Template talk:EB1911/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Template:EB1911. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Old discussion

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)

User:Bluebot

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:

References are usually primary resources, and an encyclopaedia is a secondary resource
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 consensus for Bluebot's actions? Noisy | Talk 10:00, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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 definitely wrong. Plently of articles already use the 1911 tag under a references heading as well. Martin 10:15, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

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

Extra blank space

... 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)

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

Possible improvements to this template

Before I get to my main point, I want to strenuously disagree with the remarks above that seem to say that we don't need to acknowledge a public domain source. While it is legal to use a public domain source without acknowledgment, it is still, from an ethical point of view, plagiarism to do so. Wikipedia:Cite sources is quite clear on that: if we are taking material from the 1911 EB, that should be duly cited.

This template could be greatly improved. For one thing, it should be possible to be explicit about what 1911 EB article was used. Normally one presumes that it is the article of the same name, but even there it can be tricky: for example, the 1911 EB article on Gabriele D'Annunzio is at Annunzio, Gabriele D'. Now that we have the ability to add optional parameters to a template, this can be done without messing up existing references to the template.

Second, as the Project Gutenberg Encyclopedia (which is shaping up to be an excellent, non-commercial online reprint of the 1911 EB) develops, we might want to consider a means to provide a link to the appropriate volume there (sadly, they don't seem to be providing anchors for individual articles). And even before that (but I expect this would be more controversial), we might want to have a way to link to the LoveToKnow Free Online Encyclopedia's raw, unproofread scans.

I would hope my first suggestion is uncontroversial, but I'll give a few days for response before I edit the template. The second is more a point for discussion. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to be clear, we'd end up with something like:

''This article incorporates text from the'' [[1911 Encyclopædia Britannica|''1911'' Encyclopædia Britannica]]'', which is in the [[public domain]]. {{if defined call1|{{{title|}}}|show1|The ''Britannica'' article is entitled {{{title}}}.}}''

-- Jmabel | Talk 21:06, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

1911 Encyclopædia Britannica has been moved...

... to 11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica by R.Koot; see the talk page. æle ✆ 15:02, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

11th edition of the Encyclopædia Britannica has been moved ..

.. to Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition per talk page. --Stbalbach 23:37, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Indent it

Hey all, could someone with administrator privileges indent the notice, to conform with the {{seealso}} family of templates? ~MDD 46 96 06:02, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

No, in a lot of cases the template is on a bullet point, indenting will make this look odd. Martin 10:43, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

Like Martin says. You can always indent on usage. - Jmabel | Talk 00:48, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Name in the link

The link currently reads Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which is the current name of the WP article. I would suggest that this is not the most user-friendly name to use in the link. First of all, spelling out "Eleventh Edition" is heavy and unnecessary; secondly, the important information about the date of this edition is lost. I suggest a link like:

Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. (1911)

Thoughts? --Macrakis 15:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

This was discussed in the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article, and recently renamed. The current name is based on what is on the title page of the Encyclopedia. This article has been renamed many times, we want to stick with something that has an actual source for the name, not a made up name. -- Stbalbach 15:27, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

He means that we should do something like [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. (1911)]], just for this template, because it's easier for viewers to see what we mean. --Rory0 96 20:57, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I see; I missed that. yes, it does make sense to add the 1911 date for the purposes of this template. But for the purpose of the article name its self, it should remain as is per the reasons discussed over there. The problem is someone will see the discrepancy between template and article and use the "consistency" argument. --Stbalbach 00:31, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

About the title of the work: I don't think "Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition" is perfect (it at least needs a comma), but that's not my point. As Rory says, the reference should make it clearer to the user what is being referenced. For those of us who know and use the 11th edition (I have a Handy Edition right behind my desk), "EB11" would be enough. But for the typical Web user who comes across an article with EB11 info in it, surely it is more useful to know that it was published in 1911 ("ah! that explains the language style, the POV, and possibly some out-of-dateness") than the edition number. I don't see that there's a consistency issue here. Many Wikilinks are different from their target title. --Macrakis 01:37, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Conversion to {{#if:}}

Please replace everything prior to the first section header (Using this template) with this code to convert to {{#if:}}

''This article incorporates text from the'' [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica ''Eleventh Edition'']]''{{#if:{{{article|}}}|&nbsp;article {{#if:{{{url|}}}|[{{{url|}}}}} "{{{article}}}"{{#if:{{{url|}}}|]}}{{#if:{{{author|}}}|&nbsp;by {{{author}}}}}}}, a publication now in the [[public domain]].''[[Category:1911 Britannica]]
[[Category:1911 Britannica]] <noinclude>
{{esoteric}}[[hr:Predložak:1911]]

