Template talk:EB1911/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Sorting

Is there some way to make an entry sort properly on the Category page? So you could add something like {{1911|LastName, FirstName}}. —wwoods 00:27, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As it's a category primarly used to extract a set of articles, I don't think it's that important. -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:47, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)

The category is going to go

Templates should not have categories.

1. Category addition needs to be done on an article-by-article basis.
2. It's confusing to less experienced editors where the hell the category is coming from too. (took me awhile to figure it out)
3. There's no way to sort articles within the categories when it's applied through a template. The pipe-sorting trick mentioned above that we use with categories does not work through templates.
4. Templates automatically place their category first, so that "1911 Britannica" is the invariably first classification that comes up on these articles.

I don't even know why we have this template in the first place—the content is public domain, so there is no right of attribution to Britannica, and it doesn't help us in any way further edit or understand the articles. But slapping a category on the template is definitely a problem. Postdlf 04:03, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I entirely concur, at least with the parts wrt the category. I disagree about the template itself - I think that it is, at the very least, polite to our readers to tell them when an article derives from a source from 1911. john k 04:54, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

• I thought about it a bit more, and realized that such content does need to be flagged by the template only so that it can be verified and updated. Once this has been done, however, there is no need to label it as such. Do it under "references", if you must, but at that point the fact that it originally came from a 1911 source has no bearing on the article. Postdlf 05:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)
  • Did you read Wikipedia:Cite your sources ? -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)

• In general, if it's a template that is used consistently, it's most conveniant to use one to add a category. Category:Days is added through a template, and it saved a lot of edits. -- User:Docu — Preceding unsigned comment added by Docu (talk • contribs) 06:54, 17 October 2004‎ (UTC)

This should be temporary

The only use of having a category, first of all, for articles from a common source is if that source requires some verification or updating, as is the case with a 1911 encyclopedia. So I can understand grouping those together to some extent. But after that has been done, the 1911 Britannica is a mere reference, not a defining feature of the article. List it under the "References" header and be done with it—no category. I think the template should be changed to reflect its temporary importance, perhaps adding a phrase like "After this article has been edited and the information verified to be current, please remove this template and list the Britannica under references." Postdlf 16:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Wikisource, article and other unused parameters

From my talk page:

==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter==

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent^talk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

==Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter==

Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter, which you created, has been nominated for possible deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. Revent^talk 17:41, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

From Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 7#Category:Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter

• Propose merging Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with a wikisource parameter to Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica that includes an obsolete parameter

Nominator's rationale: This is a currently empty tracking category (yes, I see the emptycat) with a scope that is duplicated by the target. Other {{EB1911}} deprecated parameter errors aim at the target, no reason for this one not to also. Minor edit to {{EB1911}} needed. Revent^talk 17:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose This is not the place to discuss this. The place to discuss it is on the talk page of the templates that populate the category. As the category is now empty, when it is discussed on the talk page of the template that populates it, I will propose that rather than altering the code to redirect the output to some other category that the parameter is deleted from the code (and then and only then can the category can be deleted). -- PBS (talk) 22:00, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

More from my talk page:

== EB1911 categories ==

Sorry if my 'venue' for bringing it up was inappropriate... I didn't want to actually suggest deleting the code from the templates themselves because of the possibility of a later reversion to an article reactivating the deprecated parameter. These are only very recently empty, because I ran through the members and fixed them the other day. I've actually been working on the various categories like these as a 'group', at this point really just fixing the fact that most aren't marked as tracking categories or empytcats. In the process I've found some that had been deleted, but are now populated, and I assume that they were at some point in the past empty.

I'm actually not going to push on with it now, because it does work the way it currently is. I do think it would make a lot of sense to, eventually, break out parts of the code for the 'more functional' ones of these templates into a set of 'subroutine' templates for writing these things. There are quite a few that give very poor attribution (just boilerplate text) , or don't have the error tracking functionality, or don't use CS1 and so don't add COiNS, and it would be a lot easier to deal with them as a 'set' rather than trying to rewrite 100-odd templates individually. At the same time, some of the 'best' of these templates actually sort into a single error category, and use 'sorting names' for those categories to group the articles by the specific error. This seems to me to be a more sensible system, at least for the ones that don't have a massive backlog, because there's less to keep an eye on. Revent^talk 05:31, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The parameter Wikisource was originally used by me in this code, but after discussions it was decided to use wstitle (a parameter with is now used in dozens of templates). The wikisource parameter has been deprecated in the documentation two years, and as you have now flagged it, it is time to remove it from the code as this simplifies the code (which is always a good thing).

