[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Encyclopaedia Britannica

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Citation to articles using other methods

[edit]

If you have time please run the search in the following bullet points they will return any articles that are using other methods to cite EB1911 other than the custom EB1911 citation templates, and then you can convert them to use {{cite EB1911}}:

-- PBS (talk) 10:19, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two more searches:

I know these two searches can be merged as a regular expression but it seems to parse very slowly. -- PBS (talk) 10:28, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Coincidentally I was just working on something similar, and found a lot more non-canonical references to EB1911 (and EB9/EB1922) sources. Specifically, I found:
gave 457 hits (actually I fixed a couple of dozen while researching). Also:
  • archive.org/(stream|details)/encyclopa?e?diabr
  • and not as |url= inside a canonical EB template, where they could be redundant alternatives to a |wstitle=
gives 687 hits (a small number of them will be to other sources; I think I noted a parliamentary history once). I'm collecting the lists in personal space and just cleaning them up; should be in publish-able form tomorrow. Question is how urgent these are. David Brooks (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the current lists. I separated 1910/1911 so I could use those as an in-article search in AWB. The first two may have some references to britannica.com with 191[01] in the title; I'll try to edit those out. They're in my userspace, but feel free to add comments etc.
I have used the four search terms listed above, in particular the ones (then) turning up 8 / 2 / 2 results. I have amended the references to cite EB1911 and a search now produces nil results. For the first search term, one item now appears and I'm trying to negotiate with the user not to revert my edit to put it right. I will keep an occasional eye open for the future. ArbieP (talk) 20:50, 8 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks for the effort and for the respectful negotiation; unfortunately the first term (insource:/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/1911/) is back up to 3. Moving targets... Speaking of which, the list of non-canonical references to EB1911 sources keeps shifting, including some (e.g.) added recently and some (e.g.) that should have showed up earlier but probably suffered from regular expression search timeouts. By the way, I find using the "Wiki search (text)" feature of AWB gets more results than the Search box without timing out; no idea why. David Brooks (talk) 15:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbieP: Looking at that conversation, where you are trying to persuade the editor to use the canonical templates that link to Wikisource, I must admit that the Recommended reference style for this project says that "...a link to Wikisource can be used..." Bob Burkhardt put that in 12 years ago. But I also have a vague memory of a Wikipedia-wide guideline that the use of WS versions as referents, where available, was preferred, although I can't find it now. Rationale was that we don't have control over the content or permanence of other online sources. Or did I dream that? Around that time, PBS was plugged in to the zeitgeist and may have passed the guideline on to me. @PBS and Bob Burkhardt: any memories/thoughts? David Brooks (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If one of you understands the format or style of notes and references that User:Dahn has used on Grigore Sturdza, (I don't) perhaps you could make an amendment which both (1) cites EB1911 properly and (2) fits the style he's using. I think then we might all be happy bunnies.ArbieP (talk) 21:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's clear to me that by using an inline ref only for EB1911, compared with pseudo-sfns for everything else, the article currently contravenes WP:CITEVAR. Simply putting the raw Wikisource URL into the references list, with three appropriate inline citations, would be a quick way to address (2) but you'd still be stuck with (1). IOW, I don't know where to go from here. Separately, none of the references use CS1 templates, so {{sfn}} can't actually be used, but that is a completely different point; Harvard refs would be nice but a heavy lift. David Brooks (talk) 03:07, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me first of all note that I resent this creeping rule that we have to use citation templates of any kind -- the last time I checked, there was not such requirement. If you actually edit a rich text, they become an absolute strain on the eyes. Let me also note that the style "I" use was the standard on wikipedia before there were any citation templates, and back when "Notes" and "References" was the standard designation, and I simply continued using it because it is simple, intuitive, and it doesnt hurt my eyes; I am certainly not the only person using a non-template citation style, and in fact I am still not the only editor using this variant of the style (my esteemed friend User:Biruitorul uses pretty much the same). I also use citation templates such as Harvard occasionally, in articles where others have edited before me or where it is probable others would -- as I did in Greeks in Malta or 1826 in literature.
I dont therefore see what there is to "fix" about the article on Grigore Sturdza, and I would rather advise editors to invest their energies into something more constructive (such as fixing articles that actually need fixing). As I believe I have informed User:ArbieP, introducing one citation template in an article that doesnt use tempaltes elsewhere would create the need for a fix, and would place the load on me to do something that I desperately avoided in the first place: templify the other hundreds of notes and references (again, when there is no requirement that I do, and when I find it to be a very taxing chore). Dahn (talk) 04:16, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
