Template talk:Cite EB1911

Media Viewer
The logo doesn't have to appear in the media viewer. Consider adding the parameter. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nachtbold (talk • contribs) 14:42, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * And what if it does? Is that necessarily a bad thing?  Even so, clicking on the wikisource image in a rendering of this template takes the reader to the associated article at wikisource.  Can you give an example where that is not the case?  Here is an example taken from another conversation on this page:
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 15:06, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Provide default language setting
Provoked by a discussion elsewhere yesterday, it occurs to me that this template should pass a default en to Cite encyclopedia. I believe it would activate the other-language flag in case the citation should be copied as-is into another wiki. That's probably a rare event, but it would be inexpensive to do the right thing (at least, for an experienced template programmer). And, of course, it should be passed through from EB1911. Same applies to Cite DNB/DNB. Any reason not to? David Brooks (talk) 14:59, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 23 May 2021
Add code to force "language=en": the book is entirely in English and this will trigger the "other language" flag in case the citation is copied uncritically to another language wiki. Discussed at Template talk:Cite DNB and Template talk:Cite EB1911. The new code is in the sandbox and appropriately tested. This should also flow through to Template:EB1911. A Cite DNB request will be forthcoming. David Brooks (talk) 16:17, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ * Pppery * it has begun... 18:50, 25 May 2021 (UTC)

Possible problems with Cite EB1911
Users from WP:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica make mass edits that replace citations using Cite encyclopedia with equivalents using Cite EB1911. Recently, discussions with users Trappist the monk, User:DavidBrooks, User:ArbieP, and User:Chuntuk on the Help Desk (section EB1911) have convinced me that Wikisource should be preferred to Internet Archive as a source for citations, but is Cite EB1911 really to be preferred over Cite encyclopedia? I feel there are quite a few possible objections to using Cite EB1911.
 * 1) Really Needed. Do we really need such a template? Should we create templates for all the editions of all the encyclopedias of all the languages? I feel we have already too many citation templates. I believe it would be better to use Cite encyclopedia filling in the needed parameters.
 * 2) Misnomer. The name "Cite EB1911" might be a misnomer. The second part of the name, i.e. "EB1911" might be taken to suggest that the source is called "Encyclopædia Britannica 1911" but there is no such thing. The name of the intended source is Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition. Some volumes were published in 1910.
 * 3) Defaults. The defaults provided for the date (or year) parameter (i.e. 1911) and for the publisher parameter (i.e. Cambridge University Press) do not apply in all cases. I must admit that until quite recently I naïvely assumed they were. This error seems to be quite common. One has to verify the date and publisher of the book used in Wikisource for each volume and override the defaults when needed. I have not yet checked them all, but I found that the book that Wikisource used for Volume 4 was published by The Encyclopædia Britannica Company in New York (see here) in 1910 (see here).
 * 4) Location. Cite EB1911 suppresses the information in location (the documentations says "not set"). This makes the source defined using Cite EB1911 stand out as inconsistent when all other sources provide the location parameter.
 * 5) OCLC. Cite EB1911 according to the documentation suppresses the oclc (the documentations says "not set"). However, in reality it appears.

