WP:MOS:
This
guideline is a part of the English Wikipedia's
Manual of Style. It is a generally accepted standard that editors should attempt to follow, though it is best treated with
common sense, and
occasional exceptions may apply. Any substantive edit to this page should reflect
consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the
talk page. |
When short form citations are used within the article (either <ref>{{harv...}}</ref> or {{sfn...}}), then CITEREFs are important for the reader to navigate to a usable citation. In addition, keeping the inline citation short helps editors to deal with the content, not to wade through multiple lines of citation (IMHO).
I am also concerned about the worries over a publisher. Including the publisher in a citation was essential in the pre-ISBN days of book publishing. It is possible to argue that a publisher and place are redundant if the ISBN is given: who cares which office organised the printing and binding, it is content and authorship that matter and the number identifies the book to the trade. For an online database the author is the "content provider" and the publisher the "web site host", is the host relevant to any researcher given that they have a URL? Online pages might retain the distinction between the page author and site webmaster, but that doesn't apply to NHLE.
PBS's comments about Goodraise's points are bang on the nail. Keep the citation style constant - yes. Is it relevant to this particular discussion - no.
I'm sorry if this has been a bit critical of some valued contributors. I'm worried that we can drift of into "navel-gazing" discussions when what is required is (1) clear and concise citations for the reader and (2) assistance, not barriers, to editors proving content. Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 23:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In reply to Peter I. Vardy comment " and don't understand the long/short citation stuff." Using the article List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley as an example this inline footnote contains a long citation:
If the article is to have a consistent style in footnotes it should be moved down into the References section and a short citation placed inline:
Likewise all the English Heritage full citations should have been moved down to the references section and replaced with short citations eg:
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |access-date=
(
help); Unknown parameter |separator=
ignored (
help)and the long inline citation replaced with a short one:
I hope that helps to explain the difference between short and long citations. It is more generally explained in the citation guideline a link to the appropriate section in that guideline exists it is called WP:CITESHORT. If you have any further questions about short and long citations then please post a message to my talk page and I will try to answer them. -- PBS ( talk) 13:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
The NHLE redirect to here, following a merge, seems to be broken - could a template expert look into it please. eg cite 4 in Newbridge, Bath - all the cites on that page seem broken, probably in consequence to the NHLE problem, so it seems to have wide consequences. Rwendland ( talk) 21:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
I am not sure why the template has been changed recently. The link used to go via the title of the property, which seemed to make sense. It now goes through "National Heritage List for England", which is common to all references, and seems to me a bit odd/ Is there a good reason? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
which underlies this template. In the past, |url=
would be promoted to |chapter=
if |chapter-url=
was not used. With the change, |chapter=
gets |chapter-url=
, and |title=
gets |url=
and the two no longer intermix.|title=
and changed |url=
to |chapter-url=
. This may not have worked as well as it should and at the moment I need to attend to real life. I will get back to it, if someone doesn't beat me to it, in a few hours.{{
English Heritage List entry}}
is essentially citing the English Heritage website. The recent change to
Module:Citation/CS1 took away a 'feature' that this template relied upon. This template, in certain cases, also corrupted the rendered citation's
COinS metadata. When |short=
was assigned a value, {{English Heritage List entry}}
wrapped the value of |num=
in {{
noitalic}}
. It did this because {{
citation}}
without a value for |work=
would otherwise render the short version of {{English Heritage List entry}}
in italics. The problem is that {{noitalic}}
adds css markup to the citation title which is something that no template should do.{{citation}}
to {{
cite web}}
, changes |title=
to |work=
(for the National Heritage List for England text), changes |chapter=
to |title=
, deletes {{noitalics}}
from |work=
, moves {{{num}}}
from |work=
to |title=
, and also restores the wikilink markup for the National Heritage List for England text that was removed by Editor Gilo1969. A diff of the current broken live template and the sandbox is
here.|short=y
behaviour correct, but it's putting it in quotation marks, which the current version doesn't do and isn't really appropriate for just the bare number output. --
Dr Greg
talk 02:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
{{
noitalics}}
template. I think that comparing the sandbox to the current live template is problematic because we wouldn't be here discussing it if the change to
Module:Citation/CS1 had not happened. So why do you believe that the short form should be italicized?|short=y
. I misspoke when I say that it had been always been rendered quoted in upright font. The use of
{{
noitalics}}
accomplished that at the expense of corrupted metadata.{{
harv}}
or {{
sfn}}
reference, no anything else normally expected from a citation) we could simply make a test in the template that would build an external wikilink whenever |short=
is set. New code in the sandbox takes this:
{{NHLE/sandbox|num=1197069|short=y|ps=none}}
[https://HistoricEngland.org.uk/listing/the-list/list-entry/1197069 1197069]
|short=
is empty or omitted are unaffected. The sandbox code for these other cases still makes reference to |short=
so there is a bit of cleanup yet to do if this is an acceptable solution.|separator=
has been deprecated and replaced with new parameter |mode=
in CS1 and CS2 templates. Because the underlying template is {{
cite web}}
, |mode=
may be omitted or left blank. When the predominant citation style in an article is
Citation Style 2, setting |mode=cs2
will render {{cite web}}
as if it were a CS2 ({{
citation}}
) template.
