Jump to content

Talk:Bibliography of George Washington

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Converting listing

[edit]

There are many hundreds of works on George Washington. However, listing them all here in one page using 'cite book' templates will eventually cause server overload problems, esp when the page is edited and saved, as the server must initialize and load every template into the page each time, often requiring minutes just to complete the save. This doesn't begin to happen until there are more than some 150+ templates on one page. I've seen this happen before with other very large bibliographies, like with the Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson which now relies on no cite book templates for its listing. Further, there is no need for templates in a stand alone listing, as there are no citations than will link to them in the article. Therefore the templates will be removed and the the various publications will be listed as is, where the page will load/save much faster when it becomes filled with the many publications for Washington. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:04, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

For some reason all the work done to clean up templates, which have no function in a stand alone listing, the authormasks, and all the url's and other info have been reverted -- major deletions with no discussion, not even an explanation in edit summary. As explained above, there will come a point when a page with too many templates will cause server issues when the page is edited and saved. This has occurred before with other large bibliographies, which now have listings without the unneeded cite book templates. (Cite book templates are used to link in-line citations with the sources in the bibliography.) There was no practical reason mentioned for this major deletion. The page has been restored with the exception of the George Washington articles now being listed under 'See also'. If there are any issues please discuss.-- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:15, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I gave an explanation... WP:CITEVAR. Do not change reference style. You are also to discuss after a revert, not edit war. Cite book template are not "unneeded" as they check for errors and help a person import the list onto their computer. You had a ton of errors that I started fixing and gave up. You started Bibliography of Thomas Jefferson in 2013, the Mediawiki software has been upgraded to handle hundreds of templates. The page will not load up faster for the average person as the article is cached with the templates already turned into HTML.
Per BRD, you are not to revert. Per WP:CITEVAR you are not to change style without discussing first. Bgwhite (talk) 22:37, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Bgwhite: Wow. Would you please lighten up with your tone and kindly not bark orders at other editors? I gave an explanation on the Talk page before making the change over and several times referred to this discussion in my edit summaries, and there were no objections or issues. The listing, without templates, along with any other portion of an article, "imports" just as easy into any computer without them. Cite book templates are not needed to "help a person import the list onto their computer". Also, you did away with the authormasks, and the many urls I added, along with the listing of George Washington articles, which I later listed under 'See also', along with the format used in the lede image caption, (i.e.the same general format style used in info boxes in the lede e.g.centering, color, etc,) with no discussion or explanation for any of these things. As for the generic referral to WP:CITEVAR, this pertains to the "citation style" for an article. The templates used in this article are not used as citations. As for catching errors, there were no "ton of errors" and there is no WP policy that says cite book templates must be used to check for errors in source listings. Also, restoring an edit once, which was deleted without discussion, is not edit waring. Please be more aware of the policies you use to justify deletions. I'll discuss this further if needed before restoring all the things you removed from this page. Would you please not engage in an edit war before making needless reverts without any real discussion in the future? Thnx. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Gwillhickers I was not barking, don't assume.
  1. No, it doesn't import easily. Templates use COinS, straight text does not.
  2. Unfortunately, removing or adding templates, but keeping the look the same goes against CITEVAR. I'm not happy about this. I want to say it was on ANI, definately in the past two months, but I can't find it at the moment. One editor was adding template, the other didn't want it. Consensus used CITEVAR
  3. You are changing styles. For example, you put the link on the page number and not the book title.
  4. There were errors. I fixed some and was starting on more. I never said template must be used. Do not put words in my mouth. I said "they check for errors" as an advantage as a response to you saying templates are uneeded.
  5. " Please be more aware of the policies you use to justify deletions." BRD. Bold, revert discuss. I reverted with CITEVAR. You are not to revert and keep editing. I am following policy, you are not.
  6. Whose barking to whom. "Would you please not engage in an edit war before making needless reverts without any real discussion in the future" With this and the "aware of the policies", your putting me down and ordering.
You given no reason why it must be changed. Per CITEVAR, don't change Bgwhite (talk) 00:16, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  1. @Bgwhite: Overall you're simply repeating yourself and not responding to a number of points brought to your attention. Once again, I gave a reason why the change was made in the beginning, on talk. Okay, the software has been upgraded, but this doesn't justify your numerous deletions, nor does it justify why you think we must use cite book templates in a stand alone listing.
  2. re: consensus. Again, I announced the change over in Talk two weeks ago. There was no consensus not to make any changes or other improvements.
  3. Please cite the policy where it says a user can not restore an edit after it was deleted once. I have violated no policy, thank you. Please be aware that there is a difference between reverting a good faith contribution and restoring it after it was deleted for no good reason.
  4. Straight text loads easily. All WP articles are written in "straight text" and have no problems loading. Also, there are many other types of lists that are written in straight text, have no problmes loading/displaying, and pose no problems to anyone or any software involved.
  5. Again, WP:CITEVAR refers to CITATION style, and does not explain all the other deletions, including author masks, urls, the 'See also' listing, caption format, etc.
  6. As for minor errors and tweaks, no doubt there were a few, certainly not "a ton" and I would have been more than happy to correct any errors if you had brought them to my attention.
  7. Barking: Yes, you gave direct and blunt orders -- once in the beginning of your message, and again, at the end where you repeated yourself in the same fashion -- unlike myself who asked, and used 'please'.
  8. Templates are unneeded in stand alone source listings, offer no advantage and do not pose any issues for the readers, with the software, or with WP policy. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliographies that don't use 'cite book'

