Talk:Second Silesian War

"Industrialization" of Silesia
Silesia in the eighteenth century was indeed heavily industrialized by the standards of the time, though obviously not by twenty-first-century standards. It had a large and productive textile industry that produced significant taxes and exports, and its high level of industrialization is specifically mentioned in the sources cited in this article as a reason for the territory's importance as an asset to the states that fought for it. Please leave the wording as-is or provide a better justification for the change. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:17, 16 March 2020 (UTC)
 * I will use this in the future as one more example of how Wikipedia gets corrupted with easily spotted and undeniable bullshit only because the users who edit it are all-too-often crappy at it. Luckily, this problem is mostly to be found in the English wikipedia, it's up to everyone's guess why this is so.
 * Besides, you just bullshitted at me by claiming that Silesia was "industrialised". To repeat misinformation is not an argument. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_industrialisation 10:38, 17 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Try to keep it professional, Lastdingo; name-calling isn't an argument, either. Wikipedia's job is to summarize the published sources on a topic, and the published sources on this topic repeatedly and explicitly describe the region as highly industrialized (for the time period, of course). If you notice, there's a citation on that actual sentence; the source reads, "[Silesia] was one of the most densely industrialized areas of early modern German Europe, with a substantial textile sector specializing in linen manufacturing, and its annexation would bring to Prussian lands an element of productive intensity that they had hitherto lacked." -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 13:39, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Citation information
Edit history:
 * 16:46, 24 July 2020‎ PBS talk contribs block‎ 41,715 bytes -342‎ modified link to Wikisource to use custom template "cite EB1911"
 * 16:47, 24 July 2020‎ PBS talk contribs block‎ m 41,716 bytes +1‎ →‎Sources undo
 * 16:53, 24 July 2020‎ PBS talk contribs block‎ 41,760 bytes +44‎ →‎External links: clean up EB1911 template including using the short=x parameter
 * 17:09, 24 July 2020‎ Bryanrutherford0 talk contribs block‎ m 42,118 bytes +358‎ Restoring information removed from citation

The information presented after my edits (diff):


 * Refs
 * External links
 * External links

The versions reverted to by user:Bryanrutherford0




 * external links

@user:Bryanrutherford0 "Restoring information removed from citation" what information was removed that you wished to restore? -- PBS (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't revert your edit, and I left your change to the external links untouched. The information I restored to the citation is the information present in the first version and absent in the second: namely, the wikilink to the editor, the place of publication, the wikilink to the publisher, and the OCLC. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * You did revert my edit see these two diffs (diff before my edit and afterwards, diff of my edit and afterwards)
 * The Wikisource version is to a New York edition not the British edition that the OCLC links. If they were published today they would have a different ISBN.
 * By revering out the use of EB1911 you broke the sister link and used a url instead.
 * The consensus is not to link the editor in the EB1911 citation, or the publisher, as there is already enough blue links in the citation (see the discussion on the custom template talk pages if you need conformation of this).


 * However if you want those two additional facts then I will revert you revert and add them.
 * do you want to include the OCLC number? If so why?
 * do you want to include the link to the editor if so why?
 * -- PBS (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure why you say that this OCLC is for the wrong version of EB1911. On the WorldCat page for that OCLC, at the top it reads, "Publisher: Cambridge [etc.] : The Univ. Press ; New York : Encyclopaedia Britanica"; the WorldCat page specifically say that the OCLC applies to printings from both locations. If your problem is that I'm citing the Cambridge printing and WikiSource has the New York printing, then I'll point out that, of course, I didn't cite WikiSource but the work itself; however, if you feel that citing the same version transcribed at WikiSource would improve the verifiability of the article (and I tend to agree), then I'm down to change the publication site cited in the article to "New York: Encyclopaedia Britanica Co.", keeping the OCLC. Yes, I do want to keep the OCLC number, for the same reasons of verifiability that make me want the citations of more recent books to keep their ISBNs: so that, if a reader wanted to, he or she could track down the book being cited and confirm the content of the article. The fact that very few readers are likely to ever do this is beside the point; very few readers are likely to follow any part of any citation on Wikipedia back to the source, yet we feel strongly about including citations. Yes, I want to keep the link to the editor, for the same reasons of attribution and hypertext usefulness that make us wikilink other topics that appear in the articles in this encyclopedia. As to your assertion that "The consensus is not to link the editor", in fact that change was made without discussion, and higher on the same talk page is a successful proposal (also without discussion) to add that same link; the admin making the more recent change specifically notes that "any further changes regarding the linking of the publisher will require a discussion and consensus", which is to say, no consensus has been established on the matter. As for your assertion that "there is already enough blue links in the citation", I'll just point out that that's clearly a matter of opinion, and I don't find it hard to imagine a reader seeing the name of the editor of EB1911 bluelinked and saying, "Oh, I wonder what the guy who oversaw that project was like", and clicking it. I might do so. -Bryan Rutherford (talk) 20:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree with you reasoning. If a reader wishes to follow up with the source they can do so on Wikisource where not only is there a machine readable version, but there are also facsimile copies of the source against which the machine readable text is derived so the OCLC number is redundant. There was a lot of blood shed over over-linking in the early days of the project it manifested itself over dates and a number of editors ended up blocked over the issue. The argument against over-linkng is not being able to see the wood from the trees. The information that people will need from a link to an article on Wikisource is a clear path to the information that supports the fact in the Wikipedia article, so reducing number of links in the citation helps to clarify what is pertinent to support the fact in the body of the article for which the citation was created.


 * However to put this to bed I have included the links you have demanded, as I doubt that we will agree on this and I am converting last coupled of score of articles from using a url to using an sister link for EB1911 citations to join the 20,000 other articles that use the  or  templates.  -- PBS (talk) 22:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)