|separator=
is still present in the {{English Heritage List entry}}
template so that
Module:Citation/CS1 will properly categorize and emit error messages for those templates that use |separator=
. When those templates have been updated to use |mode=
, |separator=
support in {{English Heritage List entry}}
may be removed.
|ps=
is no longer assigned a default value. The value assigned to |ps=
will override the setting determined by |mode=
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 12:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
|separator=
is discussed.|separator=
, specify either a full stop or a comma.
Module:Citation/CS1 has, for a very long time preceding the most recent update, used the content of |separator=
as an indicator flag to switch modes from CS1 style to CS2 style. I have seen a few cases where editors used |separator=;
but they are quite rare and, when used, create a non-standard style. I have yet to find an entire article of CS1-like citation templates that specify a separator character that is not one of the two default characters.|ps=
has not been removed from {{English Heritage List entry}}
nor |postscript=
from CS1. Because
Module:Citation/CS1 sets the default postscript character according to the template that invokes it, in this case {{
cite web}}
via {{English Heritage List entry}}
, there is no need to specify that same default character in {{English Heritage List entry}}
. Otherwise, |ps=
→ |postscript=
continues to function as it did previously.|style=
to |mode=
but objections were raised so it's |mode=
.I think you miss the point. Just because something is not widely used that is no reason to remove it, particularly when the decision is made by less than half a dozen participating editors. You have come here to change a template and are basically telling anyone who objects lump it or leave it. It does not even seem to cross you mind that perhaps you ought to roll back the change and instead of removing parameters just add the new one and see if it is adopted. -- PBS ( talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
In this case, notwithstanding lack of discussion elsewhere, the parameter is unnecessary because the template formats with a dot without it anyway. DrKiernan ( talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
|separator=
in {{
English Heritage List entry}}
was to allow editors to style this template like {{
citation}}
which uses a comma for the separator character. The comma also forced
Module:Citation/CS1 to leave off terminal punctuation and render certain static text provided by the template in lowercase, for example the text added for access dates; all this, same as {{citation}}
. That functionality was replaced with |mode=
which it is hoped more clearly defines what happens.So called public fora are not really the place for technically oriented discussions because, for the most part, editors don't understand or don't care. Trappist, surely the same could be said in reverse: those who are interested in the technical side of things often don't understand or (seemingly) care about the impact on content. - Sitush ( talk) 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
@ DrKiernan you ought not to be changing the template while discussions about the changes are ongoing ([[WP:BRD). -- PBS ( talk) 10:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
EH is splitting into two parts (see this) and the part that looks after listing, etc is to be called Historic England. So this will mean a lot of work on the template and to references currently linking to EH. Is there any way of making this easier? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
This page suggests that the change only becomes effective on 1 April 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
I'm afraid all of this has broken the linkage between templates. I had a quick look at All Saints Church, Frindsbury. {{sfnp|English Heritage|1107886}} in the text generates "English Heritage (1107886)" as a citation and a CITEREFEnglish_Heritage1107886. {{ NHLE}} in the bibliography has an id of CITEREFHistoric_England11078864, which of course don't link. Is it possible to detect programatically where such breaks have occurred? For instance any page generating CITEREFEnglish_HeritageNNNNNNN must be suspect. Sorry, more problems and no more answers. :-( Martin of Sheffield ( talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
{{sfn|English Heritage|1001472}}
to {{sfn|Historic England|1001472}}
{{harvnb|English Heritage|1001472}}
(sfn[^\|]*|harv[^\|]*)
to replace sfn, and you may want to add to \|English Heritage\|
some space checking \| *English Heritage *\|
to catch formatting changes. As there is more than one way to skin a cat and you may have used another form of regular expression it would help find a fix if you would show us what it is that you used (and to educate me if you used some other regular expression). --
PBS (
talk) 00:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