— Ian Moody ^(talk) 17:25, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks good. Done. Ashibaka tock 16:24, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Looks bad, I'm afraid. All articles are now displaying the esoteric template and a noinclude tag! Noisy | Talk 16:43, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Appears to be fixed. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Categorize

I suggest this be added to Category:Attribution templates. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 02:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Done, and Template:Nuttall as well. Martin 08:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I forgot this as well when making the category, but it needs a sort key (|{{PAGENAME}} or |1911). —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 05:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Ok, done. Martin 09:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I also suggest it be added to the recently created Category:1911 Britannica templates (with the sort key). User:Stbalbach has grouped together the other templates that relate to 1911 inclusion. David Brooks 17:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Edit Request

This template should be included in Category:1911 Britannica templates - thanks - also the Category mentioned above. (Thanks David for noticing). --Stbalbach 17:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Done. jaco♫plane 17:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Please restore template

Hi - could someone with admin access please restore the template to how it was before. Radical changes need to be discussed and establish consensus, this template is used across 10s of thousands of articles, it's fairly impolite to experiment with a live system with no discussion. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Done, thank you. -- Stbalbach 21:10, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Is this template's message true?

"incorporates text" says to me that one has lifted the precise words from a source, rather than paraphrased it. Is that, in general, the case when this template is asserted? There seems to be no template that says "...uses material from..." for the 1911 EB. I suspect that most uses of the 1911 EB are paraphrasing an article, or taking simple facts from it, rather than lifting the exact words. Is this template to be used in all cases where the 1911 edition is a source? — Jrmccall 20:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I've always assumed it to mean a cut and paste of some or all of the article which has modified in part or whole. -- Stbalbach 21:12, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

In fact, most uses of the 1911 EB do lift the exact words. We frequently copyedit them, but I think the template is true in by far the majority of cases. If you find an article that has been edited so much that the 1911 material has vanished, please remove the template. David Brooks 01:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

... and replace it with normal citation mechanisms. - Jmabel | Talk 00:04, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Or: ‘Warning this article may contain discredited nonsense’

’Nuff said, I think. Except that the template seems to be un-editable without any reason being given on its talk page. —Ian Spackman 13:17, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

It is protected precisely because we wouldn't want anyone to change the message as you have suggested which would affect 10s of thousands of articles. Martin 13:22, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

My point exactly! Lots of hopelessly out of date articles would be correctly identified, and editors would be encouraged to improve them. As a reader (err…and an editor), anything which has {{1911}} worries me—it’s likely to be out of date and why are they not just directing me to the orginal text which I am fairly capable of reading (and enjoying and appreciating) in the knowledge of its original context. The wiki-crap is that on Wikipedia I am not at all sure what I am reading when it includes 1911. Same thing applies to text dumps from the ancient Catholic and Jewish encyclopaedias. You see the real problem is that this stuff gets edited by us moderns. We (properly) try to drain, slowly, the articles of so-called POV and thereby reduce any reader’s ability to work out what it is that they are reading. —Ian Spackman 13:57, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, but "discredited nonsense" is far too harsh, there are plenty of decent articles based on EB1911. You are right though that there are also many that need updating. Martin 14:02, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I expect that you are right. But examples would be good. And also a reason why the template should not encourage us to spot where updating might probably be cool. —Ian Spackman 14:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I often use this:

See also Category:1911 Britannica templates for others.

Neat! Any reason not to redirect {{1911}} to {{Template:Update-eb}}? —Ian Spackman 14:33, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

--Stbalbach 14:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(note that the above is an example of {{Update-eb}} for those wanting to use that message. (SEWilco 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

The purpose of {{1911}} is simply to acknowledge the source of the text, it is not a maintainence template as {{Update-eb}} is. Plus, like I said, there are many 1911 articles that are fine, so why put this message on them saying they need to be updated. Martin 14:37, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And examples of these articles that are not in any need of updating? —Ian Spackman 14:46, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first article on the whatlinkshere is Apollo, that looks pretty decent to me. Martin 14:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Articles that are "largely based" on EB1911 probably need updating, but there are many articles that use 1911 as a source but are not "largely based" on it. It's really a per-article judgment call. Also articles that have been updated can still have the {1911} tag. Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros is largely based on 1911 (%90 or more), but I updated it, so it doesn't need a nag-tag. -- Stbalbach 14:59, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

And probably the same is to be said of Apollo, Martin’s excellent response to my challenge. It didn’t read at all a century old, and very likely the reference should have been simply that: a reference. i.e. ‘The writers of this this article have read the one on the same subject in the 1911 EB and acknowledge information garnered from it.’ rather than ‘This article may be pretty much (but we don’t guarantee it) word-for-word copied from the 1911 EB and it is likely that you are the first Wikipedian ever to have read every word’.

