Template talk:National Heritage List for England

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


Thanks for the template. Is it possible to add a parameter ref=[<id>] as has been done for the cite XXX family and the citation template? The reason for asking is that if NHLE is used in a bibliography along with citation entries, the latter generate anchors that can be referenced in line by sfnp or Harvard citations. Might I suggest that either using just the desc or desc(num) would be suitable anchors? Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Using an anchor template achieves nearly the same result, but navigation and highlighting doesn't quite work. for example:
==Article body==
* Fred 1066 {{sfnp|fred|1066}}
* Church of St Giles 1060971 {{sfnp|Church of St Giles|1060971}}


* {{anchor|CITEREFChurch_of_St_Giles1060971}}{{NHLE
  | num = 1060971
  | desc = Church of St Giles
  | accessdate = 18 March 2013
  | separator = ,
  | ps }}
* {{citation| author=fred | year=1066 | title = fred's invasion}}

Martin of Sheffield (talk) 17:53, 21 March 2013 (UTC)


I have started to use this template rather than generate my own links, but I've noticed that when multiple links to NHLE are on the same page it results in gross over-wikilinking in the reflist. Can there be a parameter where you can turn off/on the blue links ? Thanks. Acabashi (talk) 17:31, 11 April 2013‎ (UCT)

I have added a parameter called "fewer-links" to the test code. To use it it has to be set to something (anything) eg fewer-links=x. It removes the links from "English Heritage" and "National Heritage List for England." See an example of its usage in Template:NHLE/testcases. Is that what you want? -- PBS (talk) 12:31, 20 June 2013 (UTC)
The parameter "fewer-links=1" looks good to have. It would work well on pages like this. You can imagine what this page would look like with all refs converted to the present NHLE template. Look forward to the new parameter being operational. Many thanks.Acabashi (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Done.YesY -- PBS (talk) 16:10, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
Very many thanks - and it even works with the accessdate parameter and the Grade parameter inserted. Magic. Acabashi (talk) 19:24, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Wrapper around template:Citation[edit]

Please see Template:NHLE/sandbox. I have rewritten the template as a wrapper around {{Citation}}. I think that the the only visual change I have made is to add an author. This coupled with the hidden ref= parameter will allow this template to be placed in a references section and linked to a short citation in the body of the text. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Testing by another editor would be appreciated. -- PBS (talk) 16:35, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Is there any value in adding "English Heritage staff" as author? I would have thought that this was implicit. The entries generally don't have named authors.--DavidCane (talk) 23:37, 13 June 2013 (UTC)
I came to this template because of its usage on Westwood House. That article uses short citations. To move this template down into the general references section and then link it using the standard {{harv}} templates the reference needs an author. -- PBS (talk) 07:28, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I was working on an article in my sandbox yesterday and used:
  • {{sfn|NHLE|1086410}} in the text
  • {{anchor|CITEREFNHLE1086410}}{{NHLE | num = 1086410 | desc = St Catherine's hospital with Wall and Railings to Front | accessdate = 11 December 2012 | separator = , | ps = }} in the bibliography.
This is a slight update on my suggestion from March. Using NHLE as the author makes sense to me, the whole entry is a product of EH, and not necessarily that of a single author. Likewise the unique reference number seems to be more sensible than a date which could be listing date, description date or latest update date.
I'll experiment with the new template this lunchtime; since my current work is in the sandbox there will be no problems with visibility. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 10:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I've been working on the template over lunch and have changed |ref={{{ref|}}} to {{#if: {{{ref|}}} | {{|}} ref={{{ref}}} }}. In the original case the citation template was seeing that ref was explicitly an empty string and that inhibited the automatic generation of the CITEREF id. The conditional form will only generate a ref= clause to template:citation if one is actually present, otherwise no clause is generated and the citation template generates an automatic CITEREF as documented.
Thinking about the author, rather than English Heritage Staff or NHLE perhaps simply English Heritage is the correct designation? In my sandbox there are three examples of the template: one using the old template with an anchor, the other two using the new template. Of those, the one without the year produces CITEREFEnglish_Heritage_staff whilst with the year set to the reference number it generates CITEREFEnglish_Heritage_staff1086410. My concern with the former is that there may be multiple NHLE entries within a single WP page with no obvious way to distinguish them. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
I am not in favour of anchor, because while it would work it is far away from standard. I think "staff" helps if "English Heritage" is to be used as the publisher. If we junk the publisher then "English Heritage" as the author would do, or keep it as it is but use "EH staff" instead.
Personally I favour date or year if a separation is needed, as it is the usual way to do this. as to the confusion over dates it does not really matter, providing they are unique. However another solution is to use {{SfnRef}}. We can set CITEREF to ref={{SfnRef|{{{author}}}|{{{num}}} }}} then the call in the short citation would become {{sfn|English Heritage staff|1086410}}. I have altered the code in the template's the sandbox (but have not tested it) see what you think. -- PBS (talk) 14:12, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The anchor example was just to show how I had done things before your work on the template. Getting the template right is by far the best solution, so thank you. I like what you did with SfnRef, I've tested it against my new article (and cleaned up a minor typo). Although you mentioned dates, using the number in the way you do is far better; a lot of the entries originated at the same date.

