Template talk:EB1911

Display is jumbled
The current display (when using the parameters to link to WP or WIKT) is very jumbled. Is there a way to present the links to our sister projects in a more aesthetic way? If we can't, then it would just be best to scratch them all together, for the sake of keeping a nice presentation.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 01:16, 8 April 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah. I'm not saying it doesn't work correctly, but that it looks jumbled.  With both the disclaimer and the WP/WIKT links all on the same horizontal line, it just looks like a small mess.  If it were possible to add line breaks between the WP/WIKT links and the disclaimer (like maybe display the disclaimer at the top of the notes segment, then line break, then display the link to WP, line break, and display a possible link to WIKT).  I'd work on it myself, but the template has me horribly confused.—Zhaladshar (Talk) 19:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This looks displeasing because the top half in the green box is set symetrically,ranging left/centre/right and the notes part is asymetrical being flush left. I suggest that the disclaimer goes at the top of the notes section followed by the WP link on a new line, and both need to be centred. I can't remember if there are already any Wdict references, but if there are these will need to be accommodated as well. There should be no reason for any notes entries other than these, unlike other WS pages. Apwoolrich 19:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

It looks a little better if we shorten the text and bold the "See also" lead. However, it looks highly awkward and unsightly to me if we center the links on newlines. I think that there's good potential for editorial notes on individual works, such as to point out interesting history, factual inaccuracies, or various details. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 01:35, 9 April 2006 (UTC) This looks much better. Thanks!—Zhaladshar (Talk) 03:21, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. I added in the new version, and added a single parameter for specifying relevant pages on other projects. I'll document it sometime soon, when I convert the 1911 wiktionary template to EB1911. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 03:28, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

In my view the left flush of the notes still looks ugly, but of course the line length will vary depending on the wording of the article's title, and in some instances will cause a multi-line note. I urge that in the case of EB1911 all notes should go on the discussion page. There is never a case for annotating the text itself, unless its done as a separate documents as we have already discussed for other documents. Apwoolrich 06:54, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree that we should never annotate EB1911 articles. We do not do so in general largely because we mass-add them without any particular attention paid to a single article. However, it is quite possible that an editor may wish to add notes to an article. only exists to simplify the use of  by filling in the constant values, so I don't think we should see this as anything other than a normal use of . The links to Wikipedia and Wiktionary are part of the notes, and aren't so relevant as to require that they be more prominently displayed. // Pathoschild (admin / talk) 07:04, 9 April 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with this. Any annotation should be done on a copy of the prime WS EB1911 article. The object has been to get an exact copy of the original text on WS that others can work from elsewhere. If this exact copy gets annotated by WS editors, users are never going be sure how far the orginal text has been altered. For this reason I suggest that once the prime text has been proofed it is protected. Apwoolrich 17:55, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

More concrete examples for documentation
I think some examples should be used from actual articles; and perhaps things can be fudged somehow so a real article name shows up front and center in the example headers rather than Header/doc, or at least the discrepancy should be acknowledged somewhere. I hope to address these issues in future edits if no one else does. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 13:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to make more like DNB
I have put some additional code into the template sandbox which will make the header appear as does the DNB00

Here is an example with the current header:

FITZ THEDMAR, ARNOLD (d. 1274), London chronicler and merchant, was born in London on the 9th of August 1201. Both his parents were of German extraction. ...

Here is the same information but laid out in a similar format to DNB header, (the header is made slightly larger)

FITZ THEDMAR, ARNOLD (d. 1274), London chronicler and merchant, was born in London on the 9th of August 1201. Both his parents were of German extraction.

The significant difference is that for those articles that have an author the layout would look like this:

FITZ THEDMAR, ARNOLD (d. 1274), London chronicler and merchant, was born in London on the 9th of August 1201. Both his parents were of German extraction.

Currently there is no provision for author which the new layout would accommodate.

Would anyone object if I make this change to the layout? -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 05:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)