As a minor note: the Sturdza article does not in fact use a template for that entry; it uses what was once (and probably still is) one of the non-template, but standard, formats for references that are repeated exactly in the text -- there are various others that appear the same way if you glance at the "Notes" section; under "References" you have an alphabetic index of the sources that are repeatedly cited with various pages, and which are indicated by author surname and page under "Notes". Not only was this a standard and not a strain on the eyes, but I find it much more elegant than citing Harvard-style per MOS, which currently requires of me that I put the exact same reference twice in cases where just one page is cited -- once as a citation, the second time as a reference. Dahn (talk) 04:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Echoing the sentiments of my redoubtable colleague Dahn, allow me to express my disinterest in talk of citation templates. I’ve been citing in more or less the same fashion since about 2007. Yes, I’m vaguely aware that various reforms have crept in, but nobody’s said anything — and there really is no reason to, because it gets the job done.
Take, for instance, a recent article of mine, Andrei Oțetea. Is there anything unclear as to where the information comes from? I don’t think so. Is anything messy, cluttered, vague? Likewise, no. Same with the (far more expansive) Sturdza article.
Let’s underline the most important phrase in WP:CITEVAR: “Wikipedia does not have a single house style, though citations within any given article should follow a consistent style.” Let’s also recall the oft-ignored WP:IAR: “If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it.” None of this should be interpreted as showing a lack of respect for template fans. If that’s their thing, great. But while they go ahead with that, I will continue, per the above policies, with my own preferred style. I trust this won’t be an issue and that we can focus on more pressing problems. — Biruitorul Talk 05:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My reference to WP:CITEVAR was only to draw attention to the mixing of inline full references with short citations. In that respect the EB1911 three-linkback note, as footnote 1, does stick out, but I see by scanning the list that there are others using the inline style. But, as you say, there are motes and beams involved here. Also, I've been remiss in not commenting on the anormous amount of (apparent) scholarship that went into researching this article, which is commendable. David Brooks (talk) 13:33, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, there are other inline citations using that same style.
"I've been remiss in not commenting on the anormous amount of (apparent) scholarship" -- thank you, and I appreciate that comment, but please rest assured that I dont view this as a duty that you should comment on that; I am glad you enjoyed the article as such. Dahn (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
...an afterthought: if you really don't want to use one of the CS1 templates for EB1911, would you object to adding Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating a citation from the 1911 Encyclopaedia Britannica with Wikisource reference to the footer? It seems that no other article currently does that, but I wouldn't object. David Brooks (talk) 13:40, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldnt that be construed as a "fix me"-like message, leading users to where they actually readd the citation template, in good faith? Dahn (talk) 16:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would construe it as the opposite: the non-CS1 EB1911 reference is intentional, and this is the explicit missing piece. But can I make one more request, if you are firm in not using a template: I think it would be best practice to specify the target as [[:s:1911 Encyclopædia Britannica/Sturdza|Sturdza]] rather than a literal URL. It's an inter-wikimedia link, after all. David Brooks (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Item now sorted by Dahn; the search term insource:/en.wikisource.org\/wiki\/1911/ is now back to nil. I am doing a bit of work on the three other lists referred to above as 1911-cites, 1910-cites and 1911-archive where the issue is clear and simple enough for me to handle; I've started at "Z" and I'm working "backwards".ArbieP (talk) 17:11, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for both efforts. I am working on a refresh of the lists, but the current ones should be almost all valid, and right now I have some regular expressions misbehaving (could be timeouts though). David Brooks (talk) 20:35, 16 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think I have a valid refresh of those three lists, but I won't upload them for a while because the existing lists are practically still correct. However, after a conversation elsewhere, it occurs to me that at least in principle these three classes of citation are likely to point to a valid source (even if they are not properly inlined). But I noticed there are some cases where "1911" and "Britannica" appear with just a space between them, suggesting they aren't part of a template probably don't have links. There's a list, with likely some false positives, here: User:DavidBrooks/EBCites/1911-raw David Brooks (talk) 19:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've spent 40 mins looking at the last five on the list and to be candid, I have not found it to be a particularly productive use of time. It's a struggle, for a start, to find where "1911" and "Britannica" appear in an article. The one I did make an amendment to, Whist‎ already had a good Cite EB1911 wikilink. So, I'll park this list and concentrate my time on the three above. I've now done most of "Z" to "T", excluding all beginning "Timeline of ..." which look tricky with multiple links. ArbieP (talk) 21:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, well, thanks for volunteering so fast! I used the