The latter is too common, I tend to find. The problem, as Stbalbach intimated, is that the one template tends to get used for both purposes. It all seems horribly unsatisfactory, and I am not sure where to take it from there, except that his argument on Francisco Cardinal Jiménez de Cisneros seemed to imply that the default should be a nag-tag which, once we have done the necessary work, we should reduce to a reference.

Anyway, I apologise if I have wasted anyone’s time and will now disappear to do some shopping in the real world. (Crucially nicotine.) —Ian Spackman 15:35, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

No, you have a good point. There are these two distinct classes of article, and a few in an in-between state. Here's the problem - suppose we invent a "started-with-1911-but-improved" tag, then where are the volunteers to go through and re-tag everything? Then there is a surprisingly large class of articles where an exact 1911 copy is just fine (Pete's "French poets" example). Still and all, such a template would be a useful tool for the 1911 verification project. David Brooks 21:20, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Be aware that a number of these issues are mentioned in Wikipedia:1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica. (SEWilco 05:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC))

Whitespace

{{editprotected}} It appears that whitespace needs to be added: 1) after the "Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition" and 2) after the article title parameter - see the first example in the #Usage section above. GregorB 21:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Good catch. Cheers. --MZMcBride 23:03, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Interwikis

Please, add to the code the following interwikis: af:Template:1911 ca:Template:1911 eo:Template:1911 es:Template:1911 fi:Template:1911 fr:Template:1911 ms:Template:1911 nl:Template:1911 no:Template:1911 oc:Template:1911 ro:Template:1911 simple:Template:1911 sk:Template:1911

Thanks in advance. --elwikipedista 04:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

[[af:Template:1911]] [[ca:Template:1911]] [[eo:Template:1911]] [[es:Template:1911]] [[fi:Template:1911]] [[fr:Template:1911]] [[ms:Template:1911]] [[nl:Template:1911]] [[no:Template:1911]] [[oc:Template:1911]] [[ro:Template:1911]] [[simple:Template:1911]] [[sk:Template:1911]]

and [[ru:Шаблон:1911]] — redmond barry 00:02, 4 December 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

Done.—Random832 14:43, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Creation of editable documentation page

Following the current practice, I've created a separate documentation page, "Template:1911/doc". This page is editable by non-administrators, which will make it easier to add interwikis. Also, by transcluding the page on to the main template page using {{Documentation}}, users of the template will be able to see the instructions for the use of the template without having to go to the talk page. Would an administrator therefore please amend the template page to transclude the documentation (hiding the actual template code between <includeonly> and </includeonly> tags, if desired), and delete the existing usage information that is at the top of the talk page? Thanks. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 16:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Done, and thanks for creating the /doc page. – Luna Santin (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, and you're welcome! — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

pt interwiki

Please add [[pt:Britannica1911]]. Thanks, --201.15.218.251 (talk) 05:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Not done, as the pt.wikipedia template has been deleted. Note that the template documentation has been moved to a separate documentation page which is editable by non-administrators, so interwikis can now be added by editors without an administrator's help. — Cheers, JackLee ^–talk– 19:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

"As of" tag?

~~{{editprotected}}~~

Can someone add an "As of" tag added to the template? Something of the form ({{As of|1911|alt=1911}}) which would display as (1911^[update]) after Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition would be ideal. This will categorise the articles in CAT:ASOF (hidden) along with other potentially dated articles from before 1990. It should help editors keep an eye on these articles in case they go out of date. Thanks – Ikara ^{talk →} 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

No. This template often still resides on articles after they have been updated, with some original text still remaining. I suggest you add information to the 1911 ASOF category which mentions that interested editors might want to browse the 1911 EB-related articles. -- SEWilco (talk) 20:24, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Alright, I was not aware of that. However it should be noted that so long as text from EB-1911 remains in an article, that text is potentially dated and should be categorised as such. Still your reply shows that there is neither consensus or a lack of controversy on this issue so I will withdraw the request for now. I leave it open for future editors to discuss. It may be worth creating a special EB-1911 subcategory of CAT:ASOF and adding the articles to that through this template, as an alternative to my proposal. All the best – Ikara ^{talk →} 23:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll underscore what SEWilco said. Among the articles that are primarily EB1911 content, many are biographies of then-dead people. Not going to change much in terms of facts, although maybe in critical and encyclopedic approach. In any case, I think this is what {{update-eb}} is for, as long as it's applied conscientiously. Those articles are in Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates. See also {{1911POV}} for articles with serious problems. David Brooks (talk) 04:52, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:1911 talk

Template:1911 talk has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. Eastlaw ^talk · _contribs 02:59, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Category add

Since {{1911 talk}} is about to be deleted, can someone please add Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica to this template (within "includeonly" tags)? Thanks. --Eastlaw ^talk ⁄ _contribs 23:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

Done Magioladitis (talk) 02:07, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Syntax?