Personally, and I accept that this is a matter of preference, I would leave the "staff" off. Some of the work comes from other people, for instance the descriptions may quote earlier authors. Generally I have found that corporate publications with no identified real authors take the corporate name in library filing systems. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 15:18, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

I've just noticed, the new template does not support accessed. Is the date of retrieval important for NHLE entries? Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:27, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

accessed is not supported but accessdate is (as is the case in the current live version). -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
oops, yes. My mistake. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Date of retrieval is important as the information can change. For example, if the grading of the listed item changes. Accessed should be included.
I don't think that there is a need to list an author. I think "NHLE" is satisfactory, with English Heritage as publisher.--DavidCane (talk) 22:40, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
Author is helpful for short citations. It makes them easier to read and understand. Perhaps the simplest solution would be to remove publisher and keep author. That would simply move English Heritage from the end of the template display to the start. That solution would also make it clear where in the general reference section the entry should be place (under E). If there is not the consensus for this then we can fix the short citation problem by including the publisher parameter rather than author in {{SfnRef}}, but we are moving further and further away from the standard short citation layout and so I would rather stick with author. -- PBS (talk) 10:09, 15 June 2013 (UTC)
Let's change from bottom-up to top-down thinking. When writing an article I would like to either simply add {{sfn|NHLE|12345678}} and down in the bibliography to have an entry {{NHLE|num=...}} producing:
  • ^ a b NHLE 1086410. and
  • NHLE, "<descrip> (1086410)", National Heritage List for England, English Heritage
or else use {{sfn|English Heritage|12345678}} etc and see:
  • ^ a b English Heritage. and
  • English Heritage, "<descrip> (1086410)", National Heritage List for England
of the two I'd prefer the first, there is less typing to do, however the latter is possibly closer to standard Harvard citations. I think the order for considering options must be: (1) the reader, (2) editors writing articles, (3) theoretical perfection Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:46, 15 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── As you did not number your choices and there are only two pairs, I am confused! However I have altered {{Template:NHLE/sandbox|num=1086410}} to display

which will link to {{sfn|English Heritage|1086410}}[1]


Will this do? If not then as DavidCane suggests we could use "NHLE" as the author, with English Heritage as publisher.

which will link to {{sfn|NHLE|1086411}}[1]


-- PBS (talk) 10:04, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault for not being clearer; the numbers are priorities, not enumerating options. I've tested your latest out in my sandbox and it seems fine. Have a look and see what you think. Once the new template is moved from its sandbox to being live I have another candidate as a test page: St Giles, Wormshill where note 3 and the associated NHLE reference are linked by an anchor. I'm not sure what checking with existing uses is needed, currently there are 2113 pages using the old template. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Well of the two I think author=English Heritage is preferable to author=NHLE, as it seems clearer to me, what do you think DavidCane? As to the other pages that use this template it should not make much of a difference. The major visual change will be the move of English Heritage, from last to first and quotes around "Details ...". I suggest that a representative sample of half a dozen live template usages are copied into Template:NHLE/testcases to make sure that my prediction is correct before copying anything from the sandpit to the live template -- PBS (talk) 17:14, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
Sounds an excellent plan to me. If you need any additional help just ask, otherwise I'll leave it in your capable hands. Thanks, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 08:26, 18 June 2013 (UTC)
I have placed test cases examples from the first 7 in the link list (Cheshire, Peterborough, 1600s (decade), Sausthorpe, Peckforton Castle, Kingston upon Hull, Fountains Abbey) into Template:NHLE/testcases. It threw up one obvious difference between the new and the old code. The accessdate value did not display in the new code because the url= parameter was not set (this the normal behaviour with the standard citation templates). So I altered the sandbox code to use the url= parameter and now accessdates display. -- PBS (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
I have added the template from St Giles, Wormshill to the testcase list as it also used the separator= and ps= parameters. I have then added a section to the testcase list which tests the use of the {[tl|harvnb}} template and it seems to work OK for all the examples. So unless there are any further concerns (eg to use NHLE in place of English Heritage as the author) it is my intention to copy the test code into the live code. -- PBS (talk) 10:21, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Agree Face-smile.svg Thank you Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:22, 19 June 2013 (UTC)
Done, but please check some live examples and if you spot an error please undo my edit. -- PBS (talk) 11:29, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've just changed St Giles over. The numbers are clickable links to the note, but hovering links through the note to the actual bibliographic entry. Likewise clicking on the text of the note links to the bibliography, so I would call that a 100% successful test. I'll wander around a few more and report back later - then I'll get back to my sandbox! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 12:07, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Update: No problems with All Saints Church, Frindsbury and Stoneacre. Temple Manor is more interesting, the ps parameter is needed because the manor has two NHLE entires, one for the listing and one for the scheduling. Using the identifying number in the citation is much clearer than the previous method of using (Grade 1) to distinguish the two. I hope that's enough live examples for you. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:52, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Help, please[edit]

