Template talk:Cite DNB

Proposed changes

I have recently upgraded the {{1911}} and {{Catholic}} templates. I would like to do the same to this one and {{DNB}} but instead of having {{DNB}} as a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}} I would like to have it as a wrapper around this template. To do that I would like to:

1. separate out title and wstitle so that title can be used for articles not yet on wikisource.
2. Get rid of the no named parameter argument -- So that editors make a concious choice between wikisource (wstitle) and not yet on wikisource (title). This will also mean getting rid of the second unnamed parameter which is a comment field. I think we should junk the comment field completely as it can just as easily be added on the same line directly after the template if it is needed.

To make these changes. I propose to

1. Change the documentation of the template.
2. Run AWB over the <1.5k links to this template
3. Alter the template, which will include a change to the icon if title instead of wstitle is used. Add a few more variable options which might be need by {{DNB}}. Add a hidden categories one citing DNB but no link to a wikisource article.

Comments welcome. -- PBS (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes made -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this template from {{DNB Cite}} to "{{cite DNB}} as it fits in better with names like {{cite web}} {{cite encyclopedia}} etc. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Move made -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed parameter

Bob I think this edit this edit is a retrograde step, do you know of any usage of the template where this is a problem, because I think I went through all of of them from unamed parameter to named parameter when when I put this template in. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've checked and I did -- PBS (talk)

Thank you for fixing the ones with an unnamed parameter. And definitely removing the useless comment field is a plus. I will take the blame for that, but I hope you made appropriate changes there as well, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were no instances that used this facility. I think the comment parameter is just as useless, and it would be better just to let people know in the doc they can put what text they want after the template. This will help them in other situations as well.

As far as the unnamed parameter, I think it is more convenient. This is how things like {{DNB Poster}} and {{Wikisource1911Enc}} work. I don't plan on going beyond that one parameter. The wstitle is "custom" as far as standard {{cite}} parameters, and a variant customization doesn't, to me, seem like too much. wstitle still has priority.

By the way, I have noticed that the author parameter has stopped working, although first and last still work fine. I noticed this before I made my edit to this template. Looking at the code for this template, I don't see the problem. It still works for {{Cite encyclopedia}}. I notice it has been omitted from the documentation, but of course this shouldn't matter, but it should be documented as well, which I can do if it ever starts working again. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to use unnamed parameters because testing for them can be used to pick up one of the common mistakes people make when the template is called with multiple parameters (missing out the "=" as in "volume 24" ). Also from a template maintenance POV extra parameters makes the template more bloated this is bad for two reasons. It makes it difficult for people new to the template to work out what is going on and just as important it leads to the types of "got yas" that we have in the {{1911}}, {{Cite EB1911}} pair. BTW I think I have a fix for that particular bug -- there is a pair sitting in the sandboxes of both the {{1911/sandbox}} calls {{Cite EB1911/sandbox}}. I have also slightly modified the names and placing of the categories, which should make them more useful. I will probably implemented them in about 18 hours time, but if you would like to test them further I will be pleased for any feedback you have.

I have now put in a new version of the codefor {{cite EB1911}}, 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) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I am pretty sure I know why author has stopped working. I'll fix that as soon as I have finished the 1911 implementation, basically it is exactly the same problem in the code in {{cite encyclopedia}}, as I had with {{Cite EB1911}} being called from {{1911}} the fix lies in how {{cite encyclopedia}} is called by {{Cite DNB}}. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

The author= parameter should now work in {{Cite DNB}} and {{DNB}}. I have not tested it as I am reasonably confident of what the problem is, so if you know an article that uses the author= parameter please let me know if it is not. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it works now. Thanks. I like the unnamed parameter because it is convenient. I've done well with them. I'm not asking to fill the template with them, but just one doesn't seem unreasonable. And people who don't like unnamed parameters don't have to use it. Given the way it is implemented, I can't see them being impacted. If they do "volume 5" instead of "volume=5" they are not going to see it whatever the set up. I suppose it makes auto detecting problems more difficult, but templates are mostly for the convenience of editors in my view, not template maintainers. I imagine a different auto detect scheme can be formulated. No commas or parens, for DNB anyway, are a signal something might be awry. Or "title" or "wstitle" present at the same time would be a clue. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 00:58, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

It depends on exactly how the different parameters are handled, but it could easily be taken as the article name and displayed as the article name. But even if it is not displayed it causes the {{{1}}} to exist and that complicates the testing of parameters. The fewer alternative parameters the easier it becomes to program, maintain/support and alter. I think it much better to have named parameter for those reasons. As all standard cite templates use very similar parameters and do not use unnamed parameters I think it be better if we follow a similar convention, in templates such as this one. It is my intention to use similar code on a number of other citation templates, and use AWB to convert pages to use title= and wstitle=. -- PBS (talk) 10:43, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

I think this discussion should be carried on at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, or at least that project should be notified of it, if only to get more feedback. That is one place where your "proposed changes" notification should have been posted. Revision of templates is on the agenda there. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Template merger proposal

I don't see the use of having {{DNB}} as a separate template. I think one could incorporate an option in {{Cite DNB}} to activate the "incorporate text from pub in pd" notice. This dispenses of the need for a separate template I think. See {{Cite Americana}} for an example. The major retrofitting problem I see is {{DNB}} doesn't require a title, but a default title in {{Cite DNB}}, something like "Title Needed", would fix this, and perhaps promote less vague citations. It seems like this is something that could be usefully done for other template pairs as well, like {{Cite EB1911}} and {{1911}}. I have joined Wikipedia:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography, and I will look for an appropriate place to introduce this discussion, and also the discussion on no-argument parameters. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 17:53, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I initially coded {{1911}} that way the parameter is still there. It is called "no-prescript=1" and the same functionality exists in {{DNB}} where it is called "prescript=alternative prescript" which can be set to a space. But I decided that it was better to have two templates for two reasons. The first is that it makes the list of links handle, and placing the code over two templates simplifies the maintenance as each can be coded to handle the specific problems. Secondly it is easier for the users to remember that {{Cite DNB}} acts like all the other "cite templates" but with some fields filled in for them, while the {{DNB}} should be used for those where some text is copied. It saves editors who may not use these templates very often having to remember obscure parameters. -- PBS (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually it was a third reason. For {{catholic}}  Herbermann, Charles, ed. (1913). Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) and {{DNB}} and {{Cite DNB}}, there already existed two templates one with an attribution string and the other without. I created the {{cite EB1911}} modelled on those after you Bob raised the issue of the problem with {{Wikisource1911Enc citation}}[1] it seemed to me the cleanest solution (for the reasons given before) -- PBS (talk) 09:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you need to bring more people into your decision making. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:52, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

Good idea, the more the merrier. I am not sure what you mean by title and no title. Do you man something link that in the {{DCBL}} {{Cite DCBL}} and {{Schaff-Herzog}} {{Cite Schaff-Herzog}} pairs? -- PBS (talk) 20:56, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't use either of those template pairs. I mean as in {{1911}} (and I imagine the same is true for {{DNB}}) it is not required to supply a wstitle or article parameter setting, whereas in {{Cite DNB}} this is required. Just having one template to remember and one set of documentation I think makes up for a few more parameters to remember. Actually I can only see the need for one more parameter, and that's the one to turn on the verbatim public domain inclusion message. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:44, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

DNB is the same as "Cite DNB" it needs a parameter of either wstitle or title. (after all it calls Cite DNB). There is about 10,000 usages of {{1911}} and only about 1,0000 of {{cite EB1911}}. The ratio for the DNB pair is probably not as wide, but if an article includes a link in the general reference section of an un-cited article it usually includes text from the DNB (So it is more a question of turning of the attribution string than turning it on). I have been seeing a lot of articles recently in the that use "Cite EB1911" that should be using "1911" as there is often text copied from EB1911 in articles using "Cite EB1911". I am currently working through those "Cite EB1911" article that have an unnamed parameter in them and added the appropriate title or wstitle (there are just over 1000 left to do). One that is done there will be no reason to use unnamed parameters in those templates. I also think it would be a good idea to add a request into 1911 and Cite EB1911, for the addition of an article title, as there are about 10,000 of them currently without a parameter and many hands make light work. But there is no point suggesting doing that until the backlog of "Cite EB1911" is cleaned up. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 22 April 2011 (UTC)