The parameterized versions of this template produce bad syntax. To take the example, "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article "Anarchism" by Peter Kropotkin, a publication now in the public domain." says Kropotkin is the publication. Anyone want to take a stab at reprogramming it?

And, while I'm on the subject, we shouldn't encourage linking to jrank or lovetoknow. The latter has reorganized its page structure and WP now has a lot of dead links. Perhaps one day we'll be able to link to wikisource for everything. David Brooks 21:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

See Wikisource's WikiProject 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica. --Bwpach (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I tried fixing it, but I couldn't get it quite right; someone may want to look through my experiments for ideas; I've reverted to how it was before. - Jmabel | Talk 01:30, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

And my apologies for not using the template sandbox, I thought I knew just what I was doing. Hubris, I'm afraid. - Jmabel | Talk 01:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Can we please fix the resulting syntax?

See my comment of Oct 2006: {{1911|article=foo}} produces:

This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition article "foo", a publication now in the public domain.

The {{1911 talk}} template expresses it better:

This article incorporates text from the article "foo" from the Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain.

although I would prefer to replace the second "from" with "in", and remove the double space before "article". Does this sound easy to do? I'll add {{editprotected}} in a few days. David Brooks 03:41, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I propose the code:

''This article incorporates text from the{{#if:{{{article|}}}| article {{#if:{{{url|}}}|[{{{url|}}}}} "{{{article}}}"{{#if:{{{url|}}}|]}}{{#if:{{{author|}}}| by {{{author}}},}} in the}} ''[[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition|Encyclopædia Britannica'', Eleventh Edition'']]'', a publication now in the [[public domain]].''

--Bwpach (talk) 21:36, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Done With a minor spacing change. Let me know if there are any problems. --CapitalR (talk) 01:45, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Wow. Talk pages live forever. Thanks! David Brooks (talk) 15:55, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Referencing protocols and citing the Encyclopaedia Britannica

An observation for any interested editors, on the citing of Encyclopaedia Britannica, and a suggestion to resolve a burgeoning issue. I note, by the way, that amongst the readers here, I am addressing editors with more expertise in technical aspects of Wikibizzo than I, so please bear with me for the sake of getting the point across.

From my experiences of Wikipedia to date, I note that a number of articles have Encyclopaedia Britannica as their basis. For some articles this comprises the bulk of the text or even the entire article. For such articles, I typically see the following statment:

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Which arises from the following template:

{{1911}}

The statement alone is fine enough when the entire content of the article comes from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for clearly, 100% is attributable. But it is a statement of attribution, and once the article becomes less than 100% attributable to the EB, it is not a citation in any useful sense. At that point it starts to become a vague attribution, and moreso the more the article is developed away from the EB. Some - perhaps many - of you will already see where I'm going with this.

As we all know, and criticisms aside, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is often an excellent basis, especially for the static, historical component of articles, some of which is in need not of supplanting, but merely updating and supplementing, if that. However, as we also all know, with the exception of information for which we can do no better (especially, as far as I can tell, of historical nature for which facts haven't changed much if at all), it is not generally desirable to leave the article at that. Rather, especially for dynamic phenomena, meaning things which inevitably change in some fashion (even if it's primarily the understanding of underlying principles), or historical phenomena for which we have the benefit of new information, or better access to old information (or both), it is considered desirable to update the articles which were based originally on the Encyclopaedia Britannica. Hence the following type of templates found in some articles:

However, at this point, the problem of citation, or more accurately, lack of citation, arises. For as soon as we insert new text, and otherwise break up the text that originally came from the Encyclopaedia Britannica, we should commence using inline citations for the text that was from the EB. The reasons should be obvious, because they are the same as the need for any citation, from any source. So I'll not labour the point, other than to note that if we do not start using inline citations, we end up with articles containing orphaned sentences and paragraphs, for which the original source is not known. So we end up with a common-or-garden citation problem.