I have become an avid user of this template as I write many articles on churches and create heritage lists. But I have hit a problem when I made a nomination at FLC for List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley. The reviewer has made a number of comments, the last three of which (dated 1 September 2013) relate I think to the template; his comments are here (citations 127 and 128 are today numbered 128 and 129). I think the first of these refers to the fact that the publisher, English Heritage, displays at the start of the citation rather than, as is more usual in citation templates, towards the end (just before "retrieved on..."); the reveiewer is arguing for consistency in the appearance of the citations. The next point (now citation 138) is partly because of my choice of title, but I think the name of the church is a reasonable title (and I've added the location to make a bit more sense). The last point is about the use of the definite article; it's true that the actual title of the List does include the definite article (whether WP likes it or not). Can (should) the template be amended to make it display as:

Church of St Blogg (1111111), The National Heritage List for England, English Heritage, retrieved on...

--Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:01, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Have a look at All Saints Church, Frindsbury. What I've done is use {{NHLE | num = 1107886 | desc = Parish Church of All Saints | accessdate = 9 December 2012 | separator = , | ps = }} in the bibliography and {{sfnp|English Heritage|1107886}} for the inline citation. It relieves the clutter in the citation list somewhat, particularly for browsers that will use multicolumns. I would slightly take issue with your reviewer though. English Heritage are the corporate authors of the entry as well as the publishers (see discussion above). The format in the bibliograhy is then: English Heritage, "Parish Church of All Saints (1107886)", National Heritage List for England, retrieved 9 December 2012. EH is the corporate author, "Parish...86)" is the section, NHLE is the overall title. This would seem to me to be consistent. Regards, Martin of Sheffield (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks, Martin, for the trouble you have taken. What you say may work fine for an individual church (I have no problems with that). Where I do have a problem is with lists where the template is used repeatedly; your suggestion would clutter up the Bibliography section (I use Sources as the heading - but that does not matter). What the reviewer means by consistency, I guess, is that the citations all have a similar format (no matter that they all work perfectly well). I will ask the reviewer to comment on your reply. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 18:19, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Fair point about numbers, I've only dealt with 2 or 3 NHLE citations on a page. To mock up what I was suggesting I ripped all the NHLE citations out of your page and dumped them in User:Martin_of_Sheffield/sandbox4. Have a look. Note that if you use IE the columns don't work, most decent browsers will tabulate the citations in three columns. BTW, since PBS rewrote the template earlier this year, it is simply a jacket around template:citation. If anyone has problems with that, then much of Wiki is in rather a pickle! Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:31, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
Thanks again for your trouble. I'm a bit busy in real life today, but I'll have a think about it later. My present inclination is to withdraw my nomination at FLC. Cheers. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 08:07, 3 September 2013 (UTC)

Having slept on it (a few times), I am continuing with the nomination. But this has resulted in an "Oppose" from a reviewer; his/her argument is in the collapsed box here. It is in my interest, and I would argue in the interest of all those who use this template, particularly at FAC and FLC, to have this dispute resolved. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 15:49, 5 September 2013 (UTC)

Glad to see your "Oppose" has been withdrawn, TRM has the right idea IMHO. I've edited out the link to my sandbox, I'm about to clean it up. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 11:43, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Temp problem[edit]

Has anyone else found this ? When the proposal was made that the short version of this template should be removed, all EH temps in articles had the special link to the discussion. These links seem to be still there and the only way to remove them seems to be to make an edit in articles. This is not ideal - is there a way that all templates could be automatically reverted without having to edit each article ?

Also, can we extend the discussion - see discussion in section above - on the rendering of this template ? My view - as was mentioned in the short template removal discussion - is that the "English Heritage" appearing at the start of the render can be a problem when reading a list of them in an article, the subject of the temp not being immediately apparent, as it is in the Pastscape template. A counter view, if I got the gist, was that EH was not just the publisher but the creator/author of the text, thereby being correct to be the first item. However, if we look at the entries on their web site, EH is sometimes not the author, but it takes stuff from other sources, particularly Pevsner, to build up their text. If the EH listing text is purely EH's, I still can't see how an organisation can be the author, that attribution should be with the field officer who noted the information - they never mentioned of course. Acabashi (talk) 18:27, 9 January 2014 (UTC)

