Template talk:Jewish Encyclopedia

German translation
I just created de:Template:JewishEncyclopedia. I'm not sure if I did everyting correctly as this was the first template I translated. Is there a way to create an "in other languages" link? It doesn't work with de:Template:JewishEncyclopedia or any other non-colonized variants. &mdash; Sebastian 21:22, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Update: The German template has since been deleted. -- -- -- 04:07, 20 January 2015 (UTC)

Expansion
Although I have altered the template code and the documentation. It is not my intention to break the usage as has been previously used. Therefore taking the example in the old documentation:

*

It still produces:

The major change that I have made is that the template is now a wrapper around the cite encyclopaedia template. This means that it will work with short citations just as cite encyclopaedia does. Because cite encyclopaedia places a full stop at the end of the template the previous trailing string about PD source would not look correct so now all the information is in the preceding string. This has been done for quite a few of the templates in the Category:Attribution templates.

The other major visual change (apart from the removal postscript) is an icon at the start of the prescript. This can be turned off with "noicon=1". It is there to show readers and editors of a wikipdia article that the original either resides on Wikisource or somewhere else on the net as a public domain article. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

That template is well known among template editors
Copied from from User talk:Debresser
 * "That template is well know among template editors to do this, and is used in many such case"
 * Such as ? -- PBS (talk) 22:36, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

There has not been a reply to my question so I am reverting to the last previous stable version. -- PBS (talk) 13:18, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Summarily undone as an inferior edit made out of WP:BATTLEGROUND motives.
 * Also, your post is misleading, because the only editor who has a problem with the edit is you.
 * I am under no obligation to reply to your post on my talkpage, and the fact I did no reply is by means justification for a revert. Debresser (talk) 18:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Debresser
 * You made a bold statement. What proof have you that the template is is better known than using ?
 * You have by no means shown that there is a consensus for using this template and the customary method of dispute settlement is WP:BRD not participating in a discussion is not the way to show that a consensus for change has been achieved.
 * As you have not followed the standard BRD method for discussing changes, what makes you think that my revert was "made out of WP:BATTLEGROUND motives"?
 * How do you think that making such a statement helps build a consensus?
 * How is the edit "inferior" or put it another way how is the template you have added superior to using  ?
 * -- PBS (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is really very simple. A very experienced template editor makes an improvement to this template. You revert. Your reason is trivial, not good enough to revert, in addition to the fact that it is opposed to common sense and practice. I revert back to the improvement, which implies that already two editors are in favor of it, and you start your usual battleground behavior, demanding explanations, reverting just because you don't receive a reply, and posting meaningless discussions, in which you ignore the points I made, and refer to a guideline that is not relevant. If this were the first time I saw you do this, I'd be more patient. As it is, I am not really inclined to waste my time on this. If any subsequent editors would like a fuller explanation, I am willing to provide it, but I think that your grounds for a revert are unsubstantiated, the improvement has a 2-1 consensus and is common, uand so even without any further explanations from my side, I think we can safely conclude that there is no grounds for a revert. Debresser (talk) 20:06, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You keep making bold statements without backing them up and instead of backing them up you simply make more bold statements.
 * What does "A very experienced template editor" mean?
 * "in which you ignore the points I made" which point have I ignored?
 * "demanding explanations" you have yet to explain how the proposed code is superior to using a variable test.
 * Since when is WP:BRD not relevant to editors reverting and discussing those reverts?
 * -- PBS (talk) 20:33, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are hereby officially referred to Waste of Time. Debresser (talk) 22:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link, but I fail to see how it answers any of the questions I have posed to you. Are you going to engage in a productive conversation or continue to bring up things not directly relevant to the edit? Do you consider yourself to be a "very experienced template editor"? -- PBS (talk) 20:12, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Thank you both for your efforts to improve this template. As part of my work to clean up Database reports/Polluted categories, I run across templates such as this that are on user sandbox pages and categorize them in article categories. I believe you agree that it is appropriate to make some edit to this template to prevent miscategorization. I use main other because it is easy for me to remember and type. Since I am an inexperienced template editor, could you please help me understand if Is there an advantage or disadvantage to using #ifex instead of main other? Thanks! GoingBatty (talk) 00:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is a hidden maintenance category, so it is not too important if other areas are included, but it is an advantage to do so, if only for keeping an accurate count, to restrict it to the main namespace. However it seems to me cleaner to test against a system variable (mw:Help:Magic words) than use a template that has an ambiguous name (no mention of namespace) and contains verbose code. -- PBS (talk) 10:15, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Access-date
The "accessdate" parameter has been renamed "access-date" in most templates. I think this template should also support both options. Debresser (talk) 21:35, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. GoingBatty (talk) 00:10, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * it is academic because there is no reason to use it as, all usage ought to have a date. The disadvantage of including it is it complicates the code. -- PBS (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * PBS, please explain? Debresser (talk) 07:32, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * From WP:CITE "For web-only sources with no publication date, the 'Retrieved' date (or the date you accessed the webpage) should be included, in case the webpage changes in the future. For example: Retrieved 15 July 2011 or you can use the accessdate parameter in the automatic refToolbar 2.0 editing window feature." --This encyclopaedia has publication dates. -- PBS (talk) 09:43, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That page also says: "Citations for World Wide Web pages typically include: ... the date you retrieved (or accessed) the webpage (required if the publication date is unknown)", which confirms what I know from my experience, that access-date is customarily added to web citations, even if a date is also added. The line you quoted adds to that, that when the date is not given, you should add the access-date. The template code will not become significantly more complicated if the access-date parameter is added. Nor should that be a factor, really. In view of this, do you still see any reason to say the question is academic? Debresser (talk) 13:23, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The publication date is known and included by default. It is not a web page but encyclopaedia page(s). Complication in code should  always be considered. -- PBS (talk) 15:21, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You are missing the point. The template already has the "accessdate" parameter. The question is just that we should add support for "access-date" with the dash as well. The same is true for "archiveurl" and "archivedate", which have been renamed to "archive-url" and "archive-date". This should be completely trivial. Debresser (talk) 23:48, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Why was this necessary addition never made? Debresser (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

Authors' attribution
Even if not yet documented in the current article (oldid 820842043), the template supports parameters like "author" and "author2", as shown in Judah ibn Verga.

This allows users to the exact attribution of the articles of the Jewish Encyclopedia to the related authors, as it is done by the linked website jewishencyclopedia.com.

Maybe useful to add those two parameters in the section titled "Quick explanation (aide-mémoire)". Hope to hear some comments.Have a good day.Micheledisaveriosp (talk) 14:34, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Needed parameter
In this edit in 2016 you introduced a message in red if the article name is not indicated. Apart from the fact that you never updated the documentation page to indicate that a "title" (including "wstitle", "article") parameter is mandatory, I want to raise the question if indeed this should be the case. I am talking not about Template:Cite Jewish Encyclopedia, rather about Template:Jewish Encyclopedia, which is only stating the fact that a certain publication is used, and for that purpose it is not relevant which article. In addition, if a certain Wikipedia article uses more than one Jewish Encyclopedia article, then the situation because completely ambiguous, which of them should be mentioned (or perhaps the template should be added twice). In short, I strongly feel that in Template:Jewish Encyclopedia the article parameter is better left out. Debresser (talk) 03:54, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I see that the new version of this template removed this error message. Debresser (talk) 21:08, 11 October 2020 (UTC)