Template talk:Cite EB1911/Archive 1

Archive 1

Code

This template is no longer a redirect. It is now the base for a number of other templates. In particular {{1911}} which appears on about 15,000. So that the links from that template can easily be identified, and separated from those pages that calls this template directly, {{1911}} calls a new redirect called {{EB1911 cite}}.

This is similar to the relationship between {{DNB}} and {{Cite DNB}} -- ( {{DNB}} calls {{DNB Cite}} ). -- PBS (talk) 19:50, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

But please note that {{DNB cite}} does not put an article in inappropriate categories as {{EB1911 cite}} does. Not everyone who cites a public domain resource copies from it verbatim. And some cite it just to let people know it's there, without using in the article in any way shape or form. It seems {{DNB cite}} is better behaved in this respect. Perhaps all you need to do is make the correspondence between {{EB1911 cite}} and {{DNB cite}} a little tighter by having {{1911}} take care of adding categories and not doing this in {{EB1911 cite}}. And {{Cite EB1911}} and {{Wikisource1911Enc citation}} already had quite a large number of articles being used and the pre-existing behavior should be preserved. I see you are doing something with {{{1}}} in the code, and hopefully this is for backward compatibility, in which case this usage should be indicated in the documentation as a convenient shorthand. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 23:27, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

{{DNB cite}} and {{EB1911 cite}} are redirects the two templates are {{Cite DNB}} and {{Cite EB1911}} the advantage of those formates is that they are the same as {{Cite book}}, {{Cite encyclopaedia}} etc, so most people using the templates already know how to use them as they are in a familiar format to the other similar templates.

The unnamed parameters are in the current code and they are documented as depreciated. It makes no sense having several templates that do similar things with different parameters, much better to use just {{Cite EB191|wstitle=..}} rather than {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} etc. {{Cite EB1911}} has several advantage one of which is that it takes |url= |title= parameters, so it can document a Encyclopaedia Britannica (eleventh (ed)) article that does not yet exist on wikisource, it then means that if it shows up as a title= then that can be used to set a flag for a priority port to wikisource. When a port exists all that has to be changed is |title= to |wstitle= and remove the url=. Another advantage is that people make mistakes and if unnamed parameters are depreciated if a mistake is made it tends to show up as an error, this is much more difficult to code if there are unnamed parameters -- PBS (talk) 01:25, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm working my way through the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} etc and there is a real problem with them, as many of the articles that are listed in the references sections are in fact misnamed and they should really have been {{1911}} entries. I think that the solution as you suggest above is to move most (all) of the categories back into the {{1911}} template and have a bot go through all the {{Cite EB1911}} and add a flag to them that they need checking to see if they should be converted to {{1911}}. But that can wait until after I have finished converting the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} into {{Cite EB1911}}. -- PBS (talk) 16:19, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Jan Karol Chodkiewicz is typical of the sort of article that is using {{Cite EB1911}} but incorporates text from EB1911 so should use the template {{1911}} -- PBS (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes we can all agree that there are articles like Jan Karol Chodkiewicz {{Cite EB1911}} is used, and in the current situation {{1911}} would be preferred, but back when {{1911}} had no provision for linking to Wikisource, this was not the case, and having a link to the text was much preferred. With the link, a curious reader can assess whether text is being incorporated verbatim or not. The lack of the categories is not a big deal as far as I am concerned. If the usage is problematic, it can be flagged in the usual way if not fixed on the spot by an editor. Converting all the {{Wikisource1911Enc Citation}} into {{Cite EB1911}} sounds pretty useless to me as one is just an alias of the other, the only advantage being you have eliminated an alias. Is there something I am missing? I would think you would leave something like this to a bot, but I would not bother with it at all. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

I have found the notes on the provision for the legacy parameters in the doc for this template; thanks for retaining the backward compatibility. I now see the wikisource parameter is now wstitle. Presumably a bot has changed all the usages of wikisource to wstitle? It had been in use for a significant amount of time. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

The wikisource is still in the code, but -- I forget in which one -- wstitle was already being used in at least one other template, so it made sense to go with your suggestion of wstitle= and not to reinvent the wheel, particularly as "wstitle=" is closer to "title=" than "wikisource=". -- PBS (talk) 20:05, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Attribution for the causal reader is not a particularly big issue, with sources this old there is no copyright issue, but within the Wikipedia editor community copying public domain text without adequate attribution is no longer acceptable. See the WP:PLAGIARISM guideline for guidance. -- PBS (talk) 20:21, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I see that wikisource is still in the code, but it currently is not working. For example {{1911|wikisource=Schurz, Carl}} produces 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). There is no link that I can see. I suggest the recent edit be amended so the legacy parameter works and the documentation be updated to indicate the legacy support (with a footnote as is done with other legacy items). I'm willing to update the documentation once the template itself is fixed. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, it is good to know what is adequate. I thought my procedure was, but apparently I need to go further. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 15:38, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