I strongly agree with the second paragraph. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:05, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
I am against removal of English Heritage as the author. There is a long discussion further up this page. I was in favour of removing "staff" from the author, and while that would deal with the specific view "EH is sometimes not the author", I suspect it would help not remove you objection.
I think placing English Heritage as the text for the author parameter is useful for constructing a human readable CITEREF, and if "English Heritage" were to be removed from the author parameter it would need to be added to the publisher parameter.
"reading a list of them in an article". They should not be in the body of an article but in the appendix. If they are in an appendix then having them in "a list" would be unusual, as they are usually used as a citation in ones or twos. Citations should contain enough information that if the article is printed or copied without links that a reader can still find the citation. I do not see that removing "English Heritage" would allow that. -- PBS (talk) 10:14, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
OK, English Heritage are definitely the publisher, and this should appear in the reference. The descriptions have been written over many decades by a multiplicity of authors, and have sometimes been changed since (I know his because I have been personally advising them of some errors, typos, etc.). The descriptions have not always been written by the staff of EH (in fact many were written before EH came into existence). If pushed, I think we could say that EH have been the editor, but in no way would I consider them to be the author. Not providing a publisher in the reference caused me great trouble at FLC (and no doubt would do so if I ever ventured into that field again). See the discussion here if you are interested. And to have EH as both author and publisher in a reference could also be a problem. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 11:11, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
In the FLC candidate example you gave, Goodraise wrote All I'm here to do is to check whether list articles meet the criteria, and WP:CITE happens to say that "citations within any given article should follow a consistent style." yet the article List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley was and is not consistent because it mixes up short and long citations inline. If the article was to be consistent then all the long citations should have been moved down to the references section. Hence I find the debate that took place there confused. -- PBS (talk) 12:39, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I'm certainly confused about that, and don't understand the long/short citation stuff. But the main point I am trying to make here is that a reference template should contain the name of the publisher; and this one doesn't. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:28, 11 January 2014 (UTC)
I know little about the ins and outs of correct criteria with this, I just think the building/monument first works well with the temp for Pastscape, which is also English Heritage. Pastscape, as with NHLE, can often show inclusion additions and references from other sources together with EH field investigator reports. I can't see the difference in essence between the EH pages the two templates link to. I only feel that Pastscape is reader-friendly, and NHLE is not especially when we have a list of them in the same article, either as inline cites or in an appendix. If I understand Peter correctly - EH should be at the end of the template as publisher. This would make the render look clumsy if EH is mentioned twice ? Best to remove it from the front then in my opinion.
The problem of the residue of the short version merge discussion note still exists in articles, no doubt in hundreds of them. Can an automation be uses to restore the refs ? Acabashi (talk) 15:10, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────I'm not entirely sure why this has been resurrected, I thought that a satisfactory solution had been found a couple of months back. Regarding the special links: do they help the reader? WP:RF really is applicable here, the casual reader is not interested in a debate about Wiki's internals and house style. I do agree that an automated removal would be a good idea, in the mean time an edit-save really doesn't take that long.

Turning now to the author issue. The template has an author field, so if there is a clearly defined author they can be credited. If there is no named author, EH corporately is the default. Consider a newspaper: if there is a by-line the journalist is credited, otherwise the paper gets the credit. As a further example, earlier this evening I was citing the Methodist Hymn-book. Do I list the several hundred authors, or just the authors of the first six hymns? What about composers? The book was assembled by a committee of the Methodist Conference, and so I would suggest that the MEthodist Conference corporately was the only sensible "author" (possibly editor). The only alternative is to use "Anon" which adds nothing. We must be careful to find the best solution, not to straitjacket every citation into a format designed for books when we are not handling a book. To quote from the very first page of WP:MOS:

When short form citations are used within the article (either <ref>{{harv...}}</ref> or {{sfn...}}), then CITEREFs are important for the reader to navigate to a usable citation. In addition, keeping the inline citation short helps editors to deal with the content, not to wade through multiple lines of citation (IMHO).

I am also concerned about the worries over a publisher. Including the publisher in a citation was essential in the pre-ISBN days of book publishing. It is possible to argue that a publisher and place are redundant if the ISBN is given: who cares which office organised the printing and binding, it is content and authorship that matter and the number identifies the book to the trade. For an online database the author is the "content provider" and the publisher the "web site host", is the host relevant to any researcher given that they have a URL? Online pages might retain the distinction between the page author and site webmaster, but that doesn't apply to NHLE.

PBS's comments about Goodraise's points are bang on the nail. Keep the citation style constant - yes. Is it relevant to this particular discussion - no.

I'm sorry if this has been a bit critical of some valued contributors. I'm worried that we can drift of into "navel-gazing" discussions when what is required is (1) clear and concise citations for the reader and (2) assistance, not barriers, to editors proving content. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:03, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

In reply to Peter I. Vardy comment " and don't understand the long/short citation stuff." Using the article List of ecclesiastical works by E. G. Paley as an example this inline footnote contains a long citation:

If the article is to have a consistent style in footnotes it should be moved down into the References section and a short citation placed inline:

Likewise all the English Heritage full citations should have been moved down to the references section and replaced with short citations eg:

and the long inline citation replaced with a short one:

I hope that helps to explain the difference between short and long citations. It is more generally explained in the citation guideline a link to the appropriate section in that guideline exists it is called WP:CITESHORT. If you have any further questions about short and long citations then please post a message to my talk page and I will try to answer them. -- PBS (talk) 13:59, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