London

In this context, London should not be wikilinked - I have attempted to remove the link. --Amitchell125 (talk) 08:05, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Looks good to me. -- PBS (talk) 08:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

Year and publication name display

I think the year range 1885-1900 should appear only when the volume hasn't been specified and the year is not known, and it should be the setting for the year parameter rather than part of the publication name. There must be a way of making 1885-1900 the default for the switch statement and removing it from where it is now. For the supplement, the modifier "(supplement)" should appear after "D...N...B...", but not the year. In that case the default for year can be 1901 instead of 1885-1900. I will do this once I've consulted the doc on the switch statement. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 19:57, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Bob, before you make any more changes, please see {{DNBSupp}} and {{cite DNBSupp}} and discuss if the most recent changes you have made to this template to incorporate the supplement should be retained. The most significant line in the Supp template is [[s:{{{wstitle|}}} (DNB01){{!}}{{{wstitle|}}}]] which links to the appropriate Wikisource project.-- PBS (talk) 15:54, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

I did not know about this template. As you know, I see no need for two templates for every project since I have found it is very easy to have an argument that activates the message display when text is being incorporated verbatim. And I think it is easier just to have a template with a single "supplement" arg instead of two templates with a lot of duplicate code for that job as well. However, I would not have gone to the effort of doing the implementation if I had known about the other template, {{Cite DNBSupp}}. But since I have gone to the trouble, I think I would retain the changes, and in consideration of people who want to cite DNB, I would not introduce this second template just for the supplement. Also {{Cite DNBSupp}} suffers from the same problem that {{Cite DNB}} does. Having 1901 twice makes no sense. At most, a simple "(supplement)" after "D...N...B..." is needed, and actually just the year is enough. So my proposal is to only display the range (1885-1900) if the volume is not specified. And for the supplement, to only display the year. 1901 says it all. No need for the word supplement to appear anywhere I think. But I could live with it. 1901 appearing twice does not look good though. And I think the second set of templates for the supplement should be junked. If you do insist on them, you should at least put a notice in the "see also" of {{Cite DNB}}, but I would prefer if you didn't since I don't think it is useful, especially now that {{Cite DNB}} easily handles this issue. I think a similar edit should be made to {{DNB}} to give it the same flexibility. But actually I think it should be junked as well, and an arg added to {{Cite DNB}} to create a verbatim message. Think of the ease of maintenance ... only one template to change instead of four. And I think users would find it easier as well. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:43, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

So I have carried this out, and also added the vb parameter so the appropriate message can be displayed when DNB text is copied into a Wikipedia article. The only thing lacking is adding a category, if this is thought necessary, when text is copied. It does not add a lot of complexity to the template, and now one template can be used where four were thought necessary before. Seems a major improvement to me. I do not do this lightly. I have been experimenting with this approach with {{Cite Americana}} and templates for other encyclopedias, and it seems effective. I would be inclined to extend {{Cite EB1911}} this way as well, but I have no plans to at this point. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:58, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

accessdate

Is it me or does the accessdate parameter not work? violet/riga _^[talk] 22:42, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Hi there I havn't seen you around Wikipedia for some time, I'm glad to see that you are still about :-)

The parameter accessdate= is passed by {{Cite DNB}} into {{cite encyclopedia}} it will only be displayed per the rules of that standard template, and one of those rules is that "url=" has to be set to a positive value.

• {{Cite DNB|accessdate=August 2012}}:  Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)
• {{Cite DNB|url=http://xx|accessdate=August 2012}}:  Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900 http://xx. Retrieved August 2012. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Check |url= value (help); Check date values in: |access-date= (help); Missing or empty |title= (help)

As {{Cite DNB}} does not set "url=" if "wstitle=" is set, the access date will not display if the article is on wikisource and linked through the usual interwiki link set up by wstitle=

-- PBS (talk) 00:43, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks and thanks. I think that we might need a workaround for this problem, either forcing a URL through (which is then ignored) and/or by updating {{cite encyclopedia}}. violet/riga _^[talk] 09:39, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Please don't put in a URL to the wikisource article, it will mess up the categories into which that article is placed. If you use wstitle=, then url= is not set, even if you set it. There is a reason why cite encyclopedia and others do not include access dates if there is no URL. Indeed there is a proposal at talk CITE to remove access dates from all book references.

If the volume= parameter is set the template already defaults the year of publication for the DNB article (so the need for an access date is not needed because the date of the articel is not set). If the Wikisource articles were to be move, then either redirects on Wikisource will take care of the extra navigation, or if the whole Wikisource DNB is restructured it is trivial to change this template to point at the new locations. So what value does adding an access date to a Wikisource DNB provide? -- PBS (talk) 10:41, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I suppose I've just been in the habit of accessdate-ing... it seems sensible to omit that as long as it is our standard practice. Ta, violet/riga _^[talk] 11:28, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Icons - propose remove links

Currently the icons produced by this template link to their file description pages. This could be confusing, and is of little use to anyone. I propose we remove the links, or at least link the icons to something more relevant. Any objections? --Noiratsi (talk) 15:34, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

I made the change. There are a number of templates similar to this one with little PD icons—some of them have links and some don't. --Noiratsi (talk) 16:19, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes and Wikisource disambiguators

Another editor has pointed out to me that a user script unintentionally broke links to Wikisource articles by changing a hyphen in a date range to an endash.

There is a conflict of style guides. MOS:ENDASH specifies an endash between two dates. The main Wikisource style guide is mute on the topic. However, the DNB Project Style Manual specifies a hyphen between the two dates of an article disambiguator.

Editors at Wikipedia, may not be aware of the Wikisource style specification. A couple of things might be done:

1. add text to the template's documentation that explains this issue and how it might be handled;
2. at Wikisource, create redirects from the endash-disambiguated article title to the hyphen-disambiguated article title;
3. tweak {{cite DNB}} to link to the hyphen-disambiguated article title but display the endash-disambiguated article title.

The first two seem the best to me though I can imagine that editors unfamiliar with Wikisource might not be comfortable creating redirects there.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:46, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

 Comment: the thing is that they are url links for identifying links at a sister site, they are not dates; accordingly they are not part of MOSDAB. To note that many of the WS articles do have endash equivalents, and you are welcome to complete any that are missing. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:59, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Added variation to allow for 1912 second supplement (2ndsupp)

I have today added the parameter 2ndsupp to allow for the easier addition of the 1912 supplement. Add the parameter with anything as the variable, though for the example I have utilised the number 2 so that it is a little more evident that it is different. It has just been a heavy-handed hack with the one additional parameter, rather than something graceful that utilises the existing supplement parameter, partly laziness, and partly due to not knowing how well the existing parameter has been used. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

CS1 errors when volume not included

From Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#Legitimate date range examples to add to the date checking part of the CS1 module:

Let's look at this example from A. J. Humbert, which is in Category:CS1 errors: dates:

• {{DNB Cite|wstitle=Humbert, Albert Jenkins}} generates "Humbert, Albert Jenkins" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.

The error message is confusing because there is no |date= in this citation. It's not obvious that the way to remove the error is to add |volume=, as follows:

• {{DNB Cite|wstitle=Humbert, Albert Jenkins|volume=28}} generates Lee, Sidney, ed. (1891). "Humbert, Albert Jenkins" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 28. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

My suggestion is that if we provide more clarity in the error message, it's more likely the issue will be resolved. Plus, if there was an easy way to define the volume based off the |wstitle= parameter, it could be done by bot (e.g. If |wstitle= is between Aa and Ar add |volume=1, if between As and Be add |volume=2, etc.)

Any suggestions? GoingBatty (talk) 15:40, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

In most cases the volume is know, all you have to do is go through the entries and added the volume, however CS1 is wrong to flag it as an error (see this discussion Module talk:Citation/CS1/Archive 9#Date and year ranges).