[edit]

Just for the record, below is a partial list of major Bibliographies that don't use cite book templates, with the exception of a couple bibliographies that use it only in a few exceptional instances, certainly not as a rule. No, I didn't begin removing templates because of these bibliographies, but list them here only to demonstrate that there are many that use them with no issues to anyone, except for the one single instance here.

. . .

There are many other bibliographies that don't use the cite book template. Other than any mistakes in a particular source listing there are no real issues or problems here, so I'm not quite understanding your preoccupation here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:21, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded to your arguments. I guess I'll be repeating them again.
  1. I'm repeating myself because you are repeating and not understanding BRD and CITEVAR.
  2. You announced it earlier, but I'm objecting now. This isn't a voting deadline. I saw you change styles and I now object. Your point is moot.
  3. Again... How many times do I have to repeat WP:BRD. Try reading it. You did not restore. You reverted and continued to edit. If the article is to remain templates, most of your work is for naught. I did not want any more work to be in jeopardy. If the article is to goto text, then I'm reverted and you go on your merry way.
  4. Straight text and templates load equally well. Again... for readers not logged in, the article is cashed in HTML form. Number of templates no longer slows things down like they did. You point is moot.
  5. Per WP:CITEVAR under things to be avoided, adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently The recent ANI dust up was this. What started it was the article had both templates and text refs. Checkingfax turned everything to templates. Josh Milburn objected. There were other problems, but... CITEVAR was used to keep any text references as text. As I've already stated, you are also changing styles, such as the url placement.
  8. Again... Templates do offer advantages such as COinS and error detection.
There are no downsides to using either options, but there are advantages to templates.
Yes, you and your cohort have done many of the above and have improved them greatly. But I can name alot that used templates too ... Bibliography of Boston, Bibliography of Los Angeles, Bibliography of biology. I don't understand your preoccupation to waste many hours to reformat for nothing when keeping templates offers no disadvantages, but does offer advantages. Bgwhite (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bgwhite/Sandbox has 870 cite templates. Time to load as a logged out user in a different browser (not cached)? Less than a second. I logged into a third browser (not cached) as me and loaded it up. It took less than a second. Number of templates does not slow down any reader. Bgwhite (talk) 06:53, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've already acknowledged the idea that WP software can handle many templates and have taken your claim in good faith, but 100's of templates in a stand alone book listing is still over kill and accomplishes nothing when they are not used in conjunction with citations as they were intended. Cite book templates don't check many of the errors that still can occur. i.e.Wrong/missing ISBN number, wrong/missing year date, wrong/missing url address, wrong/missing authorlinks, wrong/missing authormasks, etc, etc. I also added url's to book titles, not page numbers, save any one time error that may have occurred. This is really reaching for arguments. You could have avoided this calamity if you simply approached me with a discussion first. Instead you deleted all the new url's I spent much time gathering and entering, along with author masks, author links, etc. You just threw all of my time and effort out the window all because of this concern for CITEVAR, which, once again, pertains to citations, and COinS, which I suspect virtually none of the readers has any use for, as anyone can locate a book with the ISBN number, and with any public library's on line computerized Dewey Decimal System. There is also 'Google' (add: whose links are included, regardless of any format). There are no pressing issues here at all. Once again, I announced my intentions about format change here in Talk, more than two weeks ago, in compliance with CITEVAR, with no objections. Once again, I have violated no policies. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read WP:BRD, which is a guideline, more carefully, esp the very first paragraph. It is an "optional method". This page also makes reference to "reverting only when necessary". It also says, "In other situations, you may have better success with alternatives to this approach. i.e."BRD doesn't work well in all situations." You have misrepresented not only my involvement here, but the rules and guidelines as well. So now what? Am I expected to re-enter all of the items you deleted because of this concern for COinS, and for CITEVAR, which pertains to changing a citation convention that goes against consensus? I invited discussion from the start, and there was no such consensus. Cite book templates are not used in most major stand alone bibliographies, nor is there any real need for them there. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 14:02, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Bgwhite: I hope I've addressed the concern for CITEVAR. Though 'cite book' templates are used to list book titles/etc in this bibliography, they are not used as citations. I had made approximately 100 separate edits over a two week period before you decided to delete it all. This was a major deletion that should have been discussed first, if for anything, out of common courtesy, as no one, readers nor editors, were being compromised here, and esp since the bibliography was being improved with the addition of numerous url's to books, authorlinks, etc. WP:DONTREVERT "For a reversion to be appropriate, the reverted edit must actually make the article worse." My contributions were improving the bibliography.
When the bibliography was created in January of 2008 it listed the books using no templates and remained that way for almost four years, by which time most of the book titles, etc, had been entered. I suppose I could justify the change back to the original format by using the same CITEVAR argument, as there was no discussion that preceded the change in format then, but that would be sort of tacky also, and again, CITEVAR pertains to citations, not the way lists are formatted in the mark-up. Before restoring all the content that was removed and to avoid any further conflict I am appealing to you out of courtesy with the hope that you are not insisting that I re-enter all of that material from scratch and that you'll realize that only improvements to the bibliography were being made here. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 15:09, 1 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking consensus