 * I don't see the usefulness of these changes, so I would object to them. The author is already provided for by author links in the article.  There is no plan to add volumes to the hierarchy that I know of.  Proposed changes to the article hierarchy should be discussed on the project page. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:05, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have explored your contributions a bit. I do see the usefulness of being able to specify a volume.  I often find myself wanting to click a link to get back to the volume.  Unfortunately, your changes have disabled the access to the section parameter of header which is what brought me here.  I have just begun to appreciate this usefulness.  In addition, if you make changes to the template, you should update the documentation accordingly.  This will also help others to understand your motivations for the changes.  Here on the talk page, giving a section label for your comments will help them to be understood and differentiated from other comments.  I have added a label in this case ("Changes to make more like DNB").  Please change it if you don't think it is an adequate summary. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:33, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * You did appropriately update the documentation, so my comments on that score above are not warranted. But I have reverted the last edit of your series, since it interferes with an edit I have in mind to improve the documentation. I struck out my comments I don't think apply any longer above. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I think having author information in the header is useful. The reason for replacing the section was to do with appearance of the header. What is the advantage of the section parameter that it should not be disabled? -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:43, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * The reason I think author is useful is two fold. The first is that it is convenient to to view the full name in the header. It is also useful if for the collection of statistics and possibly future navigation because hidden categories can be easily set up on the author parameter. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I can live with author information in the header too. There are things like categories and linking the subject of the article to an author page (when there is one) that seem interesting to me, but I don't have interest in or time enough to pursue myself.  Having an additional display of the author in the header looks like it would not cause problems.  The layout makes it reasonably clear it is not eb1911 that is by the author, but the section.  So on reflection I won't object to it.  I have been an advocate of giving people the flexibility of doing things more than one way, so why not here too?


 * The usefulness of not disabling the section parameter is something I found recently (perhaps there are more uses that I haven't run across yet). It has to do with documentation.  If you look at your instances of the header above, they all give "Header" for the section, when it should be "Fitz Thedmar, Arnold" since presumably you are trying to show what it will look like when it is at the top of an actual article.  With the section parameter enabled, one can just assign "Fitz Thedmar, Arnold" to the section parameter and it will look right.  I have done this for the doc for Header, and if you look at the doc before and after my reversion and read what the doc now says for that particular parameter, I think you will see what I mean.  Another problem I have with that edit is that trying to cram section information into the code for another parameter just makes the template coding more obscure to my mind. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 08:42, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

The problem I had with using template with the section parameter enabled as is was that with the author field set it looked like this:

No I was not trying to set the "Fitz Thedmar, Arnold" paramater I was letting it default to the page name (as I am in the example above). You presumably set it like this:

In the code I put in place as it was copied and modified from DNB header it used the parameter "article=" like this: but it is trivial to change the code either to either replace "article=" with "section=" (or have both) and keep the format looking as it does in the the DNB header with author centred below the section name. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:38, 9 October 2010 (UTC)

Here is the example:

What do you think?--Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 02:47, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Your result looks good, but to me it looks like header is what needs changing. There must be other situations where a document is sectioned with different authors for each section.  Perhaps the header template just needs the addition of a   parameter.  Then further templates, like EB1911, could build on header without mutilated code that specifies the section using  .  Then EB1911 could gracefully track any changes to the formatting and handling of the   parameter in header. And maybe header should also be boldfacing the section name.  What compelling reason is there for EB1911 to boldface and header not to, or in general for EB1911 to be deviating from header in the handling of the section name presentation? Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:01, 11 October 2010 (UTC)


 * That is a very good idea, but it is one step further than I want to go. What I suggest is that I implement the changes here to this header and in the future if some one adds a section_author parameter we can alter this header to use it. As we will have to alter the DBN00 header if that change is ever made, so if this header contains similar code to the DNB00, changing two similar headers is not much more of a problem than changing one. -- Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As a note, for DNB00 I have been using the parameter contributor for sub-parts, and it is used in many works in many spaces. Within the scope, I did a bit of a shifty to get the header to work, however, when I did it, my aim was to allow for the later development of the section-author/contributor parameter within the header field. To also note that there have been other developments within header that EB1911 can adopt, eg. use of wikipedia parameter. — billinghurst  sDrewth  06:10, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Doc layout
I have restored the doc layout so the examples are no longer a sub-section of usage. This is how wiki docs are usually laid out I believe, and it seems a clearer format to me. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 08:59, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

Semicolons
If you're going to automate the punctuation between the clusters of links to other projects, it needs to be a second-order punctuation. "A and B in the Wiktionary; X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia; and our disclaimer" and not "A and B in the Wiktionary, X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia, and our disclaimer". No, that's no always necessary, but sometimes&mdash;like "Fashion"&mdash;it absolutely is: the Wiktionary entry hits all the bases but the Wikipedia articles for the EB topic are spread all over.

Better would be realizing that "X on Wikipedia, and our disclaimer" doesn't need that punctuation mark at all (allowing the editors to work it out for themselves whether commas or semicolons are more appropriate), but I'm not going to fuss with that bit of the code on my own. You'd need to add the functionality of realizing that more than one project is being called up. — LlywelynII  01:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)