I would be against automating on the letters at the start of the name as there is no guarantee that the name reflects its position in the volumes, so each one needs to be checked by hand. Perhaps the place to start is to add to the templates (this one and {{DNB}} a category for all those temples without volume parameter set. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I've added code to {{cite DNB/sandbox}} that will add pages to Category:DNB citations missing parameters when none of |2ndsupp=2, |supplement=1, and |volume= are set regardless of namespace. See testcases.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:10, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

I think it would be better to place it inside the if condition and add a similar construct to {{DNB}} because from the category point of view they are treated separately. Do you realize that it can take days (or weeks) for this type of category to become fully populated? -- PBS (talk) 12:05, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Also "missing parameters" is not really an appropriate name "missing volume parameter" woudl be more appropriate. -- PBS (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes, I know that it will take a while for the job queue to process all of the articles that use {{cite DNB}}. I'm not in a hurry. Are you?

You don't say why you think that the category should be inside the #ifeq:. I put it outside so that the category would catch all instances where |2ndsupp=2, |supplement=1, and |volume= are not set. We can decide to limit categorization to certain namespaces, if necessary, at a later date.

On inspection, the purpose of the {{#ifeq: {{NAMESPACEE}} |<!--is set-->| ...}} construct isn't at all clear to me. Magic word {{NAMESPACEE}} simply returns the name of the namespace. For example, this talk page is in: Template_talk. Is it possible to use {{cite DNB}} outside of a namespace? And if so, do we care? Is this construct an incomplete attempt to limit Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template and Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template with an unnamed parameter to certain namespaces? As it is now, if the page is located in a namespace, then it is included in those categories.

I chose Category:DNB citations missing parameters because there are three parameters that will keep a {{cite DNB}} citation out of Category:CS1 errors: dates. Those three parameters are |2ndsupp=2, |supplement=1, and |volume=.

I don't understand what you mean here: add a similar construct to {{DNB}} because from the category point of view they are treated separately. How are they treated separately? It is and has been my intent to do one template ({{cite DNB}}) and then when the kinks are ironed out, do the other.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:02, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

FYI, there are 10,916 articles that contain {{cite DNB}}. 6,458 of them are still in Category:CS1 errors: dates. (Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean that all of those articles have something missing in {{cite DNB}}.) GoingBatty (talk) 13:13, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How do you come up with that stat? the 10,9nn seems about right as currently {{cite DNB}} is called directly by 6,952 give or take a few and a around a further 6,500 that call it indirectly (an overlap of 6,952-4,391~ 2,500). --PBS (talk) 14:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I used AWB's list comparer function to look at which articles are in Category:CS1 errors: dates and also transclude Template:Cite DNB. GoingBatty (talk) 14:46, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I which case you might also find this tool useful for some searches -- PBS (talk) 14:56, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk the test on {{NAMESPACEE}} does not work as you think it does. Please have a look at the template user: PBS/test and then add it to the top of a couple of different spaces including article space (there is no need to save the page, just edit it include the template and click on [show preview]). However that was not what I was talking about but rather the test:

{{#if: {{{DNB-text|}}}<!--DNB-text is passed in by {{DNB}} and bypass these categories-->

Which is a parameter passed in by {{DNB}} when it calls {{cite DNB}} to allow separate categories to be maintained by the two different templates. -- PBS (talk) 14:49, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Of course, there is no namespace prefix for article or main space.

I'm not sure that we should put Category:DNB citations missing parameters inside the {{#if: {{{DNB-text|}}}... }} test. Shouldn't we want to know when editors use {{DNB}} without |volume=?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:26, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The reason for proposing that it should (be inside "DNB-text", is that a number of editors who work on articles supported by wiksource do not tend to play around with template code. They view the two templates as separate and the categories as separate. So I hink it is better if the categories remain consistent. IE in this case those in

• Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the Dictionary of National Biography should contain information originating from {{DNB}}
• Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating citation from the DNB is used for {{Cite DNB}}. I am not proposing that the information is not provided just that it is provided in two different places depending which is the originating template. -- PBS (talk) 17:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that there should be two categories? Perhaps like this?

Category:DNB templates missing parameters – part of {{DNB}}

Category:cite DNB templates missing parameters – inside the {{#if: {{{DNB-text|}}}... }} test in {{cite DNB}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 18:39, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Yes. It is probably best to use category names based on the names that already exist (eg category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template with an unnamed parameter‎) so how about:

• "Category:Articles incorporating DNB template without a volume parameter‎"
• "Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template without a volume parameter‎"

-- PBS (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In the main, categories on Wikipedia are lists of articles that share a common characteristic. It seems pointless to state the obvious by repeating that fact in the category's name. It also seems that this discussion is disintegrating in compliance with Parkinson's law of triviality. I think that this will be my last post on this particular subtopic.

So, I'll offer these relatively simple variants: missing parameters category title for the reasons stated above and, because it is generic, may be used for other missing parameters should the need arise; to be located in the templates as indicated above:

Category:DNB template errors: missing parameters – part of {{DNB}}

Category:Cite DNB template errors: missing parameters – inside the {{#if: {{{DNB-text|}}}... }} test in {{cite DNB}}

—Trappist the monk (talk) 12:31, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

How about I make a request for a bot to go through all the articles with {{Cite DNB}} and {{DNB}} (and their various redirects), and if the templates don't have |volume=, the bot would follow the link to find the volume and add it appropriately? GoingBatty (talk) 04:39, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

You suggested that on in your post at 15:40 on 30 December 2013, I was against it at the time, but since then I have been going thorough a lot of DNB templates with an unnamed parameter, an fairly often the volume was missing (long with page numbers and authors) when the title was there. There will be some cases where a date year range is appropriate for example Identity of Junius. -- PBS (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Sorry if I wasn't clear that my second suggestion was different than my first. My first suggestion was to define the volume based on the wstitle parameter, which I see you were against. Scrapping that suggestion, my second suggestion is for a smarter bot to actually visit the appropriate wikisource page to get the correct volume. Thank you for providing Identity of Junius as an interesting example - I'd want the bot to add the volume parameter ONLY if the wstitle parameter exists, and not change the empty {{DNB}} template in the References Attribution section. I'm interested in your thoughts on my second suggestion. Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 15:31, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

It simplifies the process just to use the wstitle parameter, as I said I have changed my mind on this issue. I am going to post a message to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dictionary of National Biography to see if anyone else wants to comment. -- PBS (talk) 17:04, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Note to self - also suggest the same for {{DictCanbio}}. GoingBatty (talk) 06:08, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

@PBS: Unfortunately, your post didn't get a lot of responses. What now? GoingBatty (talk) 21:08, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

As much response as is needed there seems to be a consensus to add a volume to all those that have wstitle parameters -- it has been advertised in the obvious places and silence can be taken as consent. Its just a question of, who is going to code it, and how it is to be implemented. -- PBS (talk) 10:27, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Bot_requests#Add_volume_parameter_to_Cite_DNB.2FCite_DCB_templates. GoingBatty (talk) 04:00, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters (2)

On as slight tangent t the discussion over volume, there are dozens of these types of PD templates (I come across new ones fairly regularly, the most recent one is {{Bryan}} which has not yet been converted to be a wrapper around a standard citation template as has {{DNB}}). Most of the ones I know about have been converted into three:

• {{name}}, {{cite name}} and {{name poster}}

as in

• {{DNB}} {{cite DNB}} and {{DNB poster}}

You will find a higgledy piggledy list in user:PBS/Notes#List of PD Templates. Nearly all of them use a parameter "wstitle=" to construct a path on Wikisource to an article on Wikisource while the parameter "title=" can be used with "url=" in the standard way to link to an external source if an article is missing on Wikisource (something which is quite common with encyclopaedias like {{EB1911}}). The biggest problem I perceive with many of these PD templates is that one prolific user of these PD templates has insisted on using an unnamed parameter as an alternative to "wstitle=" because "As far as the unnamed parameter, I think it is more convenient." (see above #Unnamed parameter). This was a position he held before the introduction of "CS1" and I think it is even less justified now than it was then because at the moment many of these PD templates can not pass the unnamed parameter through {{cite encyclopedia}} (or similar) and on to "CS1" to error check an unnamed parameter in the usual way. The trouble in the past with reaching a consensus -- on the use of unnamed parameters in these PD templates to link to Wikisource articles -- has been that up to now, usually only he an I have turned up for such debates on the talk page of templates as most editors are not interested in such details. For example there is a categories for {{cite DNB}} and {{DNB}} which if we could get agreement to pass unnamed parameters to CS1 could be processed to extract those that need moving to "wstile=":

• category:Articles incorporating DNB template with an unnamed parameter‎
• category: Articles incorporating Cite DNB template with an unnamed parameter‎

Given that CS1 can error check unnamed parameters, I think it is time to remove the mapping between unnamed parameters and wstitle. What do others think? -- PBS (talk) 11:30, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

In general, I think that it's best to use named parameters. Templates should be self-documenting so that editors can identify a parameter's purpose at a glance. Named parameters also allow editors the freedom to organize a template to suit their needs. And, because positional parameters aren't stripped of leading and trailing whitespace, unnamed parameters can lead to unexpected results that confuse editors not versed in the arcana of the Wikimedia parser.