[edit]

@Happyme22, Rjensen, Srich32977, and Funandtrvl: In the interest of civility and to avoid what looks like will be an edit war if I try to restore the approximately 100 edits that were recently reverted in the name of WP:CITEVAR (which pertains to citations, not listing format) I'm seeking consensus from the creator of this bibliography along with other major contributors. For some years I've spent much of my time improving and creating history related bibliographies. More than two weeks ago I sought opinion here in Talk regarding the removal of 'cite book' templates that were simply being used to format the book listing, not as citations. There was no objection so I began converting the bibliography to its original format without using the unneeded templates. Two weeks later, and after approximately 100 edits and the addition of many urls, authorlinks, authormasks, links, formatting, etc, all of my contributions were reverted with no discussion here in talk -- just the generic referral to CITEVAR in edit summary, which pertains to citations, not listing format. When I restored my edits they were reverted again where I was ordered not to continue and was accused of edit waring and violating policy, which is simply not true. I've tried to address this problem, but the editor in question apparently has no intention of cooperating any further. Therefore I'm seeking a consensus to continue building this bibliography simply using straight text (an often used convention) and will abide by consensus whatever the result. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:52, 2 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Gwillhickers Asking your cohorts is not exactly neutral. Egads, it's also a holiday weekend and a five-day holiday weekend for me. Just because I'm not on-line for 24-hours doesn't mean I have "no intention of cooperating any further." You have to stop assuming how evil I am.
  1. CITEVAR. Again, under things to be avoided, adding citation templates to an article that already uses a consistent system without templates, or removing citation templates from an article that uses them consistently. I even linked to an ANI case this month in which consensus was not to change bare link citations in the bibliography section to templates even though there were already templates in the section. A bibliography does apply here, as well as "Further links" and "External links" sections. Per WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, Cite book may be used to format bibliography entries; for single-author lists, use authormask to avoid repeating the author's name.
  2. Gwillhickers is changing the style. For example, placing the URL on page numbers instead of book title.
  3. Gwillhickers also has brought up that alot of reference templates bogs everything down. I've disproven that as it is no longer the case with upgrades to Mediawiki since early 2013.
  4. Gwillhickers has said templates have no advantages. I've disproven that with COinS and error correction. Yes Gwilllhickers, people use COinS.
  5. Under WP:BRD, one is not revert and continue editing, but discuss. I was asking Gwillhickers to follow BRD. Gwilllhickers response is BRD is not a guideline and doesn't have to be followed. BRD is common and used all the time. Yes, I used CITEVAR in the edit summary. This is not generic and Gwilllhickers knew what I was talking about.
  6. I didn't see the original talk message. I saw on the day Gwillhickers went full-bore. That doesn't mean my opinion is no longer valid.
I've disproven every reason Gwillhickers says text must be used over templates. I've proven that both text and templates have no disadvantages, but templates does have some advantages. I've proven Gwillhickers did violate CITEVAR by changing everything to templates. Bgwhite (talk) 00:51, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Bgwhite:, everyone of your contentions has been addressed, and I made one last appeal which was ignored while you were busy with your routine and waited more than a day before seeking consensus, an idea you seem to be uncomfortable with. One more time, COinS by itself is hardly a reason on insisting that templates be used, esp since there are ISBN numbers, Google links, library computers, etc. Once again, we are not dealing with citations here, only listing format. Once again, any and all code, straight text, what have you, loads perfectly well with no issues. All you're doing here is repeating yourself. Please let others think for themselves and respond. The people I've pinged are not my "cohorts", they are simply people that were once involved in this page, including Funandtravl, who was the one who added the templates. Contacting them is completely appropriate in matters like this, so here also you're misrepresenting matters while ignoring your own questionable involvement. You're really getting too personally offended here, as was evident from your first message when you came in giving orders, throwing all my contributions out the window and accusing me of edit waring, policy violations, all the while you were the one who made repeat reversions and wholesale deletions. Re: The holiday weekend. Yes. I'm in no hurry and said I would abide by consensus, and there is no need to repeat my user name over and over, so please lighten up. Thanx. -- Gwillhickers (talk)
