Wikisource (inactive)
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Wikisource, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.WikisourceWikipedia:WikiProject WikisourceTemplate:WikiProject WikisourceWikisource

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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 category 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stbalbach (talk • contribs) 16:14, 29 August 2004‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 13:43, 29 August 2004‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)[reply]

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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)[reply]

• 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 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)[reply]

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)

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}}
• Fred. 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)[reply]

That is a particularly meaningless phrase to present to non-editing readers who have never heard of templates, let alone parameters, when the current behavior often does exactly the right thing (i.e. if the EB1911 WS article exists). I understand I should have made that objection to the {{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)[reply]

I may have confused the situation by placing in the text (no parameter) removing that gives

• Fred. Modern Books. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Book title" ignored (help)

The message is there for the editing readers. It can be more specific if for example an = sign is missed out on an otherwise legitimate expression eg:

• {{cite encyclopedia|author Fred |title=Book title |publisher=Modern Books}}
• Book title. Modern Books. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Text "author Fred" ignored (help)

--PBS (talk) 07:22, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Looks better; no objection now. David Brooks (talk) 21:10, 29 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Y Done.

I have also added a ^{article name needed} request for an article name if none is provided, and I have removed a couple of old parameters that have not been used for years, so simplifying the code. -- PBS (talk) 22:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

An early example where passing through an unnamed parameter helped detect an error: Louis Veuillot (diff) -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Here is another example in Artemy Volynsky diff -- PBS (talk) 22:13, 7 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

I know what it means. Most readers don't. It's an unnecessary "francophemism" that isn't helpful in the context, or it would be a standard feature of template documentation use this phrase as a heading above lists or tables of example. It does not suit the context or content, anyway, since a section in a wiki page is not a book, document, informal diplomatic message, draft/outline/summmary of a agreement, "non-paper" or negotiating proposal, reminder or memo, or mnemonic device (pulling additional definitions from TheFreeDictionary, YourDictionary, Merriam-Webster Online, Wiktionary, etc.). This is simply a segment of technical documentation. (I actually wasn't aware of the definition being this specific, but it's always carried an implication of being a separate (portable) document, that is draft/negotiatory or "talking points" in nature, with only uncommon and frankly pretty iffy metaphorical use as term for a reminder or a memorization trick. But whatever. Not the kind of thing I'd re-revert about. :-) Honestly, I'm pretty sure someone will remove it later and replace the entire section subheading with the de factor standard "Examples".  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ≼  12:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]