Template talk:Cite Collier's

Long or short

I think that rather than defaulting to short this template like others should default to long, and if there is a need for it to have a short. The reason behind this thinking is that WP:CITE demands more information like publisher by default, so someone should consciously need to opt out of that rather than opting in. -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The information is all there behind a link to Collier's Encyclopedia. This is not an obscure work where the extra information is useful. We are not in the situation of a general citation where the work does not have a Wikipedia page. The main pieces of information is the year of publication and especially the link to the Wikisource article. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please develop on a base of Cite encyclopedia

Collier's is not as elaborated as some of the others, but it perhaps could be, to handle citations to more modern editions, or using web links. {{Cite encyclopedia}} is the most suitable basis for this. Collier's is a work with modern editions, and eventually it should get developed as the other templates for citing special encyclopedias are. {{Cite wikisource}} is not made for this. If {{Cite wikisource}} is useful, it will be for Wikisource works that don't already have dedicated citation templates. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 01:55, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linking Wikisource logo

I dunno if it makes much sense to link it, we are not linking when displaying other logoes, instead we link the the subject. --Ysangkok (talk) 19:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request 2016-06-16

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I created testcases demonstrating icons that link to semantically meaningful pages rather than to the image file pages: the “” links to Wikipedia:Wikisource and the “” links to Wikipedia:Public domain. The sandbox should be ready to publish.^[1] Thank you. —LLarson (said & done) 02:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If we're certain that the Creative Commons licensed icons (albeit Wikimedia logos) don't need attribution via a direct link, I personally don't see issues with this request. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 03:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done File:Wikisource-logo.svg has an "attribution" license and requires a link to the file page. If you want a meaningful link, you're going to have to use another icon without an attribution requirement. However, I'm confused as to why we're using an icon at all here. No other citation templates use icons, and MOS:ICON discourages the use of icons in articles without previously explaining their meaning. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:40, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Template-protected edit request 2016-06-16 v.2.0

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

As per Ahecht’s comment – and MOS:ICON – I’ve removed the icons altogether;^[2] see testcases. If there’s consensus, I’ll update Template:Cite Collier's/doc accordingly. Thank you, —LLarson (said & done) 20:27, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to do get |noicon= usage count. If we're doing a deprecation, Module:Check for unknown parameters might be good practice, so hold off for now. (Side note, I personally think 600 transclusions doesn't warrant TPROT and doesn't meet WP:HRT) — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 21:46, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LLarson, for consistency, many of the templates at Category:Encyclopedia source templates, including {{Cite CE1913}}, {{Cite EB1911}}, {{Cite Americana}}, etc would need |noicon= removed/deprecated. Consensus for this one template wouldn't be enough in my opinion. Toggling for now, sorry. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:14, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: For what it’s worth, out of the 614 mainspace pages using this template,^[3] it looks like 132 are using |noicon=.^[4] Thanks for your attention to this. —LLarson (said & done) 22:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know the best/fastest way to get consensus for |noicon= deprecation across these. It's probably not opening this again for visibility. An RfC at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources could be an option. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 22:37, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Andy M. Wang: Thank you again. You think Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, as opposed to say WP:RFC, is the proper forum? —LLarson (said & done) 00:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@LLarson: I mean, yeah, there are a number of venues that could work, WP:VPR, WT:Citing sources, even this very talk page, but now I'm thinking VPR might make sense. Probably, {{rfc|style|prop|tech}}, and I think it'll last a month. Of course, I'd recommend drafting something pretty clear and thorough, especially the number of templates affected that would need to be updated. Hope this helps. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:59, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request: "P.F. Collier" to "P. F. Collier"

Greetings and felicitations. Would someone please be so kind as to change "P.F. Collier" to "P. F. Collier", per the encyclopedia's title page? —DocWatson42 (talk) 23:12, 27 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Thanks to DocWatson42 for catching this. —LLarson (said & done) 19:01, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@LLarson: You're welcome. ^_^