At the moment there is one page in Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template with an unnamed parameter, perhaps now is a fine time to remove {{{1}}} from {{cite DNB}}.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:00, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

Oh fair dinkum. Leave the positional parameters in the template alone, stop making it harder for people. If you want to get a bot running through to fix them, go ahead and get it done. Haven't we got better issues to discuss than retraining people and getting them to operate how we like them to operate. Make solutions, not problems. Happy for you to redocument to exclude the positional parameters, that sounds like a reasonable approach. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:56, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

Bad date error

To editor PBS: Yes, it actually does produce a CS1 bad date error when a date range is used. We must pick a date, and I usually go with the most recent year. The only way for you to actually see this is when you have entered the code in your .css file for the skin (for example, "Vector") you use to edit this encyclopedia. In my /vector.css file is the code...

.citation-comment {
   display: inline !important;
   color: red;
 }

That allows me to see all the CS1 errors that are generated in red in the References/Notes sections of articles. I'm going to once again get rid of that error and do not expect to be reverted again. It is especially important with this type of template, because just one CS1 error here shows up in every single article in which this template is transcluded and the volume param is not used. Thank you for your understanding. There may be a way to make the date/year parameter accept a date-range, but that would have to be submitted and discussed on the appropriate talk page. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:26, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
PS. How is all this going for you? PS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!
PPS. I see from discussions on this page and others that solutions are being implemented to eliminate this type of error. The date range actually acts as an error catcher for the bot. Not all of them have been caught, obviously, because it is just such an error that lead me here. So please disregard the above, because I have added the volume number to the specific {{Cite DNB}} template and eliminated the CS1 bad date error in that way. Joys! PPS added by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

I do not understand what you wrote in your last posting. But using a year range intentionally is not an error however it has been coded in CS1. The only time it shows up with this template is if a volume and/or a year parameter has bot been set and in cases like Identity of Junius this is an intentional use of the date range. -- PBS (talk) 18:17, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Forgive me for the lack of clarity. I have the above code in my .css file, so when I came across the Bartholomew Gosnold article, I checked the External links section and found that the first citation showed a CS1 Check date values in: |date= (help) error, which I repaired by including the volume= parameter. Joys! – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 21:15, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

PS. When I came to Template:Cite DNB, this page also shows the CS1 Check date values in: |date= (help) error, which is what this discussion was all about. After reading the various discussions, I felt that you were correct to revert my edit on this page, so instead of changing this page I fixed the Bartholomew Gosnold page. You might want to include something in this page's /doc so that others won't follow and make the same mistake I did. Just a suggestion. PS left by – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX!

May I suggest the inclusion of a subsection? It could be added under the heading "Examples" and follow the subsection "Other parameters; add a comment". It may appear as follows...

Omitted parameters

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Gosnold, Bartholomew |short=x}}

which lacks the "volume" parameter displays as:

"Gosnold, Bartholomew" . Dictionary of National Biography. 1885–1900. Check date values in: |date= (help)

to those editors who have enabled CS1 error detection. This is easy to fix:

1. click the citation link
2. find the volume number and
3. include the volume parameter in the following manner

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Gosnold, Bartholomew |short=x |volume=22}}

which displays as:

"Gosnold, Bartholomew" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 22. 1890.

The inclusion of the volume parameter also adds the correct date, so the CS1 error will not appear.

Note: The CS1 error also appears in the example at the top of this page. This is normal, so please do not "fix it".

(end of suggested inclusion) – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 16:09, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

It has been about a week since I made this suggestion, so if there are no objections I shall go ahead and include the above clarification in a few hours. – Paine Ellsworth ^CLIMAX! 17:04, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

Although I have no objection to the wording in some form or other, but mentioning CS1 at this level is a mistake (because it is confusing for those editors who do not need to know about the underlying structures). I suggest that the wording simply request that when the volume is known that it is added to the template along with page numbers so that a full citation to the source is provided. -- PBS (talk) 18:39, 25 February 2014‎ (UTC)

Agree with PBS, especially since (I believe) the CS1 error is not visible to all users yet. GoingBatty (talk) 04:01, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

Unnamed parameters

See Template talk:DNB#Unnamed parameters -- PBS (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

Code fix for second supplement case needed

This template is not linking to Wikisource properly when "2ndsupp" is specified. The suffix should be "(DNB12)" instead of "(DNB00)". I have added a proposed fix to the sandbox. Library Guy (talk) 16:54, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to add this code to {{Cite DNBSupp}}? -- PBS (talk) 21:09, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Hyphens and dashes again

Per Trappist the monk's second proposed option at #Hyphens and dashes and Wikisource disambiguators, can somebody please tweak the coding for this template, so that hyphens in year ranges appear as en dashes (without affecting the link to Wikisource)? I would note that hyphens are automatically converted to en dashes in {{Cite book}} with the |pages= parameter: {{cite book |title=Foo |pages=1-3}} appears as Foo. pp. 1–3. (without affecting the source text). Can something similar be done in regards to this template? Thanks.--Nevé–selbert 10:23, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Editor billinghurst chastised me for those comments so perhaps your request to use any of my suggestions will go unanswered.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:45, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

The technical solution that I mentioned as the third option in my list at #Hyphens and dashes and Wikisource disambiguators might be to replace this:

[[s:{{{wstitle|}}} {{#if: {{{supplement|}}} | (DNB01) | (DNB00) }}{{!}}{{{wstitle|}}}]]

with this:

[[s:{{#invoke:String|replace|source={{{wstitle|}}}|pattern=%((%d+)%–(%d+)%)|replace=(%1-%2)|plain=false}} {{#if: {{{supplement|}}} | (DNB01) | (DNB00) }}{{!}}{{{wstitle|}}}]]

This version replaces an endash character with a hyphen in the birth and death year disambiguator in the target part of the wikilink. I have tested the {{#invoke:String}} bit sufficiently to believe that it will work in the template but have not tested it in the template.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:25, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

 Great! Sounds like a bright idea, Trappist the monk. You can always test edit (and revert afterwards), to see if it works here.--Nevé–selbert 14:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Done:

• Chichester, Henry Manners (1893). "Mackenzie, Alexander (1755?–1820)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 35. London: Smith, Elder & Co. – w/ endash
• Chichester, Henry Manners (1893). "Mackenzie, Alexander (1755?-1820)" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 35. London: Smith, Elder & Co. – w/ hyphen
• "Wren, Christopher (1632–1723)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. – w/ endash
• "Wren, Christopher (1632-1723)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900. – w/ hyphen

I added discovery of the a trailing question mark at both birth and death years though In my simple search I didn't find any for death. Are there other characters used in the birth/death disambiguation besides digits, hyphen, question mark?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:51, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I don't think so, but thanks for implementing this change. But, going back to the option that I proposed, which was to have the hyphens to appear as en dashes while the source stays the same, was that too difficult to code? It's just that, per WP:DATERANGE, en dashes should always be used instead of hyphens in year ranges (even with references), and it would take quite a long time to go through every article linked to this template and convert the hyphens to en dashes.--Nevé–selbert 16:18, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I do not think that this is a good idea. The title should appear as it does in the source. There should be no forcing the appearance. This is afteter all text within double quotes and usually text within quotes is not changed. -- PBS (talk) 18:11, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

I've been through the first 20 volumes by eye. These are the letters combinations I saw. I expected to see (c. yyyy) but there were none the last two are outliers there were no other ones I noticed like them:

• Abbot, Charles (d.1817); Abbot, Robert (1588?-1662?); Abel (d.764); Acland, John (fl.1753-1796); Ælfric (fl.950?-1016?); Adeliza (d.1066?); Baldred (d.608?); Brewer, Thomas (b.1611); Cormac (836-908); Edmund (922?-946); Edmond, — (16th cent.); Fearn, Henry Noel-

--PBS (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

Of all of those, only these are pertinent because only these have hyphenated birth-death disambiguators (all written here with endashes):

• "Abbot, Robert (1588?–1662?)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• "Acland, John (fl.1753–1796)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• "Ælfric (fl.950?–1016?)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• "Cormac (836–908)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.
• "Edmund (922?–946)" . Dictionary of National Biography. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1885–1900.