PBS, I am most grateful for your help and advice; that makes it much clearer (and much better (for me) than WP:CITESHORT which I did not really understand. Wish I had known that at FLC time! I have also had some useful advice on the same subject from Martin of Sheffield, so thanks to you all. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:30, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

NHLE redirect to here appears broken[edit]

The NHLE redirect to here, following a merge, seems to be broken - could a template expert look into it please. eg cite 4 in Newbridge, Bath - all the cites on that page seem broken, probably in consequence to the NHLE problem, so it seems to have wide consequences. Rwendland (talk) 21:20, 18 January 2014 (UTC)

Can you be a bit more specific? I've just been to the Newbridge page and when I hover over the [4] at the end of section 1 I see either a tool tip, or else the reference itself is highlighted if it is visible. Clicking on the title of the reference (not the "English Heritage" at the start) takes me to [1] which is the Newbridge entry. I'll happily try to help with problems, but they need to be reproducible. One small thought: what browser are you using? I'm using Firefox 20.0 running under SuSE 12.1. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:58, 18 January 2014 (UTC)
The problem to me seemed to be the dammed merge information template still showing on the page. I have edited the page and added a space. Now that is done the extra text has gone away for me has it for you Rwendland? As for a general fix I have no idea, past experience tell me it can take months for changes to templates to propagate to pages that have not been edited since a change to the template. It is a good reason for not placing banners like:
in article space. -- PBS (talk) 19:03, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
Yes, that's resolved it. Actually I was confused by the vast amount of white space the merge information template generates and misdescribed the problem, sorry. The template expansion was in fact there, but I missed it as it was moved under the white space and merge info. Thanks to everyone who looked at my non-problem! Rwendland (talk) 20:43, 19 January 2014 (UTC)
This is a perfect justification of my comments in the section above (see the paragraph just under the outlink). A classic case of reader misdirection. Indeed to paraphrase what I said above: "PBS's comments about 'damned merge information' are bang on the nail". Glad the problem has been resolved. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2014 (UTC)

Recent change[edit]

I am not sure why the template has been changed recently. The link used to go via the title of the property, which seemed to make sense. It now goes through "National Heritage List for England", which is common to all references, and seems to me a bit odd/ Is there a good reason? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

There was a change to Module:Citation/CS1, the engine underlying {{citation}} which underlies this template. In the past, |url= would be promoted to |chapter= if |chapter-url= was not used. With the change, |chapter= gets |chapter-url=, and |title= gets |url= and the two no longer intermix.
I've restored the wikilink in |title= and changed |url= to |chapter-url=. This may not have worked as well as it should and at the moment I need to attend to real life. I will get back to it, if someone doesn't beat me to it, in a few hours.
Trappist the monk (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Many thanks for the very quick response. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 17:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
So I think its fixed in the sandbox. {{English Heritage List entry}} is essentially citing the English Heritage website. The recent change to Module:Citation/CS1 took away a 'feature' that this template relied upon. This template, in certain cases, also corrupted the rendered citation's COinS metadata. When |short= was assigned a value, {{English Heritage List entry}} wrapped the value of |num= in {{noitalic}}. It did this because {{citation}} without a value for |work= would otherwise render the short version of {{English Heritage List entry}} in italics. The problem is that {{noitalic}} adds css markup to the citation title which is something that no template should do.
The fix that I have made changes {{citation}} to {{cite web}}, changes |title= to |work= (for the National Heritage List for England text), changes |chapter= to |title=, deletes {{noitalics}} from |work=, moves {{{num}}} from |work= to |title=, and also restores the wikilink markup for the National Heritage List for England text that was removed by Editor Gilo1969. A diff of the current broken live template and the sandbox is here.
See the testcase page. Are there any objections to updating the live template from the sandbox?
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The sandbox version nearly gets the |short=y behaviour correct, but it's putting it in quotation marks, which the current version doesn't do and isn't really appropriate for just the bare number output. -- Dr Greg  talk  02:40, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
The short form has always (as far as I can tell) been rendered quoted in upright font. That was the purpose of the {{noitalics}} template. I think that comparing the sandbox to the current live template is problematic because we wouldn't be here discussing it if the change to Module:Citation/CS1 had not happened. So why do you believe that the short form should be italicized?
Trappist the monk (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't; you have misunderstood. When I said "in quotation marks" I meant the double-quote character ("1234567") not two single-quotes (1234567). I've been using it in infoboxes (not references) such as in Tower Hill Water Tower. I'm expecting the short-form output to be upright, unquoted (as it currently is as I write this) e.g. 1197069 Maybe I am using the short form for a purpose it was not intended, but I'm not sure what other purpose it could have been intended for. -- Dr Greg  talk  18:56, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Ah, I understand now. It isn't clear to me from any discussion on this page or the template's documentation page, what intended use was planned for |short=y. I misspoke when I say that it had been always been rendered quoted in upright font. The use of {{noitalics}} accomplished that at the expense of corrupted metadata.
Because your desired output can be obtained by the creation of a simple external wikilink, and because in your use example, there is no 'citation' value (no author, no title, no date, no need to be a target for a {{harv}} or {{sfn}} reference, no anything else normally expected from a citation) we could simply make a test in the template that would build an external wikilink whenever |short= is set. New code in the sandbox takes this:
which produces this raw output:
[http://list.historicengland.org.uk/resultsingle.aspx?uid=1197069 1197069]
which gives us this rendered external link:
The cases where |short= is empty or omitted are unaffected. The sandbox code for these other cases still makes reference to |short= so there is a bit of cleanup yet to do if this is an acceptable solution.
Trappist the monk (talk) 19:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
That looks like a good solution to me. Thanks! -- Dr Greg  talk  20:22, 2 December 2014 (UTC)