That one is now fixed (I think) -- the trouble with debugging templates is that if they are fixed then the error magically goes away as if it never existed. So one needs to use {{subst:template name}} to fix the error is the aspic of the page:

 This article incorporates text from a publication now in the public domain: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Schurz, Carl". Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

-- PBS (talk) 16:46, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

What a lot of text! -- PBS (talk) 16:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing this. I agree with your point (in the {{1911}} doc) about a bare {{1911}} notification hardly qualifying as a verifiable reference. I suppose it is a step up from the more silly {{NIE}} notification which doesn't even give the edition to page through. However, at this point the {{1911}} template puts the page in the "no article" category even when the wstitle parameter is being used, and this detracts from the category's usefulness. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:13, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It is probably a bug I'll look into it. -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

I've been looking into it and it is yet apparent if it is an update problem or a bug. I'll report back when I can work it out. -- PBS (talk) 01:59, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

See Help talk:Template#parameters in templates passed into templates tested and failing -- PBS (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Well I hope it all works out at some point. The categories are not that critical to me. I can see something like this would be hard to sandbox, but perhaps some sort of work-in-progress would be good in the docs for {{1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}}. I am mentioning the "no article" category here, but I have also pointed out that {{Cite EB1911}} puts things into the "source copying" categories when that it not necessarily appropriate. It does seem to me the whole step of integrating {{Cite EB1911}} and {{1911}} is still somewhat experimental, especially as far as the categories are concerned. I don't see much way around this, and the line of experimentation seems reasonable, but I think a work-in-progress note in the docs would be good until it get worked out and tested reasonably. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I'll give it 24 hours and then if there is not an obvious work around I'll rewind {{1911}} so that it does not call this one until I can work out a fix. -- PBS (talk) 17:41, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I have now put in a new version of the codefor {{cite EB1911}} and {{1911}}, and I have also renamed some of the categories. But as there are a lot of entries it will take some time for all the articles to be moved into the new categories. The new categories are described in template:1911#Hidden categories and can be found in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica -- PBS (talk) 18:24, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

template:cite EB1911

I have a problem with the way this is used. I came across this because of the use of the template on an article I created many years ago. There is no text copied from EB1911 in the article, and yet the template creates a passage which appears to "attribute" the text to the 1911 EB, as appears in the title of this section! This appears to be in conformity with the guidelines for using the template code, but frankly, I fail to see the logic of it. The 1911 EB is an old source, but it happens to be very good for some subjects, including this one (the Victorian artist Edward Matthew Ward). There is no good reason to single out the source from any others that may be used and to create an "attribution" to the EB191 that seems to give it prominence, while parading copyright symbols. It seems entirely arbitrary to pick out one source in this way. The EB1911 is a legitimate source for some topics and surely should be treated as identical to any other source, with the same formatting used. Paul B (talk) 20:11, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

I am going to copy this to talk:Edward Matthew Ward and discuss it there. -- PBS (talk) 21:27, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Authorlink ceased working properly?

At Hippocratic_Corpus#References a once-properly-displaying instance of this template is now broken and tries to link a now-nonexistent {{authorlink}}. Is there a way to correct the template so that the Wikipedia article on the EB1911 article author is linked? More concretely, here--

• Tuke, John Batty (1911). "Hippocrates". In Chisholm, Hugh (ed.). Encyclopædia Britannica. Vol. 13 (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. 517–519.

--why is the link to John Batty Tuke not working? Wareh (talk) 01:38, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have fixed the template there was a missing "}" at the end of the statement that handled authorlink=. Of course because it is now fixed the example you gave above now works correctly rather than showing up the error, I thought I'd mention that so that anyone looking at this thread can understand that. -- PBS (talk) 07:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent--thanks for the skilled repair job! Wareh (talk) 03:01, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

error for chapter parameter

This template has begun generating a CS1 error: "External link in |chapter=", for example: Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Stawell" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. Library Guy (talk) 16:39, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

It does not seem to be present at the moment. When things like this appear it is probably best to discuss note them here and discuss them on at Module talk:Citation/CS1 as it is usually changes to that code that affects the appearance of this template. -- PBS (talk) 01:34, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