The template will accept a c. YYYY-YYYY but I suspect that circa years are handled in a standardized way by the question-mark suffix.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 22:13, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

As it happens there is a discussion in progress on Wikisource DNB project s:Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Time to talk DNB redirect articles which is probably a more failsafe way to fix this problem. I suggest that it is requested there that a bot is run to create ndash redirects in all cases where a dash is used in a dab page. -- PBS (talk) 18:54, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have undone the modification to this template. The articles at English Wikisource use a hyphen in their name and that should be respected. They are not part of a Wikipedia style, nor do they need to be. Stop thinking that other sites need to align to the body style, and cite the works appropriately. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:56, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

See? What did I say? Did I not say that Editor billinghurst chastised me for my previous suggestions?

Perhaps Editor billinghurst does not fully understand what the change accomplished? The change that I made allowed this template to render here at en.wiki with an endash in the birth-death disambiguator (because editors here wielding WP:DATERANGE, rightly or wrongly) but still correctly link to wikisource (because s:Style Manual). We all know that there will be editors at en.wiki who will replace hyphens in a date-range with an endash. As it stands right now, when those editors do that (and you know they'll do it without taking the time to check for a still functional link) the link will break and that does a disservice to readers. Allowing those editors to bugger-up the display without breaking the link to wikisource still respects how wikisource disambiguates because this template's link into wikisource will still work and readers can still link from an article at en.wiki into wikisource. This change does not impose WP:DATERANGE or any other part of the en.wiki MOS on wikisource; rather it accommodates both.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 23:37, 25 September 2017 (UTC)

One is not allowed to disagree with an implementation?

Your change shows a different title than Wikisource has, do you believe that is the correct way to go? If you want a suggestion, how about you have it that if there is a mindless change by local users incorrectly applying a rule that the template renders here with a hyphen, irrespective of whether they use a hyphen or an en dash in their link.

The best failsafe way to implement this template is to utilise wikidata where each of these biographies has its item, and we call the item through its association with the d:Property:P1343 (described by source) and the "stated in" qualifier. — billinghurst sDrewth 00:22, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

Disagreeing and dismissing by main force (reversion) are two separate things.

I did think about enforcing the hyphen in the rendering but chose not to because that is counter to what Editor Neve-selbert proposed, which was to have the hyphens to appear as en dashes while the source stays the same.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 00:52, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

1. As I wrote above,: the text that is being discussed is within a quotation, surly WP:DATERANGE and MOS:EMDASH do not apply within quotations (per MOS:DATEFORMAT "These requirements do not apply to dates in quotations or titles")?
2. As I suggested above how about taking this to Wikisource (to get redirects put in place)
3. At the moment there are probably no ndash DNB articles on Wikisource what if in the future there are. Ttm's modification will not allow links to such articles.
4. There is an alternative that can be discussed and that is the use of the display parameter. No such parameter exists at the moment in this template, but it does exist in many other similar templates such as {{cite EB1911}} . -- PBS (talk) 06:41, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

1. If all editors adhered to all of the MOS all of the time, this conversation and the one preceding it would never have occurred
2. If I understand Editor billinghurst's position, creating redirects at wikisource that accommodate en.wiki 'formatting' is a non-starter
3. Would that not violate wikisource DNB project's Style Manual? The 'error' would then be wikisource's, not this template's
4. Possibly, but that doesn't protect the link from editors who improperly tweak |wstitle=

At least two incompatible positions have been voiced here: the displayed |wstitle= should use endashes (Neve-selbert); the displayed |wstitle= should use hyphens (billinghurst). I don't think that much progress can be made here until that basic disagreement is resolved.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:08, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

•  Comment:
  • dismissing by main force? Truly? It had been previously mentioned, and addressed, conversation hadn't continued. Then someone brings it up and all done within several hours, with no opportunity to comment. If nothing else, this is Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. I reverted and engaged in conversation, that is not dismissal.
  • That Neve-selbert asked for a change is the start of a conversation, not the determinant for action. This is a link to another site, it should display how that target site has it.
  • redirects are allowed at enWS though I don't think that the solution is to create redirects for up to 30000 biographies. You would not take this approach with any other site that had links where you tell them to put in redirects due to mindless and incorrect link changing here. Many sites use hyphens for their titles, eg. The National Archives Willink, Henry George (1851-c 1936) Surveyor, and that is their right. The one difference is that as we an alignment between name and url that the incorrect editing here breaks links.
  • enWS utilises a hyphen for date separation in its titles, that is our style for 10+ years (main and author namespaces). En dashes exist as redirects and have for many years. It is not within enWS guidance to use them, though where they are used, they remain as redirects (again practice of 10+ years). There are endash DNB titles as redirects, there should not be articles using an en dash in the title, DNB or otherwise except as a redirect. All volumes up to second supplement have been undertaken. I haven't see all volumes of the third supplement available for transcription, though wouldn't see that the approach would change.
  • As said earlier, the most robust means to address this is to look to use wikidata where the data exists against works, though probably lacking in vol. and page numbers, otherwise it is populated with work data, author data, and interwiki links. — billinghurst sDrewth 12:04, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

You know, I just don't understand you.

• You revert because The articles at English Wikisource use a hyphen in their name and that should be respected. They are not part of a Wikipedia style, nor do they need to be. Stop thinking that other sites need to align to the body style, and cite the works appropriately.
  1. yes, wikisource uses a hyphen. The change allowed for the cases where editors here, at en.wiki, bugger-up the value assigned to |wstitle= which, before the change, would have broken the link to wikisource but with the change maintained a working link despite a malformed rendering. You reverted because a working link with a malformed rendering is somehow worse than a broken link with a malformed rendering. How is the modified template worse than the existing template where one at least works and the other doesn't?
  2. yes, wikisource is not obliged to adhere to en.wiki's style. I guess that you reverted because you believe that something in the change imposed en.wiki style on wikisource. Hardly.
  3. I do not think, and never have, that other sites need to align to the body style. I can't imagine how this misperception is legitimate grounds for reversion.

  In the former conversation, it was me noting that there is an issue and suggesting three possible remedies; you objected. In this discussion, Editor Neve-selbert suggested a technical remedy; I demurred but then speculating on a solution; Neve-selbert supported that solution; I implemented it and showed that it worked: regardless of whether a hyphen or an endash were used as the birth/death disambituation separator, the links to the wikisource articles worked. As I have explained, I did not extend the change to enforce a hyphen in the rendered output but now must wonder if I had, would you and I have been saved this conversation? Perhaps we'll never know.