separator, ps, and mode[edit]

|separator= has been deprecated and replaced with new parameter |mode= in CS1 and CS2 templates. Because the underlying template is {{cite web}}, |mode= may be omitted or left blank. When the predominant citation style in an article is Citation Style 2, setting |mode=cs2 will render {{cite web}} as if it were a CS2 ({{citation}}) template.

|separator= is still present in the {{English Heritage List entry}} template so that Module:Citation/CS1 will properly categorize and emit error messages for those templates that use |separator=. When those templates have been updated to use |mode=, |separator= support in {{English Heritage List entry}} may be removed.

|ps= is no longer assigned a default value. The value assigned to |ps= will override the setting determined by |mode=.

Trappist the monk (talk) 12:45, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Where is the discussion where the consensus for removing separator agreed? -- PBS (talk) 12:50, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Help talk:Citation Style 1/Archive 7#Separator parameters
Trappist the monk (talk) 13:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
There were only 4 people involved in that discussion and the parameter "separator" was not mentioned. There also no mention there of what the proposed solution to use a new parameter "mode" which I think is a very retrograde step. So before you make any changes pleases show that there is a broad consensus to deprecate the parameter "separator" and that there is a broad consensus to introduce a parameter called mode. -- PBS (talk) 15:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
You do have to read all of the discussion including the subsections. |separator= is discussed.
Trappist the monk (talk) 16:15, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The changes made to this template only reflected changes made elsewhere - why revert these? If you think there is a problem then this need addressing with the {{cite web}} template. Keith D (talk) 20:06, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
Two points the first is that when a statement is made on the talk page and is under discussion, then changes ought to be delayed until the conversation is complete. About five editors on an obscure page thought that introducing a mode parameter is a good idea does not mean that it should be pressed through without a more general discussion. The removal of separator and postscript reduces flexibility and presupposes that editors to not want the flexibility to set the separator to anything other than a full stop or a comma. What if someone wishes to set it to a semicolon for example? Is it desirable to remove that functionality? If so who decided that it is? The introduction of a "mode" parameter (which would probably be better named "style"), presupposes that it is desirable to introduce the concept of style out of the boiler room of the lower interfaces up to interfaces such as this one. To the best of my knowledge there has been no discussion of any of this in a public forum such a village pump, why not? -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 15 February 2015 (UTC)
The definitive style for CS1 is stated at Help:Citation_Style_1#Style. By far the vast majority of citations that use |separator=, specify either a full stop or a comma. Module:Citation/CS1 has, for a very long time preceding the most recent update, used the content of |separator= as an indicator flag to switch modes from CS1 style to CS2 style. I have seen a few cases where editors used |separator=; but they are quite rare and, when used, create a non-standard style. I have yet to find an entire article of CS1-like citation templates that specify a separator character that is not one of the two default characters.
|ps= has not been removed from {{English Heritage List entry}} nor |postscript= from CS1. Because Module:Citation/CS1 sets the default postscript character according to the template that invokes it, in this case {{cite web}} via {{English Heritage List entry}}, there is no need to specify that same default character in {{English Heritage List entry}}. Otherwise, |ps=|postscript= continues to function as it did previously.
So called public fora are not really the place for technically oriented discussions because, for the most part, editors don't understand or don't care. This is why we are repeatedly reminded that the proper place to discuss templates is on the template talk pages. I would very much like to have greater participation by the general editing community. Help talk:Citation Style 1 is not private. If you know how to get more of the general editing populace to participate in our discussions, please put that knowledge to work for the betterment of our community.
I too, would have preferred |style= to |mode= but objections were raised so it's |mode=.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I think you miss the point. Just because something is not widely used that is no reason to remove it, particularly when the decision is made by less than half a dozen participating editors. You have come here to change a template and are basically telling anyone who objects lump it or leave it. It does not even seem to cross you mind that perhaps you ought to roll back the change and instead of removing parameters just add the new one and see if it is adopted. -- PBS (talk) 15:11, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

