Template talk:EB1911

use template wrapper
I have edited the sandbox version of this template to use Module:template wrapper. ~/sandbox uses which is a proposed replacement for.

There is a ~/testcases page for this template. None of the comparisons agree. The reasons for most of these disagreements are listed at. At testcase 7, the bogus positional parameter  is passed to  which passes it to  which calls Module:Citation/CS1 which emits the Text "parameter 1" ignored error message. There is no error message for ~/sandbox because Module:template wrapper does not pass positional parameters to the working template (in this case ).

is not a documented parameter. Does it have a purpose? is empty. Is there any reason, either here or at, to retain this parameter and its associated code and category?

Pending the answer to the above question and without objection to updating Template:cite EB1911, I shall update live template to the code in ~/sandbox.

—Trappist the monk (talk) 15:58, 27 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There having been no comments,  and  removed, live template updated.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:01, 4 July 2019 (UTC)

Not populating "without wikisource" category?
I ran across Act of Sederunt which currently has EB1911 with title, but it doesn't appear in Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica without Wikisource reference. Should it be so included, or am I misunderstanding something? I realize the template just wraps Cite EB1911, but that shouldn't make a difference. David Brooks (talk) 16:32, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * As long as the template is hidden inside  tags, it won't be executed so won't add the category.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Sharp eyes... I had missed that large excision. As you were. David Brooks (talk) 19:12, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Hide in Print tfd
Because Hide in print is tfd'd, citations that use EB1911 display two annoying flags (one of them because it wraps Cite EB1911, which is also afflicted). I assume the usage is obsolete but can't see exactly how to fix either of them, so can a template-coding expert remove them safely? can one of you help? David Brooks (talk) 19:27, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Editor Headbomb added to:
 * at
 * at
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 19:55, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * A general problem with TFDs. &#32; Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 20:05, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * True dat. And general-purpose readers just see the non-actionable ugly. But the general rule is that we shouldn't remove the template usage until the community actually agrees to delete it, right? Although I understand in this specific case the template is a noop. David Brooks (talk) 23:44, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This conversation has gotten me to wonder why has this:
 * is, as I understand it, a 'normal' citation template, really just like any of the cs1|2 templates, so why does it have the public-domain icon when a wikisource page is not provided?  on the other hand, is an attribution template so perhaps icons (wikisource and public domain) are more appropriate for instances of that template.
 * There are other wrapper-templates (usually paired with an attribution-type template) that have similar icon handling.  Do the  members of these template pairs really  the public domain icon?  I'm thinking that public domain icon support in the various  wrapper templates should go away.
 * I am not suggesting that the wikisource icon that replaces the usual external link icon should go away. I think it is important for readers to know that clicking on a wikisource-linked title in these templates links to an off-Wikipedia location.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I am not suggesting that the wikisource icon that replaces the usual external link icon should go away. I think it is important for readers to know that clicking on a wikisource-linked title in these templates links to an off-Wikipedia location.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 00:20, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Appearance in the Media Viewer?
In my opinion it would make sense to add  to the logo. There's no reason for it to appear in the Media Viewer. --Nachtbold (talk) 14:02, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * So that I know what it is that you are talking about, links and examples?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:52, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
 * In the article Apollo for an example. The wikisource logo is already tagged with, but the public domain symbol is not. Thus it unnecessarily appears in the media viewer; multiple times so if the template is used more than once. --Nachtbold (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The pd icon at Apollo is not this template.
 * I have added a testcase to Template:EB1911/testcases (10) and made all of the file links use noviewer, set all alt to appropriate values, and set link to empty so that the icons aren't linkable. I guess I don't understand what you mean by it unnecessarily appears in the media viewer.  If I enable media viewer in my preferences and look at Apollo, I don't see the pd icon in the media viewer unless I click on it.  What do you mean by appears in the media viewer?
 * In doing this change to the sandbox, I notice that adding noviewer to the pd icon file markup, still allowed me to click on it:
 * PD-icon.svg ←  – as it exists in live template right now
 * PD-icon.svg ←  – add noviewer
 * PD-icon.svg ←  – add link
 * PD-icon.svg ←  – add noviewer and link
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 13:06, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I think that I've figured out what it is that you are really saying. Media viewer allows readers to scroll image to image – not sure that's a good idea since it doesn't display the associated caption and context is lost but whatever – yeah, I don't use media viewer.  Without noviewer, the pd icon is included in the scroll.  Is that what you are saying?
 * If it is, this is likely an issue with more than just this template so I'll concoct an awb script to look at all templates that use the pd and wikisource icons to make sure that they don't show up in the media viewer scroll.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:54, 17 July 2021 (UTC)
 * I have hacked an awb script an added noviewer to this and about 120 other citation-like templates (includes sandboxen). There are others but those are outside of my expertise so I leave them to others.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I was trying to say. :) Thanks for your efforts! --Nachtbold (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have hacked an awb script an added noviewer to this and about 120 other citation-like templates (includes sandboxen). There are others but those are outside of my expertise so I leave them to others.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:18, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
 * That is indeed what I was trying to say. :) Thanks for your efforts! --Nachtbold (talk) 19:02, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

title=
What on earth does "Set to wstitle= if set, if not to title= if set, if not to article= if set, if not set then left blank." mean? Or rather, as it clearly means nothing, what is it meant to mean? DuncanHill (talk) 04:10, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * It's programming code barely translated into English. I have attempted to give it a better translation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I edited Cite EB1911 doc to duplicate the rewording. The EB1922 equivalents are documented (or not) in a different way. David Brooks (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2022 (UTC)