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#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#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)