• instead of simply stating an objection to how the modified template rendered, you reverted. Certainly I would have listened; after all, here I am in this conversation.
• in the first conversation one of the three suggestions was redirects with endashes at wikisource. It was merely a suggestion. I have never suggested that any site change how they do things so that they may follow in the ways of en.wiki's MOS.
• yes, wikisource DNB project (I don't know about others) uses hyphens in birth/death year disambiguation so I'm not at all sure what your point is here. I have never said that wikisource doesn't or shouldn't use a hyphen. It is their prerogative to use whatever separator they see fit to use.
• using wikidata would be, I think, a major rewrite of this template or the creation of a new one so this subject, should probably be taken up in a separate conversation.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:37, 26 September 2017 (UTC)

An alternative solution is to create a maintenance category to monitor for ndash in the dab extension. It would then be an occasional AWB script to fix any that exist. It would also be informative to see how much of a problem this is. -- PBS (talk) 15:37, 27 September 2017 (UTC)

The best solution IMO remains the {{cite book}} |pages= one, without affecting the source formatting.--Nevé–selbert 06:14, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Under that proposal how would one link to a Wikisource article like s:Mackenzie, Alexander (1755?-1820) (DNB00) or to articles like those supported by {{CE1913}} where page numbers are not available s:Catholic Encyclopedia (1913)/English Confessors and Martyrs (1534-1729). How would your proposal deal with the move of pages from one location to another. Are you proposing that we use external https links or the Interwikimedia links used currently in theses templates? -- PBS (talk) 12:17, 29 September 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: We may be speaking at cross purposes here, so let me clarify. Firstly, the |pages= example is just an example of how one can have hyphens to appear as en dashes for readers while the source formatting remains the same. Secondly, I do not believe that the proposal will have to deal with the move of pages from one location to another (the source is not affected in this proposal). Whether we use external or interwikimedia links will have to be decided, I have no strong opinion. To be clear, all hyphens that precede/succeed a number will be shown as en dashes (double-barrelled names will not be affected) in what I am proposing.--Nevé–selbert 15:13, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

The requirements of MOS:DATERANGE do not apply to quotes or titles (no one will yell at you for not bothering), but making the changes is firmly within MOS:CONFORM (the changes are permissible). User:billinghurt's extremist position on this is not tenable, either on WP or in off-WP reality. A simple and incontrovertible proof of this is that academic style (as codified in The Chicago Manual of Style, New Hart's Rules, Scientific Style and Format, etc.) recognizes and employs all of: -, −, –, and — as separate characters with distinctly prescribed uses; meanwhile, news style, (as codified in the Associated Press Stylebook, Guardian and Observer Style Guide, The Economist Style Guide, The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage, etc.), recognizes and uses only two of these glyphs, - and one (only one) dash, either – or — depending on house style. This means it is a 100% certainty that news publications conventionalize these characters, including in quotations and titles, if either the maths minus or the "dash we don't use" appears. It also means that academic publications do likewise (probably with less frequency) to fix use of hyphen or the [in academic writing] wrong dash character in particular constructions.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ >^ʌⱷ҅_ᴥⱷ^ʌ<  06:38, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A an aside I do not understand why you so often quite American style guides particularly the The Chicago Manual of Style for what reason should none Americans considerer that a sensible style guide to follow? -- PBS (talk) 15:35, 3 October 2017 (UTC)

A new category for ndash within dateranges

So that we can see the scale of the problem and fix any links that are broken I have added the code that Trappist the monk wrote to select for links to Wikisource with an ndash between dates. The category is:

• Category:Articles incorporating Cite DNB template an ndash in the wstitle parameter

I have forced some articles into the category (empty edits), but it will take some time before it is fully populated by all the articles. -- PBS (talk) 10:59, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

As of the time stamp at the end of this post there were 77 articles where the wstitle= contained a ndash inplaced of a dash. As there in total 9,437 articles with template that links to a wikisource article that is <1%. -- PBS (talk) 09:28, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

Just over a fortnight ago I created Category:WPSHIPS: sclass2 redirect. It is still populating. I think that drawing any meaningful conclusions from a category that is two or three days old might be a bit optimistic.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 10:15, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

True in the last couple of days it has gone up by another 30. -- PBS (talk) 14:34, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

The tally to date was 111. -- PBS (talk) 21:23, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Display parameter

I have added a display= parameter to the template:

• wstitle=Wikisource article name
• display=text

The text in the display parameter will mask the Wikisource article name provided to the wstitle parameter. As the text can be anything editors are free to mask the dateranges in a Wikisource article with either no daterange or a using ndash in place of a the dash commonly used on Wikisource.

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Wren, Christopher (1632-1723) |volume=63}}

• Lee, Sidney, ed. (1900). "Wren, Christopher (1632-1723)" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 63. London: Smith, Elder & Co. – with dash as in the name of the wikisource article

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Wren, Christopher (1632-1723) |display=Wren, Christopher (1632–1723) |volume=63}}

• Lee, Sidney, ed. (1900). "Wren, Christopher (1632–1723)" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 63. London: Smith, Elder & Co. – displays ndash

{{cite DNB|wstitle=Wren, Christopher (1632-1723) |display=Wren, Sir Christopher |volume=63}}

• Lee, Sidney, ed. (1900). "Wren, Sir Christopher" . Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 63. London: Smith, Elder & Co. – displays as it was in the original DNB paper article

@User:Neve-selbert does that work for you? -- PBS (talk) 15:05, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Honestly, I don't believe this is a very good idea, but kudos for the effort. I still strongly maintain the position that date-range hyphens should appear as en dashes without the need for a parameter. Further input is needed here.--Nevé–selbert 15:17, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

"should appear as en dashes without the need for a parameter" by should you you mean ought to? (I ask because "should" means different things depending on the dialect of English). Why? -- PBS (talk) 17:13, 8 October 2017 (UTC)

display= parameters are quite common for this class of book wrapper functions that link to articles on Wikisource. This is because it is quite common due to disambiguation and other reasons that the chapter name used on Wikisource is not the same as that used in the original hard copies. If the display parameter is used then the wstitle is similar to a url parameter in its use. -- PBS (talk) 09:19, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

@PBS: Sorry, I meant "ought to". Frankly I don't think |display= is a good enough solution. And I still cannot wrap my head around why this proposal is so controversial. Is ISO 8601 a concern for you or something? I must reiterate that hyphenated names won't be affected in this proposal, only date ranges.--Nevé–selbert 16:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)

AFAICT ISO 8601 is of no relevance to this at all, if it did then all those dates prior to the introduction of the Gregorian calendar would be a problem! "hyphenated" (dash) date ranges are used on Wikisource for disambiguation purposes. Using a display parameter allows one to replace the disambiguation extension with the original (paper) section name (eg "Wren, Sir Christopher") is that not a more accurate option than replacing a dash with an ndash? -- PBS (talk) 12:21, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

Instead of having to bother with |display=, why not modify the template so that it removes the date ranges automatically per WP:PIPETRICK? That way, there wouldn't be any need to use |display= to hide the ranges.--Nevé–selbert 02:50, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

As there is not a consensus for the change you wish to make, and the display option is an alternative, why not use it? -- PBS (talk) 18:14, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Automatic conversion of hyphens in date ranges to en dashes

Per wikisource:Page:Dictionary of National Biography volume 01.djvu/19, the original source uses the en dash and not a hyphen for date ranges, i.e. ABBOT, GEORGE (1562–1633) not ABBOT, GEORGE (1562-1633). Please can editor modify this template so that hyphens that appear before and/or after an integer appear automatically as en dashes, in the same way hyphens are automatically converted at {{cite book}} with |pages=, i.e. {{cite book |title=Foo |pages=1-2}} appearing as Foo. pp. 1–2..--Nevé–selbert 19:41, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure that your request is not non-controversial. As I understand the previous conversations of this topic, resolution has not been reached. Some consensus is required, methinks, before this request can be addressed.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 20:00, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: What do you think of launching a WP:RFC? Probably the only option at this point.--Nevé–selbert 20:16, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

I have no opinion.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 09:32, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

@User:Neve-selbert why not raise you point at s:Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB? -- PBS (talk) 12:41, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

How Wikisource chooses to format dashes is up to them. My only concern is Wikipedia, WP:DATERANGE, and the original source formatting.--Nevé–selbert 20:36, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Are you concerned how whether urls use dashes or ndashes within a date range? -- PBS (talk) 10:38, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Why should I be? The proposal will only affect how the hyphens appear in Wikipedia articles, and thus shouldn't affect the URL.--Nevé–selbert 06:37, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

If you use the display= parameter then the content of the wstitle parameter will not appear in Wikipedia articles. -- PBS (talk) 09:35, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

In my opinion, the |display= function is unnecessary and should be removed. The hyphens ought to be converted automatically.--Nevé–selbert 03:35, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

With respect to the discussion you opened at Wikisource, I have decided not to comment there as I feel it would just distract and decentralise the discussion we having here. I have however read a few of the responses, and I agree with much of what Beleg Tâl and EncycloPetey have said.--Nevé–selbert 03:40, 25 October 2017 (UTC)

I raise the issue on s:Wikisource talk:WikiProject DNB#Hyphens, en dashes and redirects because if there had been a consensus there to make a change from dash to ndash or to add redirect, (which there does not appear to be), then that would have solved the problem without any change here.

user:Billinghurst has rejected the Lua solution and you are refusing to use a display parameter, so unless you can get more people involved who support your preferred solution, this is not going to be resolved.