This is a potentially massive task, but I see that as no excuse for not chipping away at the problem. As far as I can tell, the easiest way to deal with this in the first instance is to create a reference to the volume from which the article, or the bulk of the article, came. The Balneotherapy article does this. It contains a link to an editable version of the EB, and I have added a link to a non-editable version, from the table helpfully placed in the EB article. The reason for that should be self-evident of course: a reader, or editor, should be able to check a version that is unambiguously the original.

Ideally, there should be a link to the exact page dealing with the topic of the article. I have been able to do this in the Hydrotherapy article, using the Internet Archive listings. But I find those listings currently difficult and time-consuming to search for the exact volume of a multi-volume work such as EB, so this is probably not going to be practical on a large scale in the short term. This brings us back to the task of simply citing the volume from which the text of a given article came.

This is a simple enough task, but tedious if left to a handful of dedicated editors. But if each editor who cares something about these things makes a point of adding a citation to a mere few articles, the task should get done. So that is my suggestion, for what it's worth.Wotnow (talk) 07:17, 6 December 2009 (UTC)Wotnow

Link to Wikisource articles

A way to link to Wikisource articles would be useful. Another argument, say "wstitle", could be used; its value would be the title of the relevant article in EB1911. --Bob Burkhardt (talk) 11:27, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

See my proposal below. -- PBS (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

University press

Is it worth having a link to the originating publisher, Cambridge University Press? Varlaam (talk) 21:09, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

See above I did link in the editors name, but it was thought to be confusing. I am not saying that we should not do it for the publisher, but I think we should see if anyone else has an opinion before implementing it. -- PBS (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Bob Burkhardt, 30 August 2010

Please restore the noicon functionality of the old {{Wikisource1911Enc}} to this template. This can be done by changing the line:

|[[File:Wikisource-logo.svg|15px|alt=]]

to

|{{#if:{{{noicon|}}}||[[File:Wikisource-logo.svg|15px|alt=]]}}

This is useful when citations appear as items in a {{Wikisource-inline}} list.

Bob Burkhardt (talk) 09:24, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

~~could you add it to Template:1911/sandbox and run a couple of simple tests on it, report back here that it works and I'll copy it in. -- PBS (talk) 01:04, 31 August 2010 (UTC)~~

This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	with icon
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|wikisource=` ignored (help)	with icon
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	noicon=1
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	no-icon=1 and no-prescript=1.

I've made the changes to the sandbox. Is that OK? does the name have to be "noicon" (for backwards compatibility) or can it be changed to "no-icon"? -- PBS (talk) 01:39, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, as Template:Wikisource1911Enc citation used "noicon", I'll put both only but document. And as the tests above seem to work, I'll implement it now! (It's so good being amateurs no need for any through testing!)-- PBS (talk) 01:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

Proposal to replace code with a wrapper around cite encyclopedia

I propose to replace the current template with one based on {{DNB Cite}} which is a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}}. This has the advantage of not needing a lot of maintenance as changes and bug fixes in {{cite encyclopedia}} will automatically be reflected in this template.

I have created a first draft at Template talk:1911/Temp

Original	New
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	Template talk:1911/Temp
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	Template talk:1911/Temp
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: McNeill, Ronald John (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	Template talk:1911/Temp
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: McNeill, Ronald John (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition\|Encyclopædia Britannica]] (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: URL–wikilink conflict (help)	Template talk:1911/Temp

But where the proposed improvements get much better is when other fields are included as they would be into a normal citation. eg: |volume=12 | pages=550,551 as in:

Template talk:1911/Temp

Comments? -- PBS (talk) 09:33, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now modified the proposed code to deal with a Wikisource parameter

Template talk:1911/Temp

The proposed code changes the lead icon from to depending on whether the wikisource=article name is set. It also includes two new categories (which I have not hidden as yet and so) can be seen at the bottom of this page. The are

An idea taken from the DNB project so that editors can see which Wikipedia articles include text from 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica which do not yet have a page on Wikisource.

The addition of the parameter "wikisource=Aagensen, Andrew" over-rides the "article" and the "url" parameters so even if they are set they are ignored:

Template talk:1911/Temp

As there is a full stop at the end of the {{cite encyclopedia}} template I would suggest that the second half of the wrapper text is changed from "a publication now in the public domain." to " A publication that is now in the public domain." -- PBS (talk) 23:44, 24 August 2010 (UTC)

Appears to be a sensible upgrade all around, as far as I can tell. Tentative support. -- Quiddity (talk) 01:48, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

To handle the full stop at the end of the {{cite encyclopedia}} template, I would suggest that the trailer be moved to the beginning: "This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain:" That way there are no fractured sentences. And a shorter parameter name ("wikisource" -> "ws")? The category idea is good too. I support the upgrade. Thanks for doing this. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 11:24, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

I added the icon to the template at 00:19 on 25 August 2010 so that those who edit pages that use with the template would be aware that it has changed. But looking at the page that are linked to the template the early ones do not seem to have the change visible. Any idea why? Do I need to refresh the pages or something to see the change?