  • Btw, above I said BRD was a guideline, and even quoted the part that says it was optional -- yet look at your account here. And I didn't say text "must" be used over templates. Pew! Again, you misrepresent matters. "evil"?? Please tone it down a notch and let's just resolve matters in a civil fashion. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 02:49, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • The ANI case you refer to involves changing the inline citation format used in an article, during an FA nomination no less -- it doesn't involve the use of templates to format a list. This ANI discussion even links to Citation#Styles, not WP:Manual of Style/Lists, so you really should stop from trying to confuse the two. -- Re: WP:BIBLIOGRAPHY, Yes, citebook "may be used to format bibliography entries", no one ever said it couldn't. Notice also that it doesn't say citebook is required in bibliographies, so waving this around as if it was is misrepresenting this guideline also. Again, this pertains to the use of citations. Hence the acronym CITEVAR. Also, the last sentence of yours above should read ...changing everything from templates. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm done talking to you. I was offline for 24-hours, but you had to and continue to make accusations. I made one last appeal which was ignored while you were busy with your routine and waited more than a day before seeking consensus, an idea you seem to be uncomfortable with. and so you really should stop from trying to confuse the two and so waving this around as if it was is misrepresenting this guideline. You started with accusations and I'm not going to take it from you anymore. Until other people want to chime in, article stays as is as there is no consensus. Bgwhite (talk) 06:15, 4 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Bgwhite, this discussion could have been a lot more pleasant had you not started off with the hard-nose attitude, giving orders and reverting all the work I contributed over a two week period -- not just the text in place of templates, but everything else. I preceded my work with discussion and all along there was not one objection to the work I was doing in the bibliography. There were no citations involved here and there was no pressing issues for anyone, but this did not matter to you. You carried on as if I was rewriting the Bible against a 'stated' consensus not to. Yes, my claims that you misrepresented a number of things was and is appropriate. CITEVAR pertains to citations, not list format. BRD (which is an essay, not even a guideline) is "optional" yet you repeatedly held these up as narrow and rigid policies. You've also accused me of edit waring, making a "ton of errors" and things I've never said. "Gwillhickers says text must be used over templates." These are flagrant misrepresentations. Also, the COinS page doesn't even mention cite book, and your claim that "people use it", in a frequency you would have us believe, remains unlikely and completely unproven. In any case we have ISBN and google links. COinS is not a policy or guideline that bibliographies must adhere to.
  • If you wish to keep on treating CITEVAR as a rigid policy, a guideline which I abided by when I initiated discussion and sought consensus, then I'll simply have to hold your feet to your own fire, and revert back to the point where templates were first introduced with no discussion or consensus, and then resume work from there, unless of course there is a consensus not to. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I added the cite book template back in 2011, see: [1] because the listing style was inconsistent. The majority of the listings did not even have the ISBN in the listing. Yes, the template has an advantage over just text, in the use of bots that will check if the url is outdated or moved, etc. In WP:COinS is where the cite book template is referenced, not the COinS article. I still think that it looks better with templates, the style is more consistent, and more information is included than in the listings prior to the templates. Funandtrvl (talk) 22:23, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Funandtrvl: Before our misunderstanding here I was in the process of transferring info, and adding other info, so the straight text format would have included just as much, and I was making sure the listing would have been consistent, but okay, let's keep the templates. Aren't there bots that check on any and all url's regardless of the format they occur in? If not then you have cited a good advantage that at least I was not aware of. In any case, thanks for the information and all your time and effort you've given to the readers. Back to work. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 01:16, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, I'm not sure about the bots picking up the dead urls from just putting them inside brackets, but I know that the bots do pick up the dead ones inside of the templates. I know the templates can do more than just text, and they do more than I even know about!! Funandtrvl (talk) 17:38, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I did find a paragraph about using urls within a template for citations, rather than an embedded link in: WP:Citing sources#Handling links in citations. Apparently, embedded links were widely used years ago, but are subject to linkrot, and now, the dead links are handled better with using templates for citations. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:45, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bulding bibliographies