In my opinion it is also time to remove the other unused parameters because they have been removed or deprecated in the documentation for as long. The only parameter which is possibly contentions is the unnamed parameter, but removing that makes it much easier to check for errors or to pass the variable on into CS1 so that CS1 can flag it.

I think I owe you an explanation for the different categories, the primary reason is that for editors who do not use AWB (or something similar) or are not familiar with regular expressions; having specific categories is easier for them to use for editing purposes. The second is that Wikisource used to contain a lot of entries and was an easy one to fix, and the problem with article was it was not clear if the parameter article should be replaced with wstitle or title (in most cases title is more appropriate) but as it was an old parameter in some case the article now exists on Wikisource so wstitle is more appropriate. The secondary reason is not breaking something that ain't broke: Error checking for Wikisource was added before the other parameter checks so leaving well enough alone is less likely to break code.

-- PBS (talk) 11:06, 9 July 2014 (UTC)

The EB1911 template might not have been the 'best' one to start out this particular thing with, since it's actually 'completely functional' but my point in this case was that different types of errors are being treated differently.. |article= and |wikisource= go to the 'incorporating text' categories, while |footnote= and |no-prescript= go to the 'incorporating a citation' categories. It works, but it's not the most 'obvious' thing to figure out without having an explanation or looking at the code.

The 'bigger issue' behind this being that so many of these templates are 'generic boilerplate text', are 'unique' in their error handling, or have none at all that it seemed to make sense to discuss the 'inconsistencies' of the ones such as this and get an idea of what is considered 'best', and then go from there. There is also the method of error handling used by templates such as {{Chembox}} (for some types of errors) that can be seen here... Category:Chemboxes with conversion issues... this seems like it makes sense for the cases currently existing where multiple errors are dumped into the same place. It all really is, however, a matter of 'opinion' as to the best way to make it work...as long as it's functional, the only drama is with it working different ways in different places, simply because it makes it harder for an 'outside' editor to come in and do maintenance work when they have to figure what each template puts where. Revent^talk 05:40, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

PBS and Revent: Following this edit on 21 July, I have just deleted the "wikisource" category. How about the "article" category – is that parameter & category still required? The CFD discussion is still open. – Fayenatic London 10:59, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I've deleted the parameter from being passed on to title and have changed the target category to "... includes an obsolete parameter" which means that Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica with an article parameter can be deleted as far as I am concerned. -- PBS (talk) 12:46, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

I have no complaints. Again, sorry for how I brought it up, admittedly I could have done it in a better way, but live and learn. There are quite a few other 'source-specific attribution' templates and categories that need work, which is something I'm intending to mess with over time, and I'll try to be more 'correct' in how I do so. Thanks for addressing these, though. Revent^talk 23:12, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I've closed: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_July_7#Category:Wikipedia_articles_incorporating_text_from_the_1911_Encyclop.C3.A6dia_Britannica_with_an_article_parameter. It was open quite awhile : )

I'll leave you all discuss here whether these should continue to exist. If a consensus forms here to delete or merge, then just follow through with a C1 speedy as appropriate : ) - jc37 16:20, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

Thanks as can be seen by the red link I have now deleted the category as agreed above. -- PBS (talk) 19:49, 22 September 2014 (UTC)

aide-mémoire

@user:SMcCandlish See its entry in the OED aide-mémoire (which says it is in use in both American and British English) as does the online oxforddictionaries: aide-memoire -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

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

How do you know that most editors do not? I always assume that people know as much as I when it comes to general knowledge. -- PBS (talk) 07:58, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Unnamed parameter handling

It is my intention to alter the code so that in future unnamed parameters are passed through to {{cite encyclopaedia}} to handle. Currently it handles them thus:

• {{cite encyclopedia|author=Fred |Book title (no parameter)|publisher=Modern Books}}
• Fred. Modern Books. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help); Text "Book title (no parameter)" ignored (help)

Given that this is the default behaviour of all the standard citation templates, I think it is time that this template started to handle unnamed parameters in the same way. -- PBS (talk) 13:00, 24 January 2016 (UTC)

That is a particularly meaningless phrase to present to non-editing readers who have never heard of templates, let alone parameters, when the current behavior often does exactly the right thing (i.e. if the EB1911 WS article exists). I understand I should have made that objection to the {{cite encyclopaedia}} behavior at the time, if I had known about it. And I started writing this reply on the side of consistency, which is important, but I come down on the side of our occasional casual reader. David Brooks (talk) 18:21, 26 January 2016 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Y Done.

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

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

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

@user:Wikid77 please explain your thinking behind this edit, because I have reverted it as it seems to work as I expected and I do not understand what it is that you mean. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Copied from Template talk:Cite EB1911#Unnamed parameter handling

• 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: That is the point we do not accept unnamed parameters which is why they are passed on for error-handeling. -- PBS (talk) 21:38, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:Wikid77 11 minutes after I posted the above message you posted a message about the same subject at Help talk:Citation Style 1 (diff).

In it you stated "Recently there have been many pages using {{EB1911|pagename}} with parameter 1 intended as 'title=pagename' or also {{cite EB1911}}." what is your evidence for this? I ask because there is a category "Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with an unnamed parameter" (that was created in March 2011‎) and I have not noticed lots of entries in that category recently (only the two I mentioned above). So please can you provide some diffs to support your assertion. -- PBS (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:Wikid77, You also state "There has been just enough confusion so that it worked ok for a while, and people used {EB1911|page} many times to get "{cite encyclopedia|title=page|...}" but now is broken again. People seem to want to use {EB1911|page}, and so I think it should work again. Any plans?" Yet there is no mention of unnamed parameters in the current documentation and previously there was a footnote, which had been in Template:Cite EB1911/doc since the document was created in March 2011 (five years ago!) which stated:

"For backwards compatibility with {{Wikisource1911Enc citation}} and {{1911EB}}, this template takes two unnamed parameters the first the article name the second a comment but these are depreciated. They should not be used as the functionality may be removed in later versions of this template." The same warning footnote was was removed] from Template:EB1911/doc in May 2011 (about 5 years ago).

So who are the confused people who have not read the documentation or the talk pages, and have recently been trying to add unnamed parameters to these two templates? -- PBS (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

@user:Wikid77 I looked at the history of your changes around the time that you say you came across error in EB1911 that justified your changing the template. But most of the inline text were the type of mistakes that we want to pick up. eg missing out the = in volume3 or placing a | between page=|354, so far from justifying the change the mistakes highlight why passing on such errors to be processed by {{cite encyclopaedia}} is desirable.