Yup, clear your cache (or do a hard refresh with ctrl-F5) is probably all that is needed. I can see the icon in the template instance at Abraxas. -- Quiddity (talk) 00:55, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Bob I like your idea about putting it all before us. But initially, I was hoping to keep the visual changes as small as possible. Do you think it better to go with one big change rather than a two step approach? I see from you suggestion of "ws" that you are a UNIX man, but much as I like the philosophy behind UNIX, I think, for this environment that, a parameter should be self documenting, and so I think "wikisource" is preferable to an abbreviation. --PBS (talk) 22:12, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see my edit request below, the noicon option is very useful. In addition, redirecting {{Wikisource1911Enc citation}} to {{1911}} while expedient is going to create miscategorization problems because of its frequent usage merely as an external link and not to indicate a reference, but perhaps these will just have to be fixed on a case by case basis. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 09:41, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

As one of the last people to have worked through tidying up some of the EB1911 imports, I appreciate the effort to improve the cite format (especially as the current version with certain parameters ends up poorly worded). One comment though: to a casual reader, it looks at first as if Hugh Chisholm is the topic, or possibly at second glance the author, while he is actually "just" the project editor. The initial reaction might be to click on his name. Frankly, the authors of EB1911 are in the background, if not in the shadows (some of the articles are signed by their initials), and Chisholm himself is a largely unknown name. I understand if this is for consistency with other encylopedia citations, but it just doesn't seem appropriate in this case.

I wish there were people going through the articles continuing to correct OCR errors and POV, but I realize that will never happen now. Another thing we should do is go through again trying to match wikisource uploads to the articles, and that may be automatable. David Brooks (talk) 02:06, 27 August 2010 (UTC)

I have now incorporated the code necessary to allow the two other templates to become redirects (Template:1911/sandbox. To do this it made sense to incorporate Bob's idea of putting all the text into the pre-script. David I agree with you. There are two simple solutions I can see. The first is to do what I have done in the new example and unlink the the editors name. The other is I can remove the automatic inclusion of his name. See what you think.

Template	Sandbox	comment
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	{{1911}} No parameters
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	{{1911}} article=Green Ribbon Club
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: McNeill, Ronald John (1911). "Green Ribbon Club". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). [[Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition\|Encyclopædia Britannica]]. Vol. 12 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 550, 551. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: URL–wikilink conflict (help)	{{1911}} tests with article=Green Ribbon Club author=McNeill, Ronald John volume=12 pages=550,551 url=http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediabrit12chisrich#page/550/mode/1up
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|wikisource=` ignored (help)	{{1911}} wikisource=Aagensen, Andrew
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	One or more of the preceding sentences incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|wikisource=` ignored (help)	{{1911}} alter the prescript for where it is used for inline citations inline=1 wikisource=Aagensen, Andrew
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.	Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help); Unknown parameter `\|wikisource=` ignored (help)	{{1911}} remove the prescript completly no-prescript=1 wikisource=Aagensen, Andrew
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	{{Wikisource1911Enc citation}} with 2 non named paramaters Sigel, Franz A Bold comment
Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	{{1911EB}} If anyone has entered a second comment into this template then although it does not show in the original it will show in the new one: Sigel, Franz A Bold comment
This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. `{{cite encyclopedia}}`: Missing or empty `\|title=` (help)	{{1911s}} There is only one article using this template (Andreas Aagesen) changing it by hand to {{1911}} will put back similar prefix text to that currently displayed

Over and above the parameter in {{cite encyclopedia}} I have added:

Parameter	Note
article=name	If set is assigned to title. If title is set article is ignored.
author=name	assigned to last ignored if last is set.
wikisource=name of the article on wikisource	Overrides title and url if set.
no-prescript=1	Suppresses the prescript (As does a named parameter for backwards compatibility)
footnote=1 or inline=1	Changes the default prescript from "This article" to "One or more of the preceding sentences". Useful for inline citations.

There are three new categories. I have named them "Encyclopaedia" instead of "Encyclopædia" for ease of access:

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter This one is to cover {{1911}} which is too vague and warrants a {{full}}^{[Full citation needed]}. I have put the {{full}} into the template but commented it out. I thing that we should add ^{[article name needed]} to the template to encourage the adding of article names to the a simple {{1911}}.