[edit]

Whenever possible I always replace a bare url citation with that of a published work, as its page numbers remain constant once the work is published. This often requires a lot of searching and reading. In some articles I've removed dozens of urls embedded in the body of text, often converting it to 'cite web' format, giving it a 'ref=' link, and placing the template in the bibliography of the article, as many editors don't have access to the given book(s) and can only use what RS's they find online, unfortunately. Some of the president's and other historical biographies had/have so many urls (and other source info) mixed in with the text, in the middle of sentences, etc, that it's sometimes extremely difficult just to read a paragraph in the mark-up. In any case, I recently read there are more than 900 works on Washington. At present our bibliography here has approximately 100. Many of them simply don't turn up in general google searches, so you often have to look into the bibliographies of other biographies to find them. No light at the end of the tunnel yet. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 20:50, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman

[edit]

@Rjensen: Freeman is due more than just an utterance in the account here but it seems there's a little too much about him in terms of details. Do you think we could trim it down, just a bit, there's almost a paragraph about him? -- Gwillhickers (talk) 06:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

it's the #1 source that readers should know about.... less than 5 sentences on seven fat volumes. Rjensen (talk) 08:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part I agree, Freeman merits more than a passing mention, but since there is a dedicated page for Freeman, perhaps we can do without commentary from Fischer as to what Freeman meant about Washington's character, as it would seem even the layperson would pick up on that without his commentary. Your call. Thanks for your valuable contributions in any case. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 18:16, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fischer's one sentence is very concise and precise--just what we want in evaluating the single most important biography--and it tells a lot about GW. Rjensen (talk) 18:35, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, since I'm something of an incurable inclusionist I can live with an extra layer in the cake. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:13, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Of particular interest

[edit]

According to the book's inset, this was a limited edition with a printing of only 400 copies.

  • Baker, William Spohn (1889). Bibliotheca Washingtoniana: A Descriptive List of the Biographies and Biographical Sketches of George Washington. Robert M. Lindsay Publishers, Philadelphia. eBook -- Gwillhickers (talk) 23:21, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Bibliography of George Washington. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:58, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the viability of the first of these four link's archives (I get a blank screen), but the rest are fine. —ADavidB 21:05, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bibliography_of_George_Washington&oldid=1206288570"