search function to find "1911" and "britannica" separated by spaces (well, it was a little more complex than that), threw out those that seemed to be part of an image filename, and spot-checked a few. I guess I didn't check enough. Let's let them go for now. David Brooks (talk) 23:49, 20 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Still not much of a spot-check, but looking at the last one (World riddle) I can see how it requires more-than-usual work. Here is my attempt (I chose to cite only the second page of the source): the raw URL was presumably to a copy of the EB1911 article, now a dead link, but at least it wasn't hard to find the article and the citation. As you suggest, it's a time-sink. David Brooks (talk) 15:47, 21 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished the letter "S" in each of the three lists - about 40 items, all told. As a rough average, I find they take me about 20-30 mins each. Subjects vary from esoteric ancient history to some moderately interesting stuff. Back to "R", next! ArbieP (talk) 20:09, 30 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've now just finished letters "O" "P" & "R" in each of the three lists - about 80 items. I'm developing some knowledge of searching the EB, which helps find the intended source of some poor refs. ArbieP (talk) 19:54, 6 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all the contributions. Can you strike-through those you've done? I've been busy on other projects, but in case I get back to the lists I'd prefer not to bump into you! As you see, I use "<s>" because "<del>" only seems to work on a single line. David Brooks (talk) 13:45, 7 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Brooks Now that I'm getting back to the substantive work on the three lists, the thought occurs to me about whether there are priorities between the lists. Do you have a view? My thought would be to concentrate for now on the the middle list, (1910-cites) as it is the one with the fewest items left. On completion you could re-run the search term and see what the results tell us about whether we're making progress. ArbieP (talk) 14:26, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbieP: frankly, I think the most important project is the enormous Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification, which I've been working on for years: to bring proper verification to articles partly or wholly copied from the EB. I'm digging through C. But if you want something that you can finish in a single lifetime the 1911-raw list is probably more important than these three, despite the false positives, because they usually don't even put the article in any tracking categories.
And I'll re-run that search when you're ready. David Brooks (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and re-ran the search on the three lists. Because I used a more reliable technique some previously missed articles have surfaced. David Brooks (talk) 14:57, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Brooks Interesting results (or am I becoming a Wiki-nerd??). My impresssion is that the lists are longer before letters "M" & "N", which is where I had reached. I see several items re-appearing that I couldn't resolve first time round, e.g. because the target article is listed in red in EB1911 or EB1922 (meaning it is unpublished), so unusable. On review, I suggest I mark these so (*). There are some others where I could not find the "offending" ref. On review I suggest I mark these so (?). I also see that the list now excludes long lists of lists - like "Timeline of ..", which is welcome. I'll re-start at "Z" again and work toward "A" and cross-though those successfully completed with the "s" letters described above. ArbieP (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbieP: Can you provide some examples of "...where I could not find the 'offending' ref", so that I can check my search logic. Thanks. David Brooks (talk) 00:02, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Brooks Across the three new lists I've dealt with about 20 items today, of which I've dealt successfully with 14. If you look at the lists, you'll see three pairs in each list (coincincidentally) that I've marked (*) or (?). Might I suggest you look at these six. They may give you a flavour of the minor hiccups we face. In the wider scheme of things I don't think they're all that important. I will make more progress in due course, but I may favour the 1911 archive list as its (now) the shortest list. ArbieP (talk) 17:23, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Brooks I am making steady progress on the three lists; let me update you on two new symbols I'm using on items I can't resolve: (??) means the article's reference to EB1911 is so complex it beats my technical skills to fix it and (n) means the article includes in its narrative, the words Encyclopedia Britannia, (often quoting something) which I suspect triggers appearance in the lists. My other two symbols remain the same as before, (*) means article includes a ref to an unpublished item in EB1911 or EB1922 so no wikilink is possible and (?) which means I can't find a ref. that needs fixing. I shall be favouring the 1911 archive list soon. ArbieP (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbieP: Thanks so much for sticking with this. I'm on a (partial) wikibreak right now for health reasons, but I'll keep an eye open for any of your updates. David Brooks (talk) 15:01, 26 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David Brooks I've now completed work on the 88 items in the (1911 archive) list; the results are these: 56 items struck-though dealt with satisfactorily; 23 articles marked (n) contain a narrative mention of Encyclopedia Britannica (usually by way of an attribution); 7 articles marked (?) beat me to find a reference needing attention and 2 articles marked (*) relate to unpublished articles in (EB1911) or (EB1922). I hope you're benefiting from your wiki-break. ArbieP (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Use of raw Citation template

