Template talk:EB1911

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject Wikisource  (Inactive)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.

Linking Cambridge University Press[edit]

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)

I don't have strong feelings for or against showing the link in general (I wouldn't find it excessive), but I'm concerned about consistency. First, either linking or not should be consistent across EB1911 and Cite EB1911. Than should we link Charles Scribner's Sons in EB9? What about templates that reference other classic encyclopedias like CE, DNB or NIE; none of those links the publisher. So I'd say no for this reason; you really should do it on all or none. @PBS: you may have an opinion. David Brooks (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Like David Brooks I have not strong opinions on it, however I lean to not doing so. The reason for this is that we can end up with the whole line blue linked, for example Chisholm, Hugh and many of the authors of articles are notable in their own right, and so I think it brings confusion as it makes identifying the important link (the article) less easy to identify. If the reader wants to identify the publisher of the article that can be found in the article link and it may be more accurate as the article publisher may change from time to time depending on the source used at Wikisource. For example the first volume contains two copyright notices. The first is copyrighted to the "Chancellor ... University of Cambridge" (which is shown by Wikisource) the second a couple of pages later to "Copyright the United States of America 1910 by the Encyclopaedia Britannica Company" as this particular volume was published in New York,[1] one could argue that we ought to change the publisher to "Encyclopaedia Britannica Company" but in my opinion that is less informative that the current Cambridge University, (although the publisher is not explicitly given it simply says "Cambridge England: at the University Press New York, 35 West 32nd Street 1910" — which being pedantic is the printer not the publisher).
At a practical level, I bet you (Trivialist) came to this template because you are searching for all instances of "Cambridge University Press" in Wikipedia and linking the string, this template obviously shows up in thousands of articles, hence you reason for wanting to link it. I have given you reasons not to do so, but if you decide to go ahead I will not revert it. -- PBS (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, @DavidBrooks and PBS: you both raise good points. I suspected that there were reasons for leaving it unlinked (at the very least, avoiding having nearly the whole line be blue links), so I thought I'd ask before suggesting anything further. I have no plans to make an edit request for the change. Trivialist (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick explanation (aide-mémoire)?...[edit]

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)

use template wrapper[edit]

I have edited the sandbox version of this template to use Module:template wrapper. ~/sandbox uses {{cite EB1911/sandbox}} which is a proposed replacement for {{cite EB1911}}.

There is a ~/testcases page for this template. None of the comparisons agree. The reasons for most of these disagreements are listed at Template talk:Cite EB1911 § use template wrapper. At testcase 7, the bogus positional parameter parameter 1 is passed to {{cite EB1911}} which passes it to {{cite encyclopedia}} which calls Module:Citation/CS1 which emits the Text "parameter 1" ignored error message. There is no error message for ~/sandbox because Module:template wrapper does not pass positional parameters to the working template (in this case {{cite EB1911/sandbox}}).

{{{1|}}} is not a documented parameter. Does it have a purpose? Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unnamed parameter is empty. Is there any reason, either here or at {{cite EB1911}}, to retain this parameter and its associated code and category?

Pending the answer to the above question and without objection to updating Template:cite EB1911, I shall update live template to the code in ~/sandbox.

Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There having been no comments, {{{1|}}} and Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unnamed parameter removed, live template updated.
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not populating "without wikisource" category?[edit]

I ran across Act of Sederunt which currently has {{EB1911}} with |title=, but it doesn't appear in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference. Should it be so included, or am I misunderstanding something? I realize the template just wraps {{Cite EB1911}}, but that shouldn't make a difference. David Brooks (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

As long as the template is hidden inside <!--...--> tags, it won't be executed so won't add the category.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
Sharp eyes... I had missed that large excision. As you were. David Brooks (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hide in Print tfd[edit]

Because {{Hide in print}} is tfd'd, citations that use {{EB1911}} display two annoying flags (one of them because it wraps {{Cite EB1911}}, which is also afflicted). I assume the usage is obsolete but can't see exactly how to fix either of them, so can a template-coding expert remove them safely? @PBS, Trappist the monk, Headbomb, and Jonesey95: can one of you help? David Brooks (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Editor Headbomb added {{hide in print}} to:
{{EB1911}} at this edit
{{cite EB1911}} at this edit
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
A general problem with TFDs. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
True dat. And general-purpose readers just see the non-actionable ugly. But the general rule is that we shouldn't remove the template usage until the community actually agrees to delete it, right? Although I understand in this specific case the template is a noop. David Brooks (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
This conversation has gotten me to wonder why {{cite EB1911}} has this:
{{hide in print|1=
 optional icon - included by default
-->{{#if:{{{no-icon|{{{noicon|}}}}}}||{{#ifeq: {{{wstitle|}}}||[[File:PD-icon.svg|12px|alt=|link=]]&nbsp;}}}}<!-- optional public domain icon when wstitle is missing or empty
{{cite EB1911}} is, as I understand it, a 'normal' citation template, really just like any of the cs1|2 templates, so why does it have the public-domain icon when a wikisource page is not provided? {{EB1911}} on the other hand, is an attribution template so perhaps icons (wikisource and public domain) are more appropriate for instances of that template.
There are other {{cite ...}} wrapper-templates (usually paired with an attribution-type template) that have similar icon handling. Do the {{cite ...}} members of these template pairs really need the public domain icon? I'm thinking that public domain icon support in the various {{cite ...}} wrapper templates should go away.
I am not suggesting that the wikisource icon that replaces the usual external link icon should go away. I think it is important for readers to know that clicking on a wikisource-linked title in these templates links to an off-Wikipedia location.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)