Extended content

13:23, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . William Berkeley (governor) ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for extra text)N The parameter is not an unnamed "volume 3" but should be "volume=3" --initial error by 98.169.207.46 13:22, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+10)‎ . . Gusli ‎ (17 changes: ce) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]N The text should not be an unnamed parameter but moved out of the template. 13:16, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Agnes Bernauer ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for extra text) (current) [rollback: 1 edit]N The parameter is not an unnamed "volume 3" but should be "volume=3" --initial error by 98.169.207.46 13:11, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+1)‎ . . Thomas Howard, 1st Earl of Berkshire ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for extra text) N The parameter is not an unnamed "volume 3" but should be "volume=3" -- initial error by 98.169.207.46 12:54, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+22)‎ . . Columbus Crew SC ‎ (15 changes: fix cite for bar "|.." in title & pre-space cite bars) 12:46, 26 February 2016‎ Wikid77 (talk | contribs | block)‎ . . (4,743 bytes) (+82)‎ . . (changed to echo parameter 1, similar to Wikisource template as compatible parameter) 12:34, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+24)‎ . . Lazarus Geiger ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for extra text, etc.) N You added the wrong the name. In the EB1911 cannot be "Lazarus Geiger". Why did you not look it up before guessing the name -- in fact that template was added by mistake by added by mistake by user:Slowking4. The correct EB1911 article was already linked as Geiger, Abraham 12:08, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Henry Houssaye ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for extra text) Y 11:46, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-10)‎ . . House of Keys ‎ (fix {Cite EB1911} for crap text)Y 11:29, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-21)‎ . . Tuncay Güney ‎ (180 changes: ce, fix cite for bar "|.." text in date & remove 29 "section=" & pre-space cite bars, among 106 cites) 10:39, 26 February 2016 ([1] | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . Tear in My Heart ‎ (→‎top: ce) 10:37, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-107)‎ . . Tear in My Heart ‎ (fix cite for text in url by omit & reuse reftag "YT") 10:26, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+6)‎ . . OTR-21 Tochka ‎ (fix cite "title" as "title=") 10:22, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-57)‎ . . Mianwali ‎ (30 changes: ce, @infobox omit "elevation_m_min"; fix cite for "page=|354" as "page=354") Y 09:59, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+2)‎ . . Ambroise Thomas ‎ (fior extra text in {Cite EB1911}.)Y moving the extra text out of the template was the correct thing to do. 09:49, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+8)‎ . . Ferdinand Marcos ‎ (fix cite "http" as "url=http" +"page=") 02:26, 26 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+13)‎ . . Hazel (comics) ‎ (→‎Television: +link text as "Hazel (TV series)") (current) [rollback: 1 edit] 23:38, 25 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-69)‎ . . Weezer ‎ (30 changes: ce; fix cite for bar "|.." in title & same bar text in publisher by omit & pre-space cite bars, among 95 cites) 1:37, 25 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+38)‎ . . N U.S. Govt ‎ (created, as a redirect, to "U.S. Federal Government" to match searches of "Govt") 10:07, 25 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (+38)‎ . . Mount Lykaion ‎ (20 changes: ce, cvt m/ft; fix cite by omit "inline" in {Cite EB1911}.)Y removing inline instead of setting it to inlne=1 was the correct thing to do as the template was not used in an inline citation. -- the initial error was made by Suslindisambiguator 09:55, 25 February 2016 (diff | hist) . . (-7)‎ . . Werewolf ‎ (fix cite by omit "inline" in {Cite EB1911}.)Y removing inline instead of setting it to inlne=1 was the correct thing to do as the template was not used in an inline citation. -- the initial error was made by Suslindisambiguator

However this exercise did throw up an mismatch in the logic of the if statements around the categories. The articles with an unnamed parameter were not being placed into the unnamed category by the template {{cite EB1911}} if either wstitle= or title= were present. I have fixed that. Thanks for discovering it. -- PBS (talk) 19:33, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Once the fix mentioned in the last paragraph was put in place (05:41, 27 April 2016‎) six articles were found to contain an unamed parameter all of them have now been fixed:

• Ludwig Geiger -- -- contained a text message -- fixed 12:08, 28 April 2016
• Pascual Madoz -- "inline" -- a failed parameter "inline=1" -- fixed 15:27, 28 April 2016
• Nibling -- "page384" -- a failed parameter "page=284" -- fixed 12:37, 28 April 2016
• Patrician (post-Roman Europe) --first2John -- a failed parameter "first2=John" -- fixed 15:28, 28 April 2016
• Senecio sylvaticus -- volume12 -- failed parameter "volume=12" -- fixed" 15:31, 28 April 2016
• Frances Milton Trollope -- -- contained a text message-- fixed 12:31, 28 April 2016

This is why it is useful to pass unnamed parameters to {{cite encyclopedia}} -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Please discuss instead of edit warring on a template

Zackmann08 and PBS, you are edit warring on a template instead of discussing. Please discuss.

I suggest two items for discussion:

1. How should unknown parameters be tracked, if at all, on this template? The deprecated parameter categories may have been empty, but what should happen if someone uses one in the future?