I also think that you, User:Neve-selbert are missing the fact that the DNB does use date ranges in its biography titles. As such it is not relevant if the text within an article uses ndash or dash because the date range is not part of the DNB section heading (it is a dab extension added for technical reasons by editors on Wikisource). Using the display parameter allows the title of the DNB article to appear in a Wikipedia {{cite DNB}} template as it does in the original (with suitable alterations for upper-case to lower-case). -- PBS (talk) 18:38, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not sure why the fuss over what is not a date range but a page title at another site. You are misinterpreting the style manual if you believe that the proposed change is in our style. How many other external sites are we going to fuss about where they have hyphen separators? — billinghurst sDrewth 22:41, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't think I'm missing anything. Yes, the DNB uses date ranges in its biography titles. They also use the ndash. This shouldn't be controversial.--Nevé–selbert 18:59, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

"the DNB uses date ranges in its biography titles" the DNB does not use date ranges in its biography names. The dab extension which you call a date range is added by Wikisource editors because two pages on Wikisource (like Wikipedia) can not have the same article title. For example the DNB has three articles Abbot, George; Abbot George; and Abbot John. Wikisource has those three articles but because Abbot, George is not unique Wikisource editors disambiguate with: Abbot, George (1603-1648); Abbot, George (1603-1648); but there is only one John so the article title is Abbot, John. This can be seen if one uses the template {{cite DNBIE}}:

•  Lee, Sidney, ed. (1903). "Abbot, John". Index and Epitome. Dictionary of National Biography. Cambridge University Press. p. n8. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |short= ignored (help)

-- PBS (talk) 21:32, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

In the archive.org link, the DNB does indeed use an ndash rather than a hyphen. Link.--Nevé–selbert 21:54, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

You are referring to the text in the body of an article not about the title of an article. -- PBS (talk) 11:28, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

OK then. Where in the title of said article is a hyphen used instead of an ndash? I've viewed both links and I cannot see a hyphen being used.--Nevé–selbert 17:41, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

It isn't used in the root of the article title. A dash (hyphen) is used in the disambiguation extension. The Wikisource editors and in particular the active editors of the DNB volumes, have decided to use dash rather than ndash in dab extension. They have also chosen to use that format even when there are alternatives eg the title of the article on Sir Christopher Wren is titled "Wren, Christopher (1632-1723)" instead of "Wren, Sir Christopher" which they could have chosen to use. They have also chosen not to have a primary subject (all clashing names have dab extensions). They have also chosen not to have redirects as alternatives, or to have dab pages. These are all choices different from those made by Wikipedia editors as summarised in WP:AT/WP:DAB, and like Wikipedia editors these are rules arrived at by consensus. When you refuse to take part in the conversations on Wikisource you are tacitly accepting the current consensus on Wikisource. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

So I guess what you're saying is, as long as Wikisource uses the hyphen we have to use the hyphen? Right, fine.--Nevé–selbert 14:51, 3 November 2017 (UTC)

• In 2008, we developed a specific naming convention for the WS DNB articles. We chose the hyphen because the title becomes part of a URL, and URLs (especially back then) are simpler if the characters are ASCII. We have more than 30,000 DNB articles, and a substantial percentage have hyphens in the title. Each article has at least four inbound links within Wikisource and (usually) one or more inbound links from Wikipedia, in addition to links from other sites. Changing the title at Wikisource in order to accommodate a Wikipedia display issue is not a reasonable solution. Adding a large number (10,000?) redirects at Wikisource is not reasonable either as it is a maintenance problem. If Wikipedia wants to display an en-dash, by all means feel free to do so, but you must use the hyphen when linking to Wikisource. In contrast to user:Billinghurst, I do not see a problem with simply forcing the display of an en-dash even though the article title has a hyphen. As User:Neve-selbert points out, the actual DNB text does not use hyphens. Therefore choosing to use display text that is not the URL is no different for Wikisource articles than it is for other sites such as CNN. -Arch dude (talk) 05:05, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
• I am in agreement with @Arch dude: here. I'd be happy to see the Lua solution applied to resolve this matter, in 2018. Clearly the Wikisource people most concerned with the DNB have not reached consensus on the matter. But, with all due respect to User:Billinghurst, without whom I would (to my loss) probably not be so involved with Wikisource, this issue IMO has reached the point where WP:STICK can be cited. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:43, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

links to 2nd ed.

Can anyone please help! The 2ndsupp=2 field to link to the 1912 supplement does not function correctly. For instance: the Bramwell-example given in the documentation does not work. What goes wrong? --Dick Bos (talk) 08:44, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

 fixed @Dick Bos: I am sure that they worked at a point of time, though maybe I am dreaming. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:53, 13 December 2017 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 28 June 2018

Change "They should not be use unless" to "They should not be used unless". Chris the speller ^yack 20:59, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

 Done @Chris the speller: Was not a template-protected edit, as this was part of the template documentation. Done nonetheless. Jon Kolbert (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Section parameter

See Template talk:DNB#Section parameter -- PBS (talk) 07:08, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Little Round Icon

Is the little round icon necessary? It doesn't seem too useful; I can barely see it, and when I enlarge it, it's nothing recognizable to me. If it's truly neccessary, can it become clickable, or present a tooltip that explains what it is? -- Mikeblas (talk) 16:04, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

authorlink or author-link

Just to let you know: as far as I can see: I can use parameter "authorlink", but "author-link" does not work seem to work here (it does in Template:Cite EB1911, although it's not mentioned there). Perhaps it would be good to make this uniform. See also Template:Cite book. In the doc-text "author-link" is used, but at other places also "authorlink".

One other thing: parameter "author-mask" does not work here either.

Greetings, --Dick Bos (talk) 10:41, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Nearly a fortnight ago I edited {{cite DNB/sandbox}} to use Module:Template wrapper which will allow {{cite DNB}}, when updated, to use any of the parameters normally available to {{cite encyclopedia}} without the need to add special parameter handling code to this template. The sandbox apparently works; see Template:cite DNB/testcases.

Without objection, I shall update the live template from the sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

There having been no objections, I have updated the live template from its sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

why does cite DNB with |2ndsupp=2 render differently from citeDNB12?

Using {{cite DNB12}} this example:

Buckland, Augustus Robert (1912). "Perowne, Edward Henry" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography (2nd supplement). Vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

using {{cite DNB}} (change the template name and add |2ndsupp=2):

Buckland, Augustus Robert (1885). "Perowne, Edward Henry" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |2ndsupp= ignored (help)

According to this image at s.en.wiki Lee is the editor so why does {{cite DNB}} name Stephen as the editor? Pretty sure that this difference has nothing to do with my recent changes to this template (prove this to your selves by selecting a recent version of the template, click edit and place the name of this talk page in Preview page with this template and click the adjacent Show preview button). Is there a reason for the rendering discrepancy or simply an oversight?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:50, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

No answers then? Sigh.

Ok, I have taken the assumption that both the 1901 and the 1912 supplements are the editorial product of Lee. Also, because two separate parameters that specify which supplement is intended seems profoundly silly to me, I have tweaked the sandbox accordingly.

Here is |supplement=1 (live):

{{Cite DNB|first=D'Arcy|last=Power|pages=331–332|volume=1|wstitle=Bucknill, John Charles|supplement=1}}

Power, D'Arcy (1901). "Bucknill, John Charles" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography (1st supplement). Vol. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 331–332.

sandbox:

{{Cite DNB/sandbox|first=D'Arcy|last=Power|pages=331–332|volume=1|wstitle=Bucknill, John Charles|supplement=1}}

Power, D'Arcy (1901). "Bucknill, John Charles" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography (1st supplement). Vol. 1. London: Smith, Elder & Co. pp. 331–332.

