Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Attribution markup[edit]

PBS, I notice that you added an ;Attribution definition header in middle of George Abbot (author)#References. I've been out of the loop for the evolution of source citation conventions: is there a normal expectation for having this header inside a References section, and what criterion would you use for putting something within this sub-section?— Preceding unsigned comment added by DavidBrooks (talkcontribs) 17:41, 22 November 2013‎

I placed a reply to a tangential question on your talk page (here) to you still need further clarification as to why I did what I did? -- PBS (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
Yes, I saw your comments about "Endnotes" to introduce the EB small-print (thanks). My question was about guidelines for whether and when to use ";Attribution" to precede the entire {{EB1911}} sequence. David Brooks (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2013 (UTC)
There were several discussions about whether it is acceptable to include text from PD sources a couple of years ago with several influential editors against any such inclusion. Their position is that all text from third party sources that are not quoted or added with in text attribution (Fred Amith said that ...) should be summarised, and that copying text was plagiarism. However as there were already tens of thousands of articles with copied text and as many editors or more who thought PD sources could be included, so a compromise was reached. It was agreed that references to copying should be clearly marked so that it was clear to everyone where the text originated and that it had been copied, (as plagiarism is the surreptitious copying of anthers text then PD text marked as copied can not be plagiarism). See WP:PLAGIARISM for detailed guidance and more specifically in answer to your question see Where to place attribution in that guideline. -- PBS (talk) 08:18, 25 November 2013 (UTC) says "This site is no longer available."[edit]

As of 24 November 2013, (I went to and checked, and) : the Main_Page says, [quote:]

Thank you for visiting the 1911 encyclopedia. This site is no longer available.

Is the Project Page [still] assuming that this web site [mentioned above] is available? ...and if so, then should that "Project Page" be edited to include this info?

Just "FYI" ... --Mike Schwartz (talk) 11:05, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks I have replaced he dead urls with some others. However it would be nice to use the Project Gutenberg html versions, but the volume that Anarchism appear in is 8-megs, so a different example is needed (as 8 megs is rather large from some browsers to handle and costs money for those on pay as you go contracts), but I rather like Anarchism as a jokey example. So if someone else has a better example to replace it with that uses a small Gutenberg project then please do so. -- PBS (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Eventual addition of EB1911 poster[edit]

Another detail about the Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification and Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with no article parameter projects. Sometimes I come across an article in the verification list that contains no text drawn from EB1911 itself, so there is no call for a {{EB1911}} or {{cite EB1911}} template. In that case, if there's an article in Wikisource, the convention is to add a {{EB1911 poster}}.

But if the Wikisource article doesn't exist yet, but may be added later, is there a way to call attention to the fact that this article should then be postered? See, for example, B. E. K. Ten Brink. Is it normal for the Wikisource editors to cross over to Wikipedia and look for places to put a poster? If not, I can create a hidden category, something like "articles that need EB1911 poster included".

All this assumes there is actual significant activity on the Wikisource and the two maintenance projects. David Brooks (talk) 20:18, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

The other is to place a {{cite EB1911}} in "Further reading" and the "title=" parameter with or without a "url=link" to an external website. Then some time in the future someone can link in a Wikisource title. The hidden category it would be place in is Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference (see Baghdad Vilayet for an example). -- PBS (talk) 12:20, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks; I hadn't noticed. Looks like the {{1911}} and {{EB1911}} templates do the same. (ETA) To be strictly correct, the template should be in Further reading, because I'm talking about those cases where the article actually contains no EB1911 copied text so it doesn't qualify as a reference. David Brooks (talk) 21:45, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
{{cite EB1911}} can also be placed in "External links" if no "Further reading" section exists but an "External links" does. Of course {{EB1911}} would not appear in "External links" or "Further reading" as it is for attribution which goes in the Reference section. BTW if you fill out an legacy {{1911}} please update it to {{EB1911}}, {{EB1911}} is slightly more efficient as {{1911}} is redirect, and it is more descriptive. Eventually {{1911}} will be phased out, although I suspect it will take a long time for that to happen as there is no reason to run a bot job to do it.
BTW all the categories could be broken down further so identify problems with templates in "External links" and "Further reading" (eg with an alternative Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating Cite EB1911 in External links without Wikisource article, but I see no real advantage to doing this and a couple of disadvantages. As these are hidden categories, and every "if statement" we put into a template to populate different categories slows down the time it takes to load the page (and new categories can take days and sometimes weeks to populate themselves) placing ever finer granularity in editors hidden categories is of no direct benefit to readers and harms readers with marginally more tardy page refreshes. Besides such a new category is not of much practical use, as the template still eventually gain a Wikisource whether it is in "Further reading" or "References". PBS (talk) 01:05, 14 December 2013 (UTC)

Wikisource, article and other unused parameters[edit]

See Template talk:EB1911#Wikisource, article and other unused parameters -- PBS (talk) 11:15, 9 July 2014 (UTC)