Comments welcome-- PBS (talk) 05:34, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The template {{Cite Catholic Encyclopedia}} is similar to this one. But instead of using wikisource= it uses "wstitle=" So that people do not have to remember different parameters for both templates and that is probably a better descriptive name I have added the code for both and will promote wstitle in the documentation of this template.

{{1911|wstitle=Aagensen, Andrew}} This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
{{1911/sandbox|wstitle=Aagensen, Andrew}} This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Aagensen, Andrew". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

-- PBS (talk) 21:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

If there's a volume citation, why isn't the correct year given? There are still lots such improvements that must be made before it will be good to use this template to combine reference and attribution in some cases. —innotata 14:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Decorative icon?

Is there a particular reason this template was modified to insert a decorative icon on almost every article using it? I can't find any discussion over adding this icon, it was seemingly added without discussion just before Template talk:1911#Proposal to replace code with a wrapper around cite encyclopedia. I for one would suggest requiring |withicon=1 to enable it, rather than |noicon=1 to take it back out. Anomie ⚔ 14:57, 6 September 2010 (UTC)

It was intentional. Initially I put the icon into the template more than 12 hours after I posted my proposal to this talk page, so that anyone who did not watch this page but was interested in the look of the template would notice the change and could comment it they did not like it before I made a major change, which would be tricky to revert back out once it had been in place for a time.

This icon is used on some of the other PD templates see Category:Attribution templates, and I think it is helpful for drawing attention to the reader that the article incorporates PD text and I think it is helpful for editors who are interested in the wikisource project that this is using an article that has not yet been ported to Wikisource.

What is it that you do not like about it? -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

It just seems decorative and unnecessary. Anomie ⚔ 01:53, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you think that the Wikisource icon (that replaced it when the source is on Wikisource) is also decorative and unnecessary? -- PBS (talk) 04:37, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

The Wikisource icon serves to indicate that the article is on Wikisource, as part of the visual identity of Wikisource, and may be desirable because Wikisource is one of our sister projects. The

icon isn't part of the visual identity of anything. Anomie ⚔ 10:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

As I said above I think the icon helps to identify that parts of the text are copied from texts out of copyright and as such is providing a useful function. I guess that we are going to have to agree to disagree and wait and see what others think. --PBS (talk) 00:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The wikisource icon is currently being flamed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography#Template:DNB Cite. I agree with Anomie that the PD icon is merely decorativ and should go. So too IMO should the wikisource logo, for the reasons I set out in the DNB page. I really think you should get consensus for template changes that affect hundreds or thousands of articles. 12 hours is not long enough. I'd be grateful if you would revert the icon related changes. --Tagishsimon (talk) 22:23, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

In you opinion it is "merely decorativ", as I said above I disagree. "changes that affect hundreds or thousands of articles." where do you get that number from, because I make it closer to 15,000. Also see above my comment: "It was intentional..." -- PBS (talk) 02:00, 20 September 2010 (UTC)

Needs brevity

Please make this template's output briefer. It sprawls over the pages it is used on, and now that it is consolidated with other templates (a good idea) it is on a lot of pages. There is a link so people can find out the name of the press and the editor if they are curious, but usually this is not useful information. My suggested edits are three: (1) change Eleventh to 11th; (2) remove Hugh Chisholm; (3) remove Cambridge University Press. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:49, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

I think it better it includes the information that one would expect to include in any full citation, no problems with changing 11th but I do not think we should remove Hugh Chisholm as it is needed for short citations and usually with a full citation one should usually include the publisher. I am in favour of altering the Template:Cite EB1911 to remove the prescript. I got halfway through doing it and got distracted. -- PBS (talk) 00:26, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Bob. In trying to combine templates, the finer points have been lost. The prescript, in my mind, is more of a generic note used for attribution at the bottom of the page. It doesn't need all the extra details. For a full and complete source, to be included in the References section, we had a template that did that. With the current set up, maybe the "no-prescript" version can still retain all the details. --Bwpach (talk) 14:43, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

functionality

This template now calls {{Cite EB1911}}. Most of the functionality has been moved out into that template, but this template still handles the lead in string.

