Template talk:ADB

This template was considered for deletion on 1 February 2010. The result of the discussion was "no consensus".

authorlink

Hi - can sombody please remove authorlink as a compulsory field for this template. Many ADB conributors are not notable enough for wikipedia articles.--Golden Wattle ^talk 23:12, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ADB also a German biography

See Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie and Neue Deutsche Biographie. Thus, when translating bios, the German ADB template (de:Vorlage:ADB) links to the Australian here. How can that be fixed? -- Matthead DisOuß 08:14, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Seems like a legitimate concern to me. This template should probably be at [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]]. I'll wait a little while to hear if anyone objects, and then make the move. Hesperian 23:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly a legitimate concern but could we have Template:AustDB to save typing? the lazyMatilda ^talk 00:47, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

When you goto the NDB site it uses ADB-NDB logo, since there are the two collections that would use the german template why not just use Template:ADB-NDB or Template:de-ADB Gnan garra 02:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively use ADB-au and ADB-de with ADB putting in a box that directs the editor to choose the one they want. Gnan garra 02:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about using au and de as parameters that work for both, defaulting to au? If that's not possible, can a bot alter all links to ADB-au before we make it a disamb? -- Matthead DisOuß 18:09, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be pushy on the English language Wikipedia (nor elsewhere), but apparently thousands of existing bios on de-Wiki link to the German (de:Vorlage:ADB), while only 100+ link to the ADB right now one. Oh, I see already 500+ link to Template:Dictionary of Australian Biography, this might get settled soon. -- Matthead DisOuß 18:22, 30 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think it would be unwise to choose obscure names like "ADB-au" and "ADB-de", when "Australian Dictionary of Biography" and "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" are available. We don't abbreviate article titles for the sake of convenience; I don't see why we would abbreviate template titles. Hesperian 03:56, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, this is even more confusing than I thought. First, we need to encourage the migration of the improperly named/used [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]] to the proper Template:Dictionary of Australian Biography. For that, I have replaced the redirect there with source code and a warning sign. If the less than 50 articles are updated, migration from the current use of template:ADB to a non-abbreviated [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]] should take place, affecting hundreds of articles. So, I'll file a Wikipedia:Bot requests to handle the first step. Also, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australia notified.‎ -- Matthead DisOuß 08:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bot request was declined/archived: Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_16#Cleaning_up_the_use_of_Biography_templates -- Matthead DisOuß 22:21, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now all wrong uses of [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]] are migrated manually to the proper Template:Dictionary of Australian Biography. Next step is encouraging to move from ADB to [[Template:Australian Dictionary of Biography]]. -- Matthead DisOuß 15:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see no consensus for such a move and have remove the info tag from the template. I suggested that the German bio's use the Template:ADB-NDB as that the name of the source yet see no response. Gnan garra 03:27, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally the reference site is "Australian Dictionary of Biography" not "Dictionary of Australian Biography" and every article moved to that now is falsly attributing the source to another site as these are two different sources. Gnan garra 03:30, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Dictionary of Australian Biography, published in 1949, is a reference work by Percival Serle containing information on notable people associated with Australian history. With approximately a thousand entries, the book took more than twenty years to complete. It should not be confused with the multi-volume Australian Dictionary of Biography published by Melbourne University Press in 1966. from Dictionary of Australian Biography Gnan garra 03:35, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As suggested by Hesperian, and supported by me, the two Aussie bio templates should use their full names, to avoid confusion. Please check if you got it right. ADB then should be depopulated, by replacing "{{ADB|" with "{{Australian Dictionary of Biography|", to make room for a disamb among the three bios, German & twice Aussie. The difference is that German bios get often translated or updated from German Wiki, where the template is already in use over 3000 times. It should at least link to a page where a hint is given how to fix it, rather than linking straight to an Aussie template where no help is provided. I suspect that many translating editors, seeing tha it links to something else here on en-Wiki, have deleted the link to the template, assuming it would not work on en Wiki anyway. Despite this, "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" is already used 263 times right now.

In contrast, Aussi bios are likely created from scratch, and the template(s) need to be copied, pasted and manually filled with data anyway. See how the formats compare:

German ADB format: {{ADB|34|183|184}}, currently here {{de-ADB|34|183|184}}
Aussie ADB format: {{Australian Dictionary of Biography|last= Bongiorno |first= Frank |authorlink= |year=1996|id=A140036b|title= Drakeford, Arthur Samuel (1878-1957)|accessdate=2007-12-15}}
Aussie DAB format: {{Dictionary of Australian Biography|First=Edmund|Last=Barton|Link=http://gutenberg.net.au/dictbiog/0-dict-biogBa.html#barton1}}

So, the Aussi templates needs a lot of input work anyway. -- Matthead Discuß 12:43, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Template: Australian .... completed