Unnamed parameter handling

See: Template talk:EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling -- PBS (talk) 22:22, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

• To deter the common cite error about extra text, the template should allow parameter 1 as the title, for example:

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)

Otherwise, the template would trigger a cite error. -Wikid77 (talk) 21:12, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@User:Wikid77 I have replied at Template talk:EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling as that is where the conversation has been taking place. -- PBS (talk) 21:41, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

---

From the edit history:

• 16:12, 4 November 2016‎ Wikid77 . . (4,561 bytes) (-4)‎ . . (fixed highly misleading error "article name needed" (which needs neither "article=" nor "name=" nor "article name") to be instead " 'title=' needed" until this template can be really fixed to again default to Cite EB1911/Archive 1 as the "title=")
• 23:21, 4 November 2016‎ PBS . . (4,565 bytes) (+4)‎ . . (Undid revision 747824736 by Wikid77 (talk) I do not think it highly misleading so lets discuss it on the talk page.)

Wikid77 I think you are mixing up functionality of templates with the display of that template in article space. while "'title=' needed" is a useful string for an editor it is meaningless to a general reader. For a general reader "article name needed" is a far better explanation that there no article name given, while at the same time requesting that an editor adds one. -- PBS (talk) 23:27, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

I reverted again. Inserting {{PAGENAME}} is unhelpful for the reasons PBS explained; a very large number of EB1911 entries have different titles from WP, including almost all bios. David Brooks (talk) 12:27, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I can put numbers on that. In a random sample of 557 articles in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference, 96 have wstitle that matches the title, and 479 differ (some have more than one template call). If you use DEFAULTSORT when available instead, it only goes up to 125212 match, 450363 mismatch. David Brooks (talk) 16:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Cambridge University, Cambridge

See Wikipedia talk:Citing sources/Archive 32#Standards for handling publisher location

From the history of the template:

• 19:41, 5 May 2017‎ RL0919 . . (pass 'location' parameter (suppressed along with other publisher info if 'short' is set))
• 15:47, 8 May 2017‎ PBS ( . . (Undid revision 778889296 by RL0919 (talk) see WP:CITE "city of publication is optional" and it is usually missed out for Oxford and Cambridge when publishing in their own city (as it is obvious).)

If the city of publication was anything other than Cambridge, then there could be justification for listing it. However for a publication of CUP in Cambridge, it is just text bloat to a citation that already gives enough information for a reader to find the publication. -- PBS (talk) 16:04, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The discussion you linked doesn't seem to come to any firm conclusions; it's a few people expressing opinions with no particular consensus. The relevant consensuses seem to be "city of publication is optional" and "any given article should follow a consistent style", which are both in the text of WP:CITE (not just a discussion page). Given that optional means it can be included, but the template currently doesn't support that, is there any objection to adding support for location as an optional field, to be displayed if the user adds it? --RL0919 (talk) 21:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

The text resulting from the {{EB1911}} and {{Cite EB1911}} templates is already extraordinarily long when listed with other footnotes. Adding a completely redundant word would make it just worse. David Brooks (talk) 23:12, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

I am against including an optional parameter because it complicates the code, unless there is a good reason for including it. for example the mode is useful for consistency when the predominant citation type is cs2 (as used with the {{citation}} template) even though it is not usually used. I do not believe that adding city of publication will help, unless it can be shown that editions in the British Empire used different pagination from those published in the United States.

Having said that I have I looked through a sample of the copies of Wikisource:EB1911 it appears that they are copyrighted to University Cambridge, but the majority were printed in New York, however the wording varies from volume to volume. -- PBS (talk) 18:26, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

The option of using 'location' allows citations from this template to be consistent with other citations in an article where locations are used, in keeping with the guideline that "any given article should follow a consistent style". This is particularly important in featured content (articles or lists), where consistency of details is expected by reviewers. In such cases these citations will be of similar length to other entries, contra David's concern above. Alternatively, editors could just use {{cite encyclopedia}} directly and avoid this template for featured content, but that seems like an unfortunate result. --RL0919 (talk) 20:55, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to change accessdate

I think it would be a good idea to change the parameter accessdate to behave like the parameter url. So that accessdate does not display if wstitle is set. -- PBS (talk) 13:27, 12 August 2017 (UTC)

Support. Accessdate is misleading and more noise for the eye when the underlying source is printed, and a specific edition. David Brooks (talk)

Done Y-- PBS (talk) 12:51, 15 August 2017 (UTC)

Access by chapter

I have added a new parameter called "chapter", because now that the "template section" works correctly on Wikisource, it is sometimes useful to use a specific section of a large article. For example:

• {{cite EB1911|chapter=Campaign in the South of France, 1814 |wstitle=Peninsular War}}
• Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Campaign in the South of France, 1814" . Peninsular War . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press.