Legacy wikisource parameter is broken

A recent edit introduced the wstitle to substitute for the wikisource parameter introduced some time ago. However, the legacy uses of the wikisource parameter no longer work, so this edit needs to be undone or amended. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from Bob Burkhardt, 23 March 2011

{{edit protected}} Change:

   | wstitle =  {{{wstitle|}}}

To:

   | wstitle =  {{{wstitle|{{{wikisource|}}}}}}

Explanation: The legacy wikisource parameter is currently broken and needs to be fixed for invocations of this template with the parameter to work. This change merely duplicates an earlier use in the code and will fix the problem. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 16:06, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This seems to have been fixed in the last few minutes by User:Philip Baird Shearer. PBS: perhaps you could discuss changes to this template on the talk page before implementing as this might prevent mistakes. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Its because I have split the functionality over two pages, I discussed it there: Template talk:Cite EB1911 where it had also been raised. Also I am surprised to see that only admins can edit this page I suggest we change the protection level to "new and unregistered users" -- PBS (talk) 11:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, this has been fixed. Thank you. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

When I looked at the protection log of the template, it turned out that I was the last to set the protection level. So I have changed it so that experienced edits can now edit it. -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

ref=harv

I noticed the recent change when I was looking at Picket (punishment) because I have the necessary switch set and it said in red "Harv error: link from #CITEREFChisholm1911 doesn't point to any citation." This was a change from the default behaviour that has been in place for this template since Aug. 2010

I have reverted an edit] that changed ref=harv to ref=none, this is because it is used in 100 if not 1000's of articles and is also the default behaviour in many other similar templates such as {{DNB}} and {{CE1913}} this is in line with WP:PLAGIARISM which states that inline citations should be used with a general attribution. If for any reason ref=harv is not wanted then it can be set to any other value including none. The template {{Cite EB1911}} like similar templates does not set ref=harv by default, because it is used for articles which are not covered by the plagiarism guideline. -- PBS (talk) 21:34, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yes, it's fine you have reverted my "bold" edit. On a sample of only 20 articles I happened to look at just now, nine had an inline link to EB1911 and eleven did not, just having it as a general reference. The documentation seems to deal overwhelmingly with the general situation, leaving a hint only at ref= about {{sfn}}, etc. So, either way we have a problem with possibly some 50% of uses giving an error and very little clue to editors as to what to do about it. Regarding citations as a whole, I'm personally not clear why it is flagged as an error to have a citation with no link to it though I can see under somewhat unusual circumstances it may help locate an error (where you have linked to "A" twice, intending to link to "A" and "B"). BTW I am afraid it's unclear to me the intended difference between {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}}. Perhaps if I was clear on this in my mind I would also have a clearer understanding of the situation. Is there a good solution to this? Thincat (talk) 22:16, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

An ordinary reader of these pages do not see any red. You only see them in red (as do I) because you have set an an appropriate flag.

{{Cite EB1911}} is just an editorial aid. It fills out some of the fields in the citation which have to be filled out identically ever time, but otherwise itis used just like any other {{cite encyclopedia}} reference either as an inline citation, general reference , further reading or whatever. Behind the scenes it also helps with editorial maintenance because it fill out hidden categories of missing volume numbers etc.
{{EB1911}} is a in a different league. It is there for attribution as laid out in WP:PLAGIARISM it is not an option but mandated. See the section Public-domain sources "If the text is copied or closely paraphrased, then it must be cited and attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation ... In a way unambiguously indicating exactly what has been copied verbatim, provide an inline citation and/or add your own note in the reference section of the article."

If you look at the hidden categories you will see that there is is a huge backlog (‎currently over 8,000 articles) of EB1911 articles with no article parameter (about 2/3 of all articles). What in effect Wikipeida is saying is there is some text somewhere in this Wikipedia article originats somewhere in the 29 volumes of EB1911 but are not going to tell you what or where it came from. This does not meet WP:V and WP:CITE let alone fully meeting PLAGIARISM. Given this unfortunate fact it is not surprising that a "sample of only 20 articles ...nine had an inline link to EB1911 and eleven did not". -- PBS (talk) 09:37, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

I've done a number of these. My guidelines have been:

if the article is completely, or essentially, a copy of the 1911 article, then {{EB1911|...}} in one of the tail sections (such as References), sometimes with a {{one source}} or other commentary
if it contains chunks of text from 1911 along with other text, then <ref>{{EB1911|inline=1...}}</ref> after that text
if there are individual statements that can use 1911 as an authority, then <ref>{{Cite EB1911|...}}</ref>
if 1911 has an alternative take on presenting the material in an otherwise complete article, then either {{Cite EB1911|...}} or {{EB1911 poster|...}} in Further reading or External links.

In the first three cases, use a wstitle parameter if the article is in wikisource, else a title parameter. If it isn't in wikisource, I will have an archive.org page open at the time for verification so I can also add the page number and URL. Also, I try to have only one reference to the source per page (not EB1911 and EB1911 poster in the same article). I know this isn't specifically about ref=harv, but since PBS brought it up and we had discussed it late last year, I thought it would be a good time to mention it. David Brooks (talk) 02:43, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Category link

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)

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)

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)