{{sfn|English Heritage|1
, Replace: {{sfn|Historic England|1
(The 1 at the end was used to exclude simple short footnotes like {{sfn|English Heritage|ps=}}
).{{sfnp|English Heritage
, Replace: {{sfnp|Historic England
.See Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset. – Wbm1058 ( talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. Though I will add that moving templates is largely pointless, creating redirects saves a lot of time. Jenks24 ( talk) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
– These are three related citation templates which each refer to a separate database maintained by Historic England. Ideally the names should be consistant, particuarly when they are being used in the same article; my preference would be for {{ National Heritage List for England}}, {{ Images of England}} and {{ PastScape}}, alternatively the titles should all be preceeded with "Cite" or followed with "entry". Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) PC78 ( talk) 09:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
There's a citation error on
Wilford Suspension Bridge that says |orig-date=
is being ignored. The documentation here says it's a valid parameter, as long as either |date=
or |year=
are used, and "date" is present. Could someone who understands the template look into what's going on there, and either fix it or update the documentation to make clear it's deprecated?
I've also seen an influx of errors on other articles about |ps=
, which I've dutifully turned into |postscript=
. I mention that only in case it wasn't an intentional change and |ps=
is still supposed to work.
Mortee (
talk) 09:02, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|orig-date=
has never been supported by this template, but |orig-year=
is. I've update the documentation accordingly. Since |ps=
was an undocumented alias for |postscript=
, I didn't think it would have many uses and was tracking to check. Thanks for updating the ones that you saw. —
JJMC89 (
T·
C) 10:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|orig-date=
error only showed up this morning. If I see more, I'll cut the month/day information and switch to |orig-year=
.
Mortee (
talk) 10:59, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|ps=
, it's hard to know how common it is since they're trickling into
Category:Pages with citations using unsupported parameters, but they're certainly around. Lists of works by architects like
Thomas Harrison and
G. E. Street are the most strikingly affected. Perhaps a more expert AWB user than me could fix them up in bulk.
Mortee (
talk) 19:43, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
|ps=
at the start of the month.
Keith D (
talk) 01:07, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
What is the purpose of |access-date=
, for this template? There is no |archive-url=
and even if there was, no URL in the wikisource (only a |num=
) so the archive bots and automated archivers would skip it. Possibly it might be in case the source changes so you can reference an older version, but again, likely no archive to reference. This template is neither here or there the worst of all worlds.
The problem is it breaks the model established by CS1|2. The non-CS1|2 external link templates were meant to be used in places where CS1|2 didn't make sense such as in External links sections or talk pages, not for citations. If the concern is that the source URL sometimes change and to only need to change it in one place, that is easily fixed with a bot run in 30 minutes. That rare and minor problem is far outweighed by the need to maintain citations consistently by the wide number of tools that use and expect CS1|2. -- Green C 05:17, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
|access-date=
doesn't refer to archiving, but to the date on which an editor verified that the information in the article was supported by the reference. The reference here is the number in the Historic England database, which fulfils the role of a URL. If you were to remove |access-date=
you would need to substitute something along the lines of |verified-on= which is a pointless duplication of fields.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 15:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)|access-date=
is sort of sketchy in terms of indicating the source says what it should. Theoretically every few years someone checks the source, updates the |access-date=
to indicate it was checked, but in reality it very rarely happens. Usually the |access-date=
is added by whoever creates the cite (and they are not always reliable in terms of what the source actually says), then it never changes. The only practical benefit is for archives in terms of knowing which timestamp to use in case the link does dead. --
Green
C 16:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)|archive-date=
is the parameter which dates the archive; see
Template:Cite web/doc#Date for more information.