Here is |supplement=2 (live):

{{cite DNB |first=Augustus Robert |last=Buckland |wstitle=Perowne, Edward Henry|volume=3|2ndsupp=2}}

Buckland, Augustus Robert (1885). "Perowne, Edward Henry" . In Stephen, Leslie (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography. Vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co. {{cite encyclopedia}}: Unknown parameter |2ndsupp= ignored (help)

sandbox

{{cite DNB/sandbox |first=Augustus Robert |last=Buckland |wstitle=Perowne, Edward Henry|volume=3|supplement=2}}

Buckland, Augustus Robert (1912). "Perowne, Edward Henry" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography (2nd supplement). Vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

Before implementing this change, I propose to cleanup the use of |supplement=. This insource search found ~70 articles that use |supplement=. There are a variety of values assigned to that parameter but I can replace anything the doesn't look like 2 or 1912 with 1 with an awb script. Anything that looks like 2 or 1912 bears closer inspection.

This insource search found about half as many uses of |2ndsupp=. Here too, a simple awb script to change |2ndsupp=<whatever> to |supplement=2 will clean that up just prior to updating the live template from its sandbox. So, without objection, I shall do these things.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 21:47, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. Here is the second supplement example rewritten to use |supplement=2:

{{cite DNB |first=Augustus Robert |last=Buckland |wstitle=Perowne, Edward Henry|volume=3|supplement=2}}

Buckland, Augustus Robert (1912). "Perowne, Edward Henry" . In Lee, Sidney (ed.). Dictionary of National Biography (2nd supplement). Vol. 3. London: Smith, Elder & Co.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Add ref=harv by default?

Is there a reason that this template does not add |ref=harv by default? Edmund Law Lushington, as one example among many, has a short reference "Bayne 1901" that is intended to link to the full citation, but the link is silently broken. In a short article with just two or three references, this is no big deal, but in a longer article, readers are left hunting for the full citation. I can't think of any downside to adding |ref=harv as a default for this template. Thoughts? – Jonesey95 (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

With no objection thus far, and after seeing that {{Cite ODNB}} also includes |ref=harv as a default, I have copied the way that |ref= is used in that template. This will fix invisible linking problems in many hundreds of articles. Please post a note here if this change has broken anything. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

@User:Jonesey95 The reasons for not including a default reference was because not all usage of this template is for citations, consequently it would flag up warnings when placed in "Further reading" or "external link" sections. This was deliberate and as was defaulting {{DNB}} which is only ever used as a citation. Similarly if you had looked through the {{cite ODNB}} talk page you would have found a discussion as to whether or not to include ref=harv in the template and why it was decided to set it by default -- PBS (talk) 13:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

If you are referring to the warnings that appear when certain .js scripts are used by logged in editors, those warnings are typically false positives that can be suppressed by using a better script. See Category:Harv and Sfn template errors for details. The change above, as far as I know, fixed actual errors in actual articles, which is helpful to all readers and editors. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

The wrapper templates like this one simply followed what was the practice with templates such as {{cite encyclopedia}}. The outliers were the attribution templates that by default set the parameter ref=harv (as was done with {{citation}}), because such attribution templates should only be used if there was text copied from a source. You say "The change above, as far as I know, fixed actual errors in actual articles", but it could also introduce errors. For example if there were two citations using the same author and date in an article and one of them was in further reading. Turning on this parameter could cause a link to be made to the wrong long reference. Having the same author and date is not uncommon for sources such as the DNB as one scholar will often contribute all the articles to a dynasty and because they are listed alphabetically they will be published in the same volume (hence the same date). -- PBS (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

"Multiple target" errors are a legitimate concern that arose from adding |ref=harv to the CS1 templates by default. Happily, there are only 57 articles in Category:Harv and Sfn multiple-target errors that also transclude Template:Cite DNB. I will take a look at them to see if the above change caused any of those errors (some are no doubt caused by other templates) and fix any problems that I am able to fix. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

I went through those 57 articles and fixed errors in about half of them. There was one article with a multiple target error caused by Cite ODNB, and none caused by Cite DNB. Thanks for bringing this potential problem to my attention, and let me know if you see any other negative side effects of this change. – Jonesey95 (talk) 18:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)

Missing category

This should have Category:Templates that wrap Cite encyclopedia. (I don't have permissions.) Smallus Editus (talk) 14:58, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Documentation pages are almost never protected. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:34, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Provide default language setting

As proposed at Template talk:Cite EB1911#Provide default language setting, I think it would be right to provide a default |language=en to {{Cite encyclopedia}}, for those rare cases when a reference is copied to another-language wiki. There should be no visible difference in en wikis. Makes sense? I'm not comfortable with how the template wrapper works, but I'll go ahead and try if nobody objects. David Brooks (talk) 22:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not comfortable with how the template wrapper works Is there something wrong with Module:template wrapper or how it implements this template?

Adding |language=en is trivial. I do not object.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 11:16, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Trappist the monk: No, I've no reason to doubt the stability of the module. It's just as a non-template-programmer I've not internalized the specification of the mechanisms for filtering parameters through the levels. I'll tool around in the sandbox. It's not urgent of course.

I assume it's simpler to just ignore any explicit |language=xx in the source invocation when referring to a book that is known to be entirely in English. Would that be acceptable policy?

This comes out of a conversation with Fourthords, and it now occurs to me that the same considerations would apply to most of the clients of {{cite encyclopedia}}, which are generally in one specific language (unless there's an ISO code for "slightly archaic late-Victorian British English").

 Done, also {{Cite EB1911}}. There are probably many more English-language encyclopedia sources where the same argument could apply. David Brooks (talk) 19:53, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2021

Add code to force "language=en": the book is entirely in English and this will trigger the "other language" flag in case the citation is copied uncritically to another language wiki. Discussed at Template talk:Cite DNB#Provide default language setting. The new code is in the sandbox and appropriately tested. This should also flow through to Template:DNB. David Brooks (talk) 16:50, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done * Pppery * _{it has begun...} 18:48, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Third DNB Supplement

To note that s:Dictionary of National Biography, 1927 supplement is now available on Wikisource. To me, as an outsider, it looks like updating this template so that {{cite DNB27}} and {{DNB27}} can be created on the DNB12 models should be relatively straightforward, with 3 for 2. But I don't think I should be doing that. @PBS: @Billinghurst: Charles Matthews (talk) 05:57, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

@Charles Matthews: Would you be able to set up some working examples in {{Cite DNB/testcases}}. Thanks. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:41, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

@Billinghurst: Not managing very well at /testcases. As a use case, Draft:Charles Moore Watson based on a DNB27 conversion shows what I'd need. Charles Matthews (talk) 15:50, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

{{cite DNB27/sandbox|author=Charles Venn Owen|wstitle=Watson, Charles Moore}}

Charles Venn Owen (1927). "Watson, Charles Moore" . In Davis, H. W. C.; Weaver, J. R. H. (eds.). Dictionary of National Biography (3rd supplement). London: Smith, Elder & Co.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

I have built it in the template's sandbox, and would appreciate some other testcases in place prior to rolling it out. Noting that it wasn't so straightforward as there is no volumes in DNB27, which was a condition for these templates. Anyway, I think that I have structurally improved the template anyway with more switches, which should make it easier to add supplement 4 in another 10+ years <shrug> @PBS: you may want to check my workings. — billinghurst sDrewth 11:37, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

The sandbox version appears to have dropped Sidney Lee as an editor for volumes 21 and 22, and possibly other volumes. See the yellow output on the testcases page. Is this intentional? More comprehensive testcases may be needed to check for subtle changes such as this one. – Jonesey95 (talk) 13:03, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

If we are to believe the table at Dictionary of National Biography § First series contents, vols 1–21 were edited by Stephen, vols 22–26 were edited by Stephen & Lee, and vols 27–63 were edited by Lee. If that table is correct then the live template is broken. I have tweaked the sandbox and the ~/testcases.

Previous text in this post deleted because the tweaks to the ~/sandbox make that post meaningless.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 13:36, 15 April 2023 (UTC) 14:55, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I have updated the live template from the sandbox. Report any errors or anomalies here.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2023 (UTC)