However I have not included "chapterurl=" as I see this as a useful extension for access to Wikisource, and not for access to external links as the chapter url can be included in the "url=" parameter if wanted, and the depth of the Wikisoruce coverage is now enough not to warrant including "chapterurl=". -- PBS (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Default to ref=harv

Gog the Mild just noticed that using {{Cite EB1911}} (in footer, not inline) with {{sfn}} requires the ref=harv parameter, to enable linking from the footnote to the cite. {{EB1911}} does supply "harv" as a default for ref. Any reason not to do that in the Cite version? I don't believe that will break {{EB1911}}'s wrapping. On a rough count, there are about 430 articles that don't have ref=harv, and about 95 that do. Already done a little light testing in the sandbox. David Brooks (talk) 20:46, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@DavidBrooks: No reason at all. Done. It works. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:55, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: I meant making harv the default in the code of this template itself. PBS is (in my mind) the primary maintainer. David Brooks (talk) 21:16, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

Oops. I was busy not something else and didn't notice that it was a courtesy inclusion and not a ping. Apologies. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

This thread is a bit confusing, but I have set |ref=harv by default in this template, replicating the change made in the sandbox. Editors can override the default value by setting |ref= to a custom value. Post here if there are any problems. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the edit. Unlike {{citation}} by default {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite book}} etc do not set ref=harv, so {{Cite EB1911}} does not (expected default behaviour). This is also because {{Cite EB1911}} may be used in ==Further reading== or (commonly) in ==External links== (usually with short=x set). However {{EB1911}} is by definition being used in the references section (either as a bullet point or as an inline citation), so it makes sense to default set ref=harv. BTW there are dozens of templates that behave this way eg {{cite DNB}} {{DNB}}, {{cite CE1913}} {{CE1913}} -- PBS (talk) 16:57, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@PBS and Jonesey: I admit I still don't understand the harm in adding a default ref=harv to this and the similar templates, but I concede I don't understand all of the interactions. Does something else go subtly wrong? There are plenty of cases of {{Cite EB1911|...no "ref"}} in one of the footer sections (the choice of section seems to be to the editor's individual tastes, and References is sometimes one of them) along with {{sfn|name|1911}} in the body, a valid combination. As I said above, there are ~430 articles (may be a very slight overestimate, for reasons) with this pattern, and fixing them is a very low priority of course, as it only affects the presumably little-used double-jump to the source. Anyway, I reverted the sandbox too. David Brooks (talk) 18:26, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

The only valid objection I have seen to making ref=harv the default in cite templates is that it may accidentally create two references with the same harv ID. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:35, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

@Jonesey95 I suggest that if you think that is the only objection that you raise the issue at Help talk:Citation Style 1 and get all of the "cite ..." templates to default to "ref=harv" (like Citation Style 2), as I think it better that this template mimics the other "cite ..." templates. It is unusual for two or more {{EB1911}} templates to be used in the same article, but such cases can be addressed in the standard way of explicitly adding a year parameter to them year=1911a year=1911b etc; or by setting ref={{SfnRef}}. -- PBS (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@David Brooks there is no harm, and it is the default for {{citation}}, however it creates a gotya if {{cite EB1911}} is to behave like other "cite ...." templates such as its parent {{cite encyclopedia}}. If there are {{EB1911}} citations at the bottom of articles without links to them then yes that is a problem. Either ref needs to be explicitly unset ref= (this is possible with {{EB1911}}, but is not usually available in the standard templates) or ref=none); or it is a problem and needs to be addressed, typically it is a general reference and either needs to be moved inline or short inline citations ({{sfn}}) are needed to link the text to the reference. In the case of {{Cite EB1911|...no "ref"}} they need fixing as do any others that use "cite ..." that need a ref=harv parameter. BTW did you use AWB to find the problem ~430 articles, or did you manage it with a standard search using insource:, or is there some other way? -- PBS (talk) 07:56, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

This idea was recently proposed at Help Talk:CS1, for all CS1 templates. There is a detailed discussion there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