2. Should this template be merged with {{Cite EB1911}}? – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: I've made a total of two edits on the page... Not possible for that to be edit warring... --Zackmann08 (^{Talk to me}/_{What I been doing}) 05:50, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

1. The category is there to be monitored. If someone adds for example article=. It needs changing either to wstitle or to title depending on whether the article yet exists on Wikisource.
2. No it should not be merged. {{EB1911}} is like it says an attribution template. It exists to meet the requirements of WP:Plagiarism guideline. {{Cite EB1911}} is a wrapper used by this template and it is useful as a citation template for those articles that include facts based on a EB1911 article, but the text is not copied from an EB1911 article. There are dozens of template pairs such as this. Eg {{DNB}} and {{cite DNB}}
3. In point of fact as none of the old parameters appear in this template, I do not intend to revert User:Zackmann08 here. However the template {{Cite EB1911}} does still contain some (all?) of those redundant parameters so the category is still needed.

-- PBS (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the discussion. Maybe this template should use the unknown parameter module that is used by many infoboxes so that it tracks all unknown parameter usage in a single category. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:06, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

I will look at that as an option if you can provide a link, but these are not infobox templates... PBS (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Unknown paramater

Currently, Category:Pages using EB1911 with unknown parameters seems to be occupied by articles that contain the parameter |short=x. I can't remember what this used to be for. What should replace it?--Auric talk 17:30, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Template:Cite EB1911#Detailed notes might help jog someone's memory. There is a |short= described there. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:23, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Talk page archive

It might be nitpicking, but in my experience the archive pages for this talk page are confusing: Archive 2 only has discussions from 2004 while Archive 1 has discussions from 2004 to 2014 but in a random order. Bever (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

@Bever Sort it out if you want to. If you look at the history of Archive 2 you will see that I added the 2004 entries using OneClickArchiver after the auto-archiver missed some 2004 threads. As any search will find the threads in either archive it did not seem worth complicating the edit-history in the archives by rearranging the sections from one archive into another. -- PBS (talk) 07:33, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Linking Cambridge University Press

Before I post an edit request for it: Would wikilinking Cambridge University Press in the template be considered excessive? Trivialist (talk) 17:32, 5 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't have strong feelings for or against showing the link in general (I wouldn't find it excessive), but I'm concerned about consistency. First, either linking or not should be consistent across EB1911 and Cite EB1911. Than should we link Charles Scribner's Sons in EB9? What about templates that reference other classic encyclopedias like CE, DNB or NIE; none of those links the publisher. So I'd say no for this reason; you really should do it on all or none. @PBS: you may have an opinion. David Brooks (talk) 02:11, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Like David Brooks I have not strong opinions on it, however I lean to not doing so. The reason for this is that we can end up with the whole line blue linked, for example Chisholm, Hugh and many of the authors of articles are notable in their own right, and so I think it brings confusion as it makes identifying the important link (the article) less easy to identify. If the reader wants to identify the publisher of the article that can be found in the article link and it may be more accurate as the article publisher may change from time to time depending on the source used at Wikisource. For example the first volume contains two copyright notices. The first is copyrighted to the "Chancellor ... University of Cambridge" (which is shown by Wikisource) the second a couple of pages later to "Copyright the United States of America 1910 by the Encyclopaedia Britannica Company" as this particular volume was published in New York,[2] one could argue that we ought to change the publisher to "Encyclopaedia Britannica Company" but in my opinion that is less informative that the current Cambridge University, (although the publisher is not explicitly given it simply says "Cambridge England: at the University Press New York, 35 West 32nd Street 1910" — which being pedantic is the printer not the publisher).

At a practical level, I bet you (Trivialist) came to this template because you are searching for all instances of "Cambridge University Press" in Wikipedia and linking the string, this template obviously shows up in thousands of articles, hence you reason for wanting to link it. I have given you reasons not to do so, but if you decide to go ahead I will not revert it. -- PBS (talk) 07:22, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, @DavidBrooks and PBS: you both raise good points. I suspected that there were reasons for leaving it unlinked (at the very least, avoiding having nearly the whole line be blue links), so I thought I'd ask before suggesting anything further. I have no plans to make an edit request for the change. Trivialist (talk) 19:01, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Quick explanation (aide-mémoire)?...

This is a redundant header on the main Template page - "quick explanation" by itself is enough, the term "aide-mémoire" is unneeded. Shearonink (talk) 02:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)