With many thanks and best regards, Johannes Schade (talk) 14:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * My answers:
 * 1: Someone thought that this template is useful enough that they created it. If you want it to go away, then the place for that discussion is WP:TFD →
 * 2: Don't like the current name? propose another or, simply create a redirect that has the name you prefer
 * 3 and 4: Make a list of the location and publication dates for each volume. The template can be modified render that information when volume is specified
 * 5: oclc is not suppressed; show an example where the template automatically provides the oclc value.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:43, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Dear Trappist the monk. You are the expert, I am a novice. If you are fine with the template as it is, I will accept this. For the case that it might be of use to you, Sir, here is the list you mentioned. The association of the University of Cambridge and it press with Encyclpaedia Britannica was quite short-lived and superficial. See The Evolution of Cambridge Press by S. C. Roberts (1956) here. Mr Horace Everett Hooper, who owned the 11th edition, wanted the Cambridge University imprint on his Encyclopedia and offered them a commission on the sales. I looked up the title page of each of the 29 volumes and took the location and the name of the publisher from there. With the only exception of Volume 20 this is "New York" and "Encyclopædia Britannica Inc." I took the publication from the back of the title page. The volume 20 has the year of publication at the bottom of the title page instead of on its back, but even this volume is printed in New York as is written on the last page. Except in the volume 20, the Cambridge University Press imprint appears on a "Series page" before the title page of the volume.
 * Volume _____Date_____ __________Publisher__________ _____Location_____
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) At the University Press, Cambridge England (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1911 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * 1910 (see here) The Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. New York (see here
 * Would changing the displayed year make every corresponding  a harverror, or is there some code in the Footnotes stack that would still provide a 1911 CITEREF? I could trace the stack, I guess, but Trappist can probably answer right away.
 * Johannes, I do have to point out that the editors of ~34,000 pages that use this and EB1911 seem to have been happy with the result. I take your point, but I worry about unforeseen consequences. David Brooks (talk) 20:01, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * If the list above is correct, then 16 of the 29 volumes are 1911 and 13 of the 29 volumes are 1910. According to this search about 7000 articles have  with &lt;number>.  And these searches:
 * volumes 1–5, 7–9 ~2200 articles
 * volumes 10–13 ~950 articles
 * volume 29 1 article
 * There are a handful that use roman numerals.
 * Combining the search for &lt;number> with  :
 * finds about 390 articles.
 * and this for the various templates:
 * finds about 50 articles.
 * If the decision is taken to proceed with this, from those 450ish articles, an awb script can fix all of the pages that have only one (most cases?)  A human editor will be required when there are multiple  templates with different years; but these may already be distinguished so it may not be difficult.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like volume 20 isn't really validated. The title page scan does not contain 'Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.'
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:59, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * Some immediate problems I can see: (1) Can you also analyze EB1911, which has the same parameter structure (12,000 transclusions)? (2) Some articles have named authors, so don't (or, rather, shouldn't) have Chisholm in the harv ref (3) Are there any usages? (4) future editors who will insert sfn's, which includes me, will have to look more carefully at the rendered Cite EB1911 results to figure out which year (waaaaah). Also, as the long-time maintainer of these templates,  are you still out there?
 * A typical volume on archive.org (based on 3 samples including vol 20) has: on title page #2 "Copyright...by the Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of the University of Cambridge", page #2 "Cambridge, England: at the University Press New York, 35 West 32nd Street", page #3 in small print "Copyright, in the United States of America, 191x.." That separate copyright claim is, I suppose, because the USA was not at the time a party to the Bern [sic] Convention. So now I'm really confused as to the proper attribution. And they are all actually printed in Chicago.
 * Volume 20 has (at least) two copies on archive.org and their title page has 1911. David Brooks (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * p.s. to the "waaaah" I have an AWB paste-special that inserts  that I use a lot, hence the annoyance. David Brooks (talk) 23:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
 * For :
 * with &lt;number> ~9000 articles
 * volumes 1–5, 7–9 ~3200 articles
 * volumes 10–13 ~1300 articles
 * volume 29 none
 * Combining the search for &lt;number> with  :
 * finds about 2000 articles.
 * and this for the various templates:
 * finds about 95 articles.
 * Those numbers rather surprise me.
 * From the tone of your post I get the impression that you believe that I am arguing in favor of the date/location-defaults-per-volume-change. I am not.  I am indifferent.  But if the topic is to be raised, it should be discussed.  So I'm discussing.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I understand that's your approach. I was venting. For a template that's used in 34,000 pages and has been stable for years, any significant change can be disruptive in unforeseen ways and detract from "real work". I do recognize that nothing on WP is privileged just on account of its age if it can be improved when appropriate; I'm just examining the collateral cost. Although like you I'm surprised at the numbers. David Brooks (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * real work Please, no disparaging remarks.  They also serve who only work with templates. (apologies to Milton)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * From the tone of your post I get the impression that you believe that I am arguing in favor of the date/location-defaults-per-volume-change. I am not.  I am indifferent.  But if the topic is to be raised, it should be discussed.  So I'm discussing.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:44, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * yes, I understand that's your approach. I was venting. For a template that's used in 34,000 pages and has been stable for years, any significant change can be disruptive in unforeseen ways and detract from "real work". I do recognize that nothing on WP is privileged just on account of its age if it can be improved when appropriate; I'm just examining the collateral cost. Although like you I'm surprised at the numbers. David Brooks (talk) 03:24, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * real work Please, no disparaging remarks.  They also serve who only work with templates. (apologies to Milton)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:02, 27 August 2021 (UTC)