@PBS: A C# assembly that I started in a fit of boredom a while back. It exposes LINQ-friendly classes and uses automated batching and async HTTP to access the MW API. Not ready for publication yet, as there are some additional interfaces it really should have, and I'm tinkering under the hood right now to encapsulate its implementation better. I suppose in Wiki parlance it's a script. In this instance, I load the text of every article in the two "incorporating a citation" categories (which is surprisingly fast) and look for those with the pattern {{sfn|<name>|1911 and {{Cite EB1911...}} where the ... does not contain ref=harv. David Brooks (talk) 17:32, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Link publisher

Please change:

| publisher = {{#if: {{{short|}}}|<!-- eq to empty -->|Cambridge University Press}}

to:

| publisher = {{#if: {{{short|}}}|<!-- eq to empty -->|[[Cambridge University Press]]}}

So that the publisher (Cambridge University Press) is linked by default per MOS:DUPLINK: Citations stand alone in their usage, so there is no problem with repeating the same link in many citations within an article; e.g. |work=[[The Guardian]]. - Paul^T+/_C 19:13, 26 April 2019 (UTC)

 Done there has not been any opposition to this request so I changed it accordingly — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 14:13, 29 April 2019 (UTC)

use template wrapper

I have edited the sandbox version of this template to use Module:template wrapper. See the ~/testcases.

You will see that none of the comparisons agree:

1. ~/sandbox rendering omits the wikisource icon at the head of the citation because Module:Citation/CS1 renders a wikisource icon after wikisource links; this is the same as {{cite wikisource}} and {{cite DNB}} etc.
2. different interwiki link formats:

   live creates links to wikisource in the form:

   [[Wikisource:...

   ~/sandbox uses the form:

   [[s:...

   ~/sandbox rendering is different because the interwiki link is created by the shared template {{cite wikisource/make link}}

3. testcase 6: live template produces a broken link to the chapter. This happens because it writes the anchor delimiter (#) as # which, somewhere in the process, gets transformed to %26#35; in the final url. ~/sandbox remedies this by creating a separate link on the |chapter= title
4. testcase 7: live template shows an icon after the wikisource link when |no-icon=x; in ~/sandbox, {{cite wikisource/make link}} returns an interwiki link in the form: [[:s:... which tells Module:Citation/CS1 to omit the icon
5. ~/sandbox replaces |year=1911 with canonical parameter |date=1911; in testcase 10, Module:Citation/CS1 sees both |date=1911 and |year=1911b, renders the visible date as 1911 but uses 1911b in the template's CITEREF anchor; live uses 1911b in both places
6. testcase 14: ~/sandbox recognizes canonical |access-date= while live does not

I have also removed the check for unknown parameters because Module:Citation/CS1 will emit error messages for parameters that it doesn't recognize.

Without objection, I shall update the live template to the code in ~/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2019 (UTC) 14:22, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Can you just explain #2? I don't see a difference in the iw rendering. David Brooks (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

You may be able to see the difference by floating your mouse pointer over the citation's title (Sligo (town)):

{{Cite EB1911|wstitle=Sligo (town)}} → Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sligo (town)" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. – [[Wikisource:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sligo (town)

{{Cite EB1911/sandbox|wstitle=Sligo (town)}} → Chisholm, Hugh, ed. (1911). "Sligo (town)" . Encyclopædia Britannica (11th ed.). Cambridge University Press. – [[s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sligo (town)

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:11, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

Got it. I prefer the :s: anyway. No other issues. David Brooks (talk) 15:14, 27 June 2019 (UTC)

There having been no further comments, updated.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Unlink publisher

Please change:

| publisher = {{#if: {{{short|}}}|<!-- eq to empty -->|[[Cambridge University Press]]}}

to:

| publisher = {{#if: {{{short|}}}|<!-- eq to empty -->|Cambridge University Press}}

I've just noticed that back in April the template was changed to automatically link the publisher. However, there is no good reason for this. It's out of line with the recommendations at Template:Cite book#Publisher ("publisher: Name of publisher; may be wikilinked if relevant") and with the guideline at MOS:OVERLINK ("A good question to ask yourself is whether reading the article you're about to link to would help someone understand the article you are linking from"). The article on a large academic/generalist publisher is not going to help anyone checking a particular reference; it's pretty much inconceivable that any reader or editor would ever want to click on that link, so it has no value. Colonies Chris (talk) 12:28, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging Editor Psantora who requested the April change.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

 Done Note that the previous TPER was implemented with no opposition, so this is a routine reversal of that request, but any further changes regarding the linking of the publisher will require a discussion and consensus. Primefac (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2019 (UTC)