See [1]. Thanks.-- Matthead Discuß 22:46, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Although the consensus is that this template is deprecated and the instructions give the alternate, I do not believe it is wise to remove the template. Rather if a bot could occasionally go through articles and move them to the preferred template that would be a better outcome. --Matilda ^talk 23:34, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Bot_requests/Archive_17#ADB_to_Australian_Dictionary_of_Biography, a bot did mop up all remaining 200 odd articles, leaving only talk entries etc. Or do you mean keeping the template in case someone adds another article, using Template:ADB by old habit? In that case, I prefer to have it deleted to appear as a red link. Also, there is the issue of translating existing the existing 3000+ de-Wiki articles over to en-Wiki, preferably without changing the source code linking to de:Vorlage:ADB. In that German template, also instructions on the Australian one can be integrated. Currently, over 275 en-Wiki articles (e.g. Johann Evangelist Holzer) already contain "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" [2], in one way or another, while only few use the makeshift Template:de-ADB -- Matthead Discuß 00:01, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I did mean "keeping the template in case someone adds another article, using Template:ADB by old habit" the Holzer article uses another template and never used this one [3] so I am not sure why there would be confusion but if there was it would have to be fixed no matter what.--Matilda ^talk 00:14, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only some talk pages link to the template now for some time, so I removed all code, and added a message instead, linking to the three templates, so every editor can find what he looks for. -- Matthead Discuß 02:36, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I tarted it up for you. Hesperian 03:04, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I also de-activated the remaining links to the template on talk pages etc. Next thing to do, some day, would be a (bot?) cross check to find out which articles on en-Wiki don't have a link to Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (in any form) while the corresponding ones on de-Wiki do. And even vice versa cases occurr. -- Matthead Discuß 13:24, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting directly to Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie has 26,000 bios, and German Wikisource has them all online as text by now. Sooner or later German Wikipedia will have articles on all 26,000 (currently over 8500 [4], and 13.872 ADB bios without link to a de-WP article ). As many are notable for the English Wikipedia, too, many more articles will be translated (current examples: User:Sandstein/Drafts/Karl_von_Gerber and User:Amwyll Rwden/sandbox1). On En-WP, currently, only 120+ articles use the template, but over 250 articles link to Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, while there are 523 for Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie search hits.

To make the same German Wikipedia de:Vorlage:ADB source code work in both Wikipedias, and to avoid the link to this disamb, I dare to say that it is helpful to redirect from here to Template:Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie directly. No offense to the Australian bios and editors, but there is no Australian Wikipedia with a Template:ADB from which articles could be transferred here. -- Matthead Discuß 22:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is not acceptable. The Australian Dictionary of Biography has 11,500 bios. "ADB" is clearly an extremely ambiguous title for a template. A redirect is not warranted here. It is not appropriate to turn this into a redirect solely to make your code more portable. Hesperian 00:29, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've illustrated the problem from the German point of view: the need to change existing source code, which is a problem for those editors not familiar with such advanced features. It is much more convenient to simply make it compatible here, too. When it works on German Wikipedia, why should it be intentionally broken on English Wikipedia. Please tell me, where exactly is the problem from the Australians point of view? Right now, their template uses the spelling {{Australian Dictionary of Biography}}, and each editor using it has to create a new link with that spelling from scratch, probably using copy&paste as much as possible. There is no conflict of interest with {{ADB}}, unless Australians plan to use that in the future. Do they? There is nothing ambiguous about "Template:ADB", unlike "ADB". I believe that only persons translating German bios have to look up this page for advice why their link is broken, displaying a warning in red. Right now, I have to suspect that the refusal to allow others making better use of the short form is only a matter of pride. Please explain. -- Matthead Discuß 01:28, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is an ambiguous title with no primary usage, and I think you're exaggerating the inconvenience. But you go right ahead and turn this into an issue of nationalistic pride; that's sure to help us resolve our differences. Hesperian 12:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a primary usage: on the German Wikipedia, with a 4-digit number of articles using {{ADB|...}}. On the English wikipedia, a 3-digit number of corresponding articles had to be manually changed to {{de-ADB|...}} for no good reason. There is no secondary usage of {{ADB|...}}, and no conflict with other forms of use. Yet, you deny the redirect. You are the one that is obstructing an improvement that benefits many, and harms nobody. The introduction of the term "nationalistic" is revealing. -- Matthead Discuß 12:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie is actually in German and this is an English language encyclopaedia it should translated into english thus being General German Biography and use a template of {{GGB}}. Gnan garra 12:27, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie has established use in English, with occasional explanations such as Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie (General German Biography) [5]. The use of ADB is well established, too (example) -- Matthead Discuß 12:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since we're looking at Google hits, can you explain the following data?

"Australian Dictionary of Biography" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia = 99,500 hits

"Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia = 32,700 hits

and more pertinently

"Australian Dictionary of Biography" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB = 49,600 hits

"Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB = 14,900 hits

Hesperian 13:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I can not, and Google.com can neither:

"Australian Dictionary of Biography" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB 49,400 for "Australian Dictionary of Biography" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB

"Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB 63,400 for "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB

Hesperian, can you explain why you wrote 14,900 where Google says 63,400? -- Matthead Discuß 14:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing's changed for me here. I'm getting 14,900 hits on that phrase. Hesperian 14:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify, I even get 14,900 hits when I follow the link you've provided above. Hesperian 14:19, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I also get Results 1 - 10 of about 14,900 for "Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie" -wikipedia -wikisource -wikimedia +ADB. (0.26 seconds) from [6] Gnan garra 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]