 * Apologies. No slight intended to your (and others') critical infrastructure work. David Brooks (talk) 04:14, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

@User:DavidBrooks I am not as active as I one was, but I have not finished editing Wikipedia. I agree with your last statement 03:24, 27 August 2021, but would like to add a additional reason for leaving well enough alone.

The eleventh edition is usually cited as 1911 which was the year that the whole encyclopaedia was available. In some cases like the DNB it is common to cite the year of the initial volume was published, and it would be easy to implement this for the main templates. HOWEVER in the case of the DNB all the volumes and articles are available on Wikisource. Although all the EB1911 volumes are available on Wikisource not all the articles are. As it is common in reliable sources to date the EB1911 as 1911 I suggest that we leave the date to default to 1911 until all of the articles are available on Wikisource and then review the issue.

Further more:

As far as I know and I am open to correction on the matter, the page numbers of the London editions are the same as those in the New York editions, so a reader can verify whether the information is correct without needing to know the publication location. If this is not true then like the date we can alter the script to display different publishers based on the year of publication. However like the year this is basically pedantry if it does not affect the reader's access to the information. As complicating scripts inevitably makes understating them and maintaining them more difficult, there has to be a net material benefit to the project (for the readers) to justify this type of change.

This allows us in the meantime continue to use other third party copies of EB1911 until such time as there is a complete (or near complete) collection of articles on Wikisource without having to worry about exactly with publication date was used. As for using directly there are good reasons for not doing so. (1) ease of use, (2) PD disclaimer where necessary, (3) hidden categories for information and maintenance.

It shows how far we have come on this particular project in the last 20 years that we are addressing this level of detail rather than was the case were all that appeared in some article was the line. "This article incorporates text from the Encyclopædia Britannica, Eleventh Edition, a publication now in the public domain." (01:42, 3 April 2009) with no other information. -- PBS (talk) 13:12, 12 September 2021 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 22 January 2022
editor-link to Hugh Chisholm and wikilink Cambridge Univ. Press. Idell (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * History:
 * Clearly there is a dispute here so discussion and consensus is required. Pinging previous participants: Psantora, Colonies Chris, Primefac.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Clearly there is a dispute here so discussion and consensus is required. Pinging previous participants: Psantora, Colonies Chris, Primefac.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Oppose: The publisher was unlinked from 2012 until 2019, when it was linked on request and without discussion, When I became aware of the change, I requested it be reversed (see Template_talk:Cite_EB1911/Archive_1). As stated there, there is no benefit to that link and it would be out of line with linking guidelines. The proposal to link the editor is a slightly less clear case, but I don't see that as likely to provide significant benefit either. Colonies Chris (talk) 19:21, 22 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Support linking Chisholm – I find it most peculiar that the editor, Hugh Chisholm, is not linked.
 * Oppose linking publisher – Linking a widely known university press offers no benefit to readers. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:57, 1 April 2023 (UTC)