[edit]

@ArbieP: It's a moving target. It occurred to me to add the raw use of {{Citation}} to the search (that template is invoked by {{Cite book}} etc), and came up with 58 new "1911" pages and 555 new "1910". Many of the latter are of the "Timeline of..." type you previously identified, with a long list of citations. I fixed the first on the 1911 list as an example; it's one of several where the editor actually changed a {{Cite EB1911}} without explaining why, just ending up with a slightly different ordering and punctuation. But I'll keep this list in my pocket for now. Putting this under a sub-head because it's a side-issue from the ongoing conversation. David Brooks (talk) 16:48, 21 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ArbieP: I've refreshed the 1910 and 1911 lists adding {{Citation}} references. I left the "Timeline of..." and "History of..." entries in place, but if you'd rather I suppress them for now I can do that. No obligation to get to them, of course. I didn't update the archive list because I see you annotated most of the extant entries and I didn't yet add them to the whitelist. David Brooks (talk) 19:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@ArbieP: Sadly, I just realize I made a nasty copy-paste error in my queries. User:DavidBrooks/EBCites/1911-archive should be valid now. I realize I'm dumping a lot of work here, and again it's fairly low priority compared with other tasks, but if you have a mind, go for it. David Brooks (talk) 16:47, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dear David. OK, I can see the three lists. Three thoughts occur to me: (1) I shall mix and match doing these lists with other things I do on Wiki so that it remains a bit of interesting fun rather than becoming a task to slave over - so the pace of progress will vary. (2) Apart from one or two oddities first, I 'm minded to deal with the articles in linked reverse alpha order, meaning I'll do "Z" in each list, then "X", then "Y" (not literally) this may deal with the point mentioned above which I've noticed already of some articles appearing in two lists; I'll also ignore the [Timeline of..] items. (3) I expect some changes needed will exceed my technical abilities and/or understanding; I will mark items as before, but from time to time you might look at the lists for items I've marked (?) to see if you can deal with them instead. Best wishes, ArbieP (talk) 17:30, 28 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nonexistent wstitles

[edit]

I started fixing non-canonical references in some of the above lists. In addition I found 28 cases of templates that have both a |wstitle= and |url=, presumably left in place accidentally, and removed most of the redundant parameters.

But in addition a little spelunking uncovered 117 |wstitle= to nonexistent Wikisource articles, if I got the logic right. I believe most of them are simple mis-typing, but at least one (Throw (grappling)) refers to an article (Wrestling) that doesn't exist yet. I'm not sure how to prioritize fixing these. David Brooks (talk) 16:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC) ETA: currently listed in my sandbox. David Brooks (talk) 16:15, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Cite EB15

[edit]

Please note new template {{Cite EB15}}. Your feedback, suggestions, bugs, proposals, complaints, to: ⟶ Template talk:Cite EB15. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:22, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject banner

[edit]

For some reason, this project had no WikiProject template, so I created one (here). Currently, it doesn't have any of the standard tracking categories or assessment subpages and so on, so those are all commented out. But at least you can tag Talk pages now, in the standard way, as I did at the top of this page. If you unhide the HTML comments in the template and preview the page, you'll see what categories and subpages need to be created because they will all display in the banner as red links. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Project-independent quality assessments

[edit]

Quality assessments by Wikipedia editors rate articles in terms of completeness, organization, prose quality, sourcing, etc. Most wikiprojects follow the general guidelines at Wikipedia:Content assessment, but some have specialized assessment guidelines. A recent Village pump proposal was approved and has been implemented to add a |class= parameter to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, which can display a general quality assessment for an article, and to let project banner templates "inherit" this assessment.

No action is required if your wikiproject follows the standard assessment approach. Over time, quality assessments will be migrated up to {{WikiProject banner shell}}, and your project banner will automatically "inherit" any changes to the general assessments for the purpose of assigning categories.

However, if your project has decided to "opt out" and follow a non-standard quality assessment approach, all you have to do is modify your wikiproject banner template to pass {{WPBannerMeta}} a new |QUALITY_CRITERIA=custom parameter. If this is done, changes to the general quality assessment will be ignored, and your project-level assessment will be displayed and used to create categories, as at present. Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Encyclopaedia_Britannica&oldid=1241382153"