Template talk:EB1911 poster

Rename to EB1911 poster
Many of the other templates that display an article link in a box to Wikisource are called name poster. I propose to move this one to EB1911 poster. Thoughts? -- PBS (talk) 06:47, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "Wikisource 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica" would be a better name - actually says what it is. Rich Farmbrough, 22:24, 18 May 2011 (UTC).

Edit request 11Apr13
There is a version in the sandbox that will add italics to the book's name. Please fix this template. --Funandtrvl (talk) 18:11, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅ Ruslik_ Zero 19:10, 17 April 2013 (UTC)
 * This edit did not synchronize exactly (see test cases). In addition to adding the italics, a space was removed which is necessary for the template to work properly.  This space is still present in the sandbox. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 20:41, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done -- Red rose64 (talk) 21:22, 3 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 22:20, 3 May 2013 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 27 December 2014
The title of the Encyclopædia should be italicized. The titles of the encyclopædia's entries should not: besides being unhelpful formatting, it's in violation of the MOS: "Examples of titles which are quoted but not italicized: ... Entries in a reference work (dictionary, encyclopedia, etc.)"The bolding is fine (and optional italics might be an unnecessary but helpful functionality to include for entries on paintings, novels, and other major works), but the standard entry headings need to be unitalicized and in double quote marks. — Llywelyn II   12:31, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: I've added a version to the sandbox that uses double quote marks and has an optional yes parameter. However, I have a couple of misgivings about it. The italics bunch up with the quotation marks, which is a little ugly (see Iliad in the test cases), and quotation marks seem unnatural when the second parameter is defined ("Wikisource has the text of a 1911 Encyclopædia Britannica article about "Anaconda, Montana"). This probably needs more discussion, so I'm marking this as not done for now. We can reactivate the request (or just implement it) when the code is ready. — Mr. Stradivarius  ♪ talk ♪ 13:06, 27 December 2014 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 2 June 2019
Greetings and felicitations. I'm here for the same reason as LlywelynII ("Support" ^_-). As for the bunching problem, see Template:-", which solves it by adding a small space before the quotation mark, though I don't know how to implement it in code.—DocWatson42 (talk) 06:39, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Bumping. In addition, the "Lastname, Firstname" option adds a space between the Firstname and period, a space that should be removed.  (I'm afraid that I am not skilled enough in Wiki markup to suggestion solutions.) —DocWatson42 (talk) 11:30, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * I have removed that stray space as well as the default italics. Still to do: implement an yes option for referring to articles about works. The sandbox has a partial implementation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:44, 25 August 2021 (UTC)
 * ✅ I will update the template's documentation subpage to include instructions for this new functionality.--John Cline (talk) 05:55, 14 September 2021 (UTC)
 * The quote marks really aren't a good idea when the second "display" parameter is used since what is in quote marks will not literally be the article name. I think the quote marks should be eliminated. See the comment in the section before this about "Anaconda, Montana". The problem is that "Anaconda, Montana" is not literally the article name.  I think this is a problem even when the link to "Wilkinson, James" is displayed as "James Wilkinson".  Please get rid of the quote marks. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 18:55, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Greetings, I apologise for the delay in answering your reasonable comments regarding the implementation of the previous edit request. You are correct that quotation marks are misplaced when enclosing the display name and I have discontinued their usage whenever the second parameter is used. I appreciate your diligence in bringing this matter to bear. Let me know if I can be of further assistance. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 03:00, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , Thank you for your attention to this matter. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 10:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Advice regarding an update of this template
This template does not function as described in the templat's documentation nor at Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the template EB1911 poster with no parameters where it reluctantly states that failing to designate the article's title using the first unnamed parameter defaults to using albeit advisable to avoid. Currently, no such link is produced by such default although I have worked up a functioning solution in the templat's sandbox. In case a good reason exists for changing things to the current manner, I ask: would it be better to rewrite the instructions to correspond with the templat's functionality, or recode the template to correspond with the instructions? Additionally, the category's title makes it seem that the template was used without any parameters being used when in fact it only red flags and categorizes based on whether or not is used (even when other parameters are used). In this case I ask: should the category be moved to a more accurate title (like Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating the template EB1911 poster without designating the article's title for example) or here again, simply rewrite the instructions to accurately describe what triggers the categorization of member pages? Thank you for considering this, and for any advice given.--John Cline (talk) 12:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)