In this case, notwithstanding lack of discussion elsewhere, the parameter is unnecessary because the template formats with a dot without it anyway. DrKiernan (talk) 19:31, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

The purpose of |separator= in {{English Heritage List entry}} was to allow editors to style this template like {{citation}} which uses a comma for the separator character. The comma also forced Module:Citation/CS1 to leave off terminal punctuation and render certain static text provided by the template in lowercase, for example the text added for access dates; all this, same as {{citation}}. That functionality was replaced with |mode= which it is hoped more clearly defines what happens.
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
I'd misunderstood. I've added mode; if you choose to add separator back, then fine. DrKiernan (talk) 21:17, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
So called public fora are not really the place for technically oriented discussions because, for the most part, editors don't understand or don't care. Trappist, surely the same could be said in reverse: those who are interested in the technical side of things often don't understand or (seemingly) care about the impact on content. - Sitush (talk) 21:25, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
Of course. Do you think that I think otherwise? I want outside opinion, but my experience, when I ask for it is, 9 times in 10, silence. For this reason, I'm not quiet about the changes I make to the underlying code. I write quite a bit at Help talk:Citation Style 1 about what I'm doing. Sometimes it's writing to myself because no one comments. Other times I get responses from the usual group of editors who have an interest. I invite you to watch that page, participate.
Trappist the monk (talk) 00:51, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
I think that templates are something of a black art and that there are certain people whose presence in discussions about them probably actually discourages others to dip their toe into the waters. That aside, just the formatting of your opening post in this section is enough to put most people off. I've no idea if there is a better way to format but it does make things look incredibly complicated. I'm not a stupid person, and I've done my time in coding, but it is pretty much gibberish to me. - Sitush (talk) 08:43, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Templates aren't really any more of a black art than articles on higher mathematics are a black art. There is a learning curve; one doesn't read and understand the lede of Zolotarev's lemma without a certain amount of knowledge gained beforehand. I did not set out to educate anyone with my opening post in this topic. I did want to document what I did and why I did it; an expanded edit summary, if you will.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

@DrKiernan you ought not to be changing the template while discussions about the changes are ongoing ([[WP:BRD). -- PBS (talk) 10:11, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you wanted the option of using a comma. If you don't, then simply undo the addition. Have it whatever way you want. DrKiernan (talk) 10:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
@DrKiernan It is the introduction of mode and the removal of separator (diff) to which I was referring. -- PBS (talk) 12:48, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
That change merely removes a broken parameter and replaces it with a working one. DrKiernan (talk) 13:53, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
The question that is being discussed is why is the parameter broken and should it be replaced with a new one, while that is being discussed changes ought not be made. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

English Heritage is Changing[edit]

EH is splitting into two parts (see this) and the part that looks after listing, etc is to be called Historic England. So this will mean a lot of work on the template and to references currently linking to EH. Is there any way of making this easier? --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 12:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Probably depends on the changes to the website, hopefully they will keep the same ID for entries and just change the URL. May be most of the references will be just a change to this template, but I suspect there are numerous articles not using the template and these will need changing individually. May be now is a good time to convert them over to using the template to future proof ourselves, and get some of the error checking from the {{cite web}} template. Keith D (talk) 13:14, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
Search indicates 2,800 articles using the URL and 4,598 using the template. Keith D (talk) 13:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
It will also affect Commons:template:Listed building England Keith D (talk) 14:08, 16 March 2015 (UTC)
I've done a few tests & all seem to have kept the same UID with a robust redirect system. Other templates potentially affect may be {{English Heritage listed building header}} and {{English Heritage listed building row}}.— Rod talk 19:48, 18 March 2015 (UTC)
The structure of the database is the same, with just the organisation name in the url altered. In fact the presentation of the individual entries on the new Historic England website is a little bit more attractive. I've changed the template to link to the new url and changed the organisation name used in the template and in the documentation. We need to move the template now, as the name is incorrect. It could either go back to its original name, {{NHLE}}, or to {{Historic England List entry}}. I would prefer the former as that is what the list is actually called on the Historic England page.--DavidCane (talk) 12:24, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
NHLE will be opaque to most Wikipedia editors and needs to be spelt out in full. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:50, 19 March 2015 (UTC)
The official name is "The National Heritage List for England", as here. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This page suggests that the change only becomes effective on 1 April 2015. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:07, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

But the online usage has already been changed to Historic England. --Peter I. Vardy (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm afraid all of this has broken the linkage between templates. I had a quick look at All Saints Church, Frindsbury. {{sfnp|English Heritage|1107886}} in the text generates "English Heritage (1107886)" as a citation and a CITEREFEnglish_Heritage1107886. {{NHLE}} in the bibliography has an id of CITEREFHistoric_England11078864, which of course don't link. Is it possible to detect programatically where such breaks have occurred? For instance any page generating CITEREFEnglish_HeritageNNNNNNN must be suspect. Sorry, more problems and no more answers. :-( Martin of Sheffield (talk) 23:49, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

