Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by PBS (talk | contribs) at 23:26, 29 March 2011 (→Unnamed parameter). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Proposed changes

I have recently upgraded the {{1911}} and {{Catholic}} templates. I would like to do the same to this one and {{DNB}} but instead of having {{DNB}} as a wrapper around {{cite encyclopedia}} I would like to have it as a wrapper around this template. To do that I would like to:

1. separate out title and wstitle so that title can be used for articles not yet on wikisource.
2. Get rid of the no named parameter argument -- So that editors make a concious choice between wikisource (wstitle) and not yet on wikisource (title). This will also mean getting rid of the second unnamed parameter which is a comment field. I think we should junk the comment field completely as it can just as easily be added on the same line directly after the template if it is needed.

To make these changes. I propose to

1. Change the documentation of the template.
2. Run AWB over the <1.5k links to this template
3. Alter the template, which will include a change to the icon if title instead of wstitle is used. Add a few more variable options which might be need by {{DNB}}. Add a hidden categories one citing DNB but no link to a wikisource article.

Comments welcome. -- PBS (talk) 01:44, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Changes made -- PBS (talk) 12:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Proposed move

I propose to move this template from {{DNB Cite}} to "{{cite DNB}} as it fits in better with names like {{cite web}} {{cite encyclopedia}} etc. -- PBS (talk) 12:37, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Move made -- PBS (talk) 08:39, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Unnamed parameter

Bob I think this edit this edit is a retrograde step, do you know of any usage of the template where this is a problem, because I think I went through all of of them from unamed parameter to named parameter when when I put this template in. -- PBS (talk) 18:48, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I've checked and I did -- PBS (talk)

Thank you for fixing the ones with an unnamed parameter. And definitely removing the useless comment field is a plus. I will take the blame for that, but I hope you made appropriate changes there as well, although I wouldn't be surprised if there were no instances that used this facility. I think the comment parameter is just as useless, and it would be better just to let people know in the doc they can put what text they want after the template. This will help them in other situations as well.

As far as the unnamed parameter, I think it is more convenient. This is how things like {{DNB Poster}} and {{Wikisource1911Enc}} work. I don't plan on going beyond that one parameter. The wstitle is "custom" as far as standard {{cite}} parameters, and a variant customization doesn't, to me, seem like too much. wstitle still has priority.

By the way, I have noticed that the author parameter has stopped working, although first and last still work fine. I noticed this before I made my edit to this template. Looking at the code for this template, I don't see the problem. It still works for {{Cite encyclopedia}}. I notice it has been omitted from the documentation, but of course this shouldn't matter, but it should be documented as well, which I can do if it ever starts working again. Bob Burkhardt (talk) 21:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

I think it is a bad idea to use unnamed parameters because testing for them can be used to pick up one of the common mistakes people make when the template is called with multiple parameters (missing out the "=" as in "volume 24" ). Also from a template maintenance POV extra parameters makes the template more bloated this is bad for two reasons. It makes it difficult for people new to the template to work out what is going on and just as important it leads to the types of "got yas" that we have in the {{1911}}, {{Cite EB1911}} pair. BTW I think I have a fix for that particular bug -- there is a pair sitting in the sandboxes of both the {{1911/sandbox}} calls {{Cite EB1911/sandbox}}. I have also slightly modified the names and placing of the categories, which should make them more useful. I will probably implemented them in about 18 hours time, but if you would like to test them further I will be pleased for any feedback you have.

I am pretty sure I know why author has stopped working. I'll fix that as soon as I have finished the 1911 implementation, basically it is exactly the same problem in the code in {{cite encyclopedia}}, as I had with {{Cite EB1911}} being called from {{1911}} the fix lies in how {{cite encyclopedia}} is called by {{Cite DNB}}. -- PBS (talk) 23:26, 29 March 2011 (UTC)