 * Use of the current page name in lieu of positional parameter  was removed with .  I'm inclined to agree with the reasoning given at  that positional parameter   should be required.  I would be more blunt in the error messaging:
 * The text at should be changed so that it does not infer that this template will use the current page name.  The same for this template's documentation if there is any place that such an inference is made.
 * The categorization should probably be refined so that only main-space articles are categorized; the user-space pages now listed in the 'no-parameters' category don't need to be there.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:05, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I haven't looked, but I wonder if other of the 'poster'-type templates also need to be examined. Here is a crude search that finds about 40 such 'poster'-type templates.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 14:13, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your comments , your advice is sage and I completely agree. I've worked up the coding and intend to implement it soon (likely by day's end). The changes will only categorize pages in namespace 0 which will remove the user pages that populate the category; emptying it for now and the foreseeable future. I've changed the strong text error message to require supplying the Wikisource article title through positional parameter  and will update the category and documentation pages to state that the parameter "must be used". And I'll remove the documentation's inference and the category's misstatement regarding the page name as the default article name if   is not used. The documentation's inference, which I perceive, is in stating that "if the Wikipedia article is moved any article that does not have such a parameter will have the link to the article on Wikisource broken". Moving the Wikipedia page can not break the Wikisource link (when   is not used) unless that link is tied to the Wikipedia page name. The fact is that if   is not used, the link is already broken and that is why it's better, and more understandable to simply require that the parameter be used. The changes I have tested will use preview warning to deliver a robust error message when previewing a page where the template is used without using   and categorization will be the tempate's only output if the page is published while the template remains in that state. Therefore, when the instructions say that   "must be used", the coding will, in fact, require that it is used. I'll publish the changes in the sandbox for you to review, which I hope that you will, and like I said: I'll probably publish them into the main template before close of business today. Best regards.--John Cline (talk) 16:05, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * The preview warning is a bit over the top, don't you think?
 * I'm not sure that there is any benefit to linking to both the template and its documentation page; template page is probably sufficient because it transcludes the doc page.
 * I liked the wording of my error message better because it instructs the editor what to do and gives a link to EB1911 at wikisource from which they can choose the appropriate article. Any error message can include a help link.
 * And why do you omit the final 'e' from the possessive form 'templat's' instead of 'template's' (occurs in this discussion and in the preview warning)?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I was just returning to publish an addendum to ask you to make any changes you desired, I respect your judgement and clue. Rephrase the strong text, change the font size, consolidate the links, clean up the coding, do as you see fit; I appreciate learning by your example. Regarding the final e in possessive form, I generally allow my spell checker to override my inclinations and in that case, it drops the final e. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * , where can I see your error message so I can borrow from its example.--John Cline (talk) 20:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You don't see the error simulation of the template's output above right?
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 21:38, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I've changed the sandbox. I don't think that the template should be hidden when it doesn't have a title. For the preview:
 * Red is too bright for me so I toned it down some to the generic error color used by Wikipedia
 * font size of 80% is too small for accessibility so I made normal text size (100%)
 * no need, I think, for so much italic font, so the message is rendered upright
 * because the preview message has a link to the template page, the help link seems superfluous
 * may be too technical for non-technical editors so I left it out
 * I provided simple instructions in non-error color and a link to EB1911 at wikisource
 * proper italics for the encyclopedia title
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with you that the changes are better this way. I never did see the error simulation you mentioned, perhaps because I'm editing on a mobile device, but seeing them published in the sandbox is convincing and clear. I'm going to draft all of the changes to the instructions so they can be published directly after the main template is recoded with minimal lag in between. And then I'll look at those 40, or so, similar pages you mentioned to assess commonalities and determine where consistency may be in need. For certain, this template will be my go-to example and I thank you for making that so. Best regards, until I see you again .--John Cline (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes published. I apologise for the delay which attributes to circumstances in real life. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
 * may be too technical for non-technical editors so I left it out
 * I provided simple instructions in non-error color and a link to EB1911 at wikisource
 * proper italics for the encyclopedia title
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 23:34, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you, I agree with you that the changes are better this way. I never did see the error simulation you mentioned, perhaps because I'm editing on a mobile device, but seeing them published in the sandbox is convincing and clear. I'm going to draft all of the changes to the instructions so they can be published directly after the main template is recoded with minimal lag in between. And then I'll look at those 40, or so, similar pages you mentioned to assess commonalities and determine where consistency may be in need. For certain, this template will be my go-to example and I thank you for making that so. Best regards, until I see you again .--John Cline (talk) 07:12, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Changes published. I apologise for the delay which attributes to circumstances in real life. Cheers.--John Cline (talk) 05:23, 13 November 2021 (UTC)