This just needs a search through the pages that link to the template using AWB with a rule set to fix the citation. I'll have a go now.--DavidCane (talk) 01:02, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. I've never used AWB so am happy to leave it to an expert. The pages I watch look fine. I'm just knocking them back into alphabetical order. Martin of Sheffield (talk) 22:40, 20 March 2015 (UTC)
DavidCane what is the regular expression that you are using in AWB? I ask because it seems to have missed conversions on two of the pages on my watch list in a similar way. Tekels_Park diff and Frimley Park diff in both cases it has converted
  • {{sfn|English Heritage|1001472}} to {{sfn|Historic England|1001472}}
but missed
{{harvnb|English Heritage|1001472}}
you probably need to run it again with a partial regular expression of (sfn[^\|]*|harv[^\|]*) to replace sfn, and you may want to add to \|English Heritage\| some space checking \| *English Heritage *\| to catch formatting changes. As there is more than one way to skin a cat and you may have used another form of regular expression it would help find a fix if you would show us what it is that you used (and to educate me if you used some other regular expression). -- PBS (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
I didn't actually use a regular expression in this case. I just ran two separate plain find/replace rules in parallel. These were:
  1. Find: {{sfn|English Heritage|1, Replace: {{sfn|Historic England|1 (The 1 at the end was used to exclude simple short footnotes like {{sfn|English Heritage|ps=}}).
  2. Find: {{sfnp|English Heritage, Replace: {{sfnp|Historic England.
I forgot about harvnb, but I was just about to do another run to pick up and fix other English Heritage references, so I'll include this in the task.--DavidCane (talk) 11:11, 21 March 2015 (UTC)
Any more thoughts on a potential move to {{National Heritage List for England}} or similar? PC78 (talk) 06:59, 22 April 2015 (UTC)
I think that makes sense now as it will be simply confusing in the future to keep the current names for the template. I'm in Italy at the moment looking at some of their heritage, but, when I'm back at the weekend, I can do another AWB run to make the names change if everyone is happy with the suggestion. --DavidCane (talk) 06:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Content transclusion limit exceeded[edit]

See Talk:Grade II* listed buildings in South Somerset. – Wbm1058 (talk) 18:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

It looks like the recent renaming of this template has blown the lid off what the software can handle. To save any future problems, I propose we go back to the beginning and move this template to the name with which it started: {{NHLE}}.--DavidCane (talk) 10:03, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
What makes you think the template name is the issue? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:26, 4 May 2015 (UTC)
My guess would be this change that will have increased the size of the template and is totally unnecessary. Keith D (talk) 16:23, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
That change was not unnecessary nor does it have any effect on post-expand include size. PC78 (talk) 19:08, 10 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 6 June 2015[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved. Though I will add that moving templates is largely pointless, creating redirects saves a lot of time. Jenks24 (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

– These are three related citation templates which each refer to a separate database maintained by Historic England. Ideally the names should be consistant, particuarly when they are being used in the same article; my preference would be for {{National Heritage List for England}}, {{Images of England}} and {{PastScape}}, alternatively the titles should all be preceeded with "Cite" or followed with "entry". Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2015 (UTC) PC78 (talk) 09:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  • Comment - My preference would be the same as yours. I don't believe that we need to add "cite" or "entry" as both words are implicit in the usage of the templates. Of the many hundreds of external link templates that we have only a small minority start with "cite" and I couldn't find others that use "entry" in this way.--DavidCane (talk) 10:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Comment {{UKgov Images of England entry}} would be good, it wouldn't be confused with a gallery page residing in templatespace. Or a tag to place onto filepages of England; the National Heritage List for England entry seems good enough, since it is a link to an entry; and {{PastScape entry}} ; as potentially, one could build a set of articles for each of the databases themselves, whcih could be interlinked with footer templates, which would lead to "National Heritage List for England" and "PastScape" to mean a navbox instead; are these citation templates or simply EL templates? -- (talk) 07:23, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • The templates are primarily used for citations. Not sure where you've got "UKgov" from for Images of England. PC78 (talk) 07:30, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Articles already exist for National Heritage List for England and Images of England, while PastScape is sort of covered by Historic England Archive. Confusion with non-existant navboxes seems like a very hypothetical concern, I'm not sure there would be any basis for creating such templates anyway, though a combined {{Historic England}} navbox might be an idea. But this all seems a bit off topic... PC78 (talk) 07:39, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
  • Suggest moving to {{National Heritage List for England}} and {{PastScape}} and leaving {{Images of England}} where it is, in the absence of any further comment. Regarding the IP's comment above, I don't see any good reason to distinguish these titles from navboxes that don't exist and almost certainly wouldn't be viable anyway, and I don't believe there is any naming convention that would make this necessary. Best to keep the titles as simple as possible, it will make them easier to remember and less cumbersome to use. PC78 (talk) 14:40, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
    • Enough time has passed now; go for it.--DavidCane (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.