Here's an issue which arose with my edit to Ahmad Shah.I replaced " Initial text from 1911 encyclopedia" with {{MSG:1911}}, which expands to "This article incorporates text from the public domain 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. Please update as needed." Jay felt the "Please update as needed" was out of context here and should not be used for pages that have already been updated from a rough first draft. Would it be best,therefore, to have a more generic message here that includes both those that are direct copies of 1911 material, and those that have been changed? Angela. 01:34, 25 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Either we drop the "update as needed" or we add another msg for this. We could use {{MSG:1911}} for articles intially based on EB and {{MSG:1911needsupdate}} for "raw" imports. -- User:Docu

I think just having one would be easier. people can add the "please update" part manually if they feel it needs it. Angela. 11:11, Jan 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hmm .. now that we managed replacing most of the other "please update" ?

Maybe the stub notice would do .. ;-) -- User:Docu

This msg needs a '' at the end of it, otherwise any text following the {{msg:1911}} becomes italized. Example: the end of Jan Swammerdam (look at the ==See also==)

--Gabbe 14:28, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. :) Angela. 20:29, May 3, 2004 (UTC)

Mike Storm added Category:1911 Britannica but did not create the actual category. The real question though, does it actually serve a useful purpose to add all the 1911 derived articles to a category? If you want to know what's using it, just click the "What links here" link. I posed the question on IRC and no one objected to me removing the category link from the template so I have just done that. RedWolf 05:38, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

Then why don't you remove category links included in almost all templates? The point of categories is that you don't have to use Whatlinkshere or other tricks. Also, I thought (stupid me) that just creating the link and then waiting for the category to refresh would create the category. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 17:52, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I really think you should wait for a better consensus before re-adding the category link. The 1911 template is a frequently used template and adding it just because you think it's good for you, doesn't mean it's acceptable to everyone else. I don't agree with having it in the template. RedWolf 19:20, Aug 10, 2004 (UTC)

I don't have to wait for a consensus for every tiny little thing. If you don't like the category, then don't use it. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 19:49, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I just used the category link after looking at Andaman Islands. It's therefore useful to some users, at least me. I vote it stays. _R_ 22:11, 12 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeah I agree it should stay. Why not have a catagory link? I can't see any reason why not, and can think of reasons why it would help. For example for those who are adding artciles it's a quick way to scan what has allready been done.Stbalbach

Maybe we should update the suggested use of the template on 1911 Encyclopaedia_Britannica, to make sure both ways work (through Category:1911 Britannica or Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:1911 ). That page still suggests the initially favored "subst:" version of including boilerplates. -- User:Docu

I really don't like the category. Because the template link goes higher in the page than other categories, that makes 1911 Britannica the first category in just about every article that contains the {{1911}} template. I think it's better, in general, to have categories that actually indicate things that the article subject was, rather than "interesting things about the article" listed first. And I don't really approve of categories as substitutes for "what links here", anyway. john k 03:07, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

When should the 1911 template be removed? For example, Godfrey of Bouillon is now no longer directly copied from the EB, and has had info added, so at best the EB is a source, if it is even that. Can the template be removed in cases like that, or do people still want it? Adam Bishop 00:38, 16 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If the 1911 EB was still a main source of information, then the template should stay. [[User:Mike Storm|Mike∞Storm]] 00:11, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

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)

As it's a category primarly used to extract a set of articles, I don't think it's that important. -- User:Docu

Templates should not have categories.

1. Category addition needs to be done on an article-by-article basis.
2. It's confusing to less experienced editors where the hell the category is coming from too. (took me awhile to figure it out)
3. There's no way to sort articles within the categories when it's applied through a template. The pipe-sorting trick mentioned above that we use with categories does not work through templates.
4. Templates automatically place their category first, so that "1911 Britannica" is the invariably first classification that comes up on these articles.

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)

• I thought about it a bit more, and realized that such content does need to be flagged by the template only so that it can be verified and updated. Once this has been done, however, there is no need to label it as such. Do it under "references", if you must, but at that point the fact that it originally came from a 1911 source has no bearing on the article. Postdlf 05:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Did you read Wikipedia:Cite your sources ? -- User:Docu

• In general, if it's a template that is used consistently, it's most conveniant to use one to add a category. Category:Days is added through a template, and it saved a lot of edits. -- User:Docu

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)

This bot has been used by its owner Bluemoose (talk · contribs) to move this template under the References heading. I disagree with this action, for a number of reasons:

1. References are usually primary resources, and an encyclopaedia is a secondary resource
2. References are places you are directed to to check the veracity of the text in the article: in this case, the article is based on the 1911, so you would go elsewhere to check the validity of the 1911 itself.

Is there concensus for Bluebot's actions? Noisy | Talk 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please read the Wikipedia:Manual of style and Wikipedia:Cite sources, which say to put sources under a references heading. Also, the bot isn't really "moving" the template, it is adding the heading, because at present the 1911 tag often just floats around at the bottom somewhere, which is definately wrong. Plently of articles already use the 1911 tag under a references heading as well. Martin 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the edit is proper. What I wish it was also doing was converting the template text into article text, so as to remove the stupid category. Postdlf 17:50, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

That can be done very easily, although I think it would be too unpopular, I think the rationale is that people can see a list of articles with 1911 text and update it. thanks Martin 18:01, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but then the category should be removed after it's been updated...I don't think that's happening. Postdlf 18:09, 13 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

As stated on Wikipedia talk:Bots, Bluebot's use is consistent with Wikipedia:1911_Encyclopaedia_Britannica#Recommended_reference_style.

Besides, I'd favor if you'd converted the cases where the text was inserted directly into the article with templates (back in times before we used templates). -- User:Docu

... appears below this template's text and above the succeeding section, in all articles that use this template just above the beginning of any new section. Why? Can this be fixed? Michael Hardy 02:35, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Everything should be on one line. Possibly you need to remove the secondary <noinclude> part. -- User:Docu