Martin of Sheffield (
talk) 17:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)Why has this happened? What is to be done? -- Peter I. Vardy ( talk) 18:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
I have noticed recently that there is peculiar use of the {{
harv}}
and {{
sfn}}
families of template when used to link to this template. Particularly, like this:
{{harvnb|Historic England|1188692}}
→
Historic England & 1188692 ← extraneous ampersandbut it does make a wikilink to:
{{National Heritage List for England|num=1188692}}
To make the target anchor ID, this template does this:
|ref={{SfnRef|{{{author|Historic England}}}|{{{num}}}}}
which makes the anchor ID: CITEREFHistoric_England1188692
Rewriting the {{harvnb}}
template so that it makes visual sense, renders a wikilink to nowhere:
{{harvnb|Historic England 1188692}}
→
Historic England 1188692But, it can be rewritten another way:
{{harvnb|Historic England 1188692|ref=CITEREFHistoric England1188692}}
→
Historic England 1188692Because that requires editors hand-code the |ref=
parameter, editors who maintain this template might want to consider writing wrapper templates for {{harv}}
and {{sfn}}
. Consider,perhaps, {{
nhle harv}}
and {{
nhle sfn}}
that each take two parameters: {{{1}}}
for author name or 'Historic England' and {{{2}}}
for the identifier number. For the visual rendering, these two parameters are concatenated, separated as you choose, and provided to the short-cite template as its first parameter. For the anchor ID link, concatenate |ref=CITEREF{{{1}}}{{{2}}}
.
— Trappist the monk ( talk) 15:39, 4 April 2020 (UTC)
{{
sfn}}
. Instead of forking, you can wrap as I have suggested above.{{
cadw harv}}
and {{
hes harv}}
) for use with these other templates too.
EdwardUK (
talk) 03:13, 4 June 2020 (UTC)An (@ Phoebe MSDS: has created a useful set of records for Protect Wrecks, such as South Edinburgh Channel Wreck. The NHLE listing for a historic wreck has a title such as "South Edinburgh Channel" which gives no indication what it is. The record has a field "Heritage category" which says "Maritime Wreck". I can't see anywhere in the template where I could include this information (I toyed with fudging the description into "South Edinburgh Channel: Maritime Wreck"). Presumably there are other useful categories for Registered Battlefields, Parks & Gardens, where the same thing may apply.
Just as we can include the grade for a listed building, it would be useful to be able to include the category for records which are not buildings - it would make sense to leave this null for "ordinary" listings of buildings. Any thoughts? Pam D 09:31, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
|type=
may be appropriate, having a pre-defined list of possible values, with building not been displayed unless explicitly given. The problem may be the expansion limits on the list articles if the template is changed. May be the switch to use "Template wrapper" could be removed if this were to happen.
Keith D (
talk) 11:41, 16 October 2020 (UTC)There is a move discussion in progress on Template talk:PastScape#Pastscape end of life which is somewhat related to this template. It is not an especially lively discussion. If anyone has an opinion please weigh in. TiB chat 12:24, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove the space after{{{desc}}}
in the line that begins |title=
. This causes the output to display a double space before (Grade) instead of a single space – as can be seen in the fourth example of the template documentation. This is an identical issue to one found and changed in the lesser used (and therefore less-protected) Scottish and Welsh equivalents of this template – It has been tested in the sandbox for this template.
EdwardUK (
talk) 16:57, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
(Grade {{{grade}}})
to:
#if:{{{grade|}}}
Dave.Dunford ( talk) 12:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
if (<grade> is not empty) then
if (<grade> = scheduled) then
append non-breaking space plus "(scheduled monument)"
else
append non-breaking space plus "(Grade <grade>)"
I made a similar suggestion in 2020.
Dave.Dunford ( talk) 12:58, 28 October 2023 (UTC)