This strikes me as getting awfully difficult to know what is supposed to be what. What kind of field is 'accessdate' for example given a printed medium!?? Some other cite templates have fields (parameters) that seemingly make no sense (i.e. {{
cite visual
}}) in their context as well (same one for example).
Is there anyone tracking and comparing these (Citation templates) and keeping them utiliarian and slender? (See also this). Can't be a full moon--it's been going on too long! Argghhhh! // FrankB 16:40, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to look in on {{Ttl}} and kibbitz! <BSEG>... in the meantime, is there a way or (if instead, "ever any reason") to cite both a hc and pb isbn in any single instance of {{Cite book}} ([pending] soon in {{cite 1633}} etc.--I've only the pb on that one, but usually cite one of my hc's on others when available.) I'd guess one would cite only one edition, even if can fill in both origdate and date fields (and etc.!). Hi anyway, give me and Huntster feedback on Ttl. // FrankB 20:37, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Films
September 2007 Newsletter
The
September 2007 issue
of the Films WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
Please note that
special delivery options have been reset and ignored for this issue due to the revamp of the membership list (outlined in further detail in the newsletter). If you would like to change your delivery settings for future issues, please follow the above link. I apologize for the inconvenience. This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 23:43, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Protocols of the wise men of Zion
There are many titles/imprints under the above LOC designation. None of them deserve the status of being classified as political books. Good work otherwise. Thank you. --Ludvikus 18:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Appreciate your good question very much. We need a new Category for
Singerman list. --Ludvikus 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC) --Ludvikus 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
You've recently classified various imprints of the above as "religious book stubs"; that's a mistake; this stuff consists of various imprints, under different titles, which is/are in fact instances of plagiarism, forgery, and a hoax.
I think you should go back to
Main article:
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
and re-classify all those articles you've turned into "religious books" into at least "controversial literature." Ludvikus 23:42, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
Thank you for you "gentle message." However, you should classify texts which scholars have identified as
"The Protocols", under whatever title, as either a political, or a religious, book. Ludvikus 01:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
And here are the Categorious under which these Protocols are listed (look on the bottom of the Main article):
"Categories: All articles with unsourced statements | Articles with unsourced statements | 1905 books | 1920 books | Antisemitism | Antisemitic canards | Antisemitic publications | Historical revisionism (political) | Jewish Russian and Soviet history | Controversial literature | Conspiracy theories | Literary hoaxes | Political forgery | Propaganda examples | Protocols of the Elders of Zion | Religious persecution"
I was not writing about you, and it's unfortunate that you take the observation personally. The subject of discourse is/are the so-called
Protocols of Zion. If you deduce that you are not in your right mind because it is you who thinks these Protocols are religious texts - than that is your own problem, not mine. --Ludvikus 04:11, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
I've started the stub for it. Can you help me out, Category expert that you are? --Ludvikus 01:10, 3 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As you can see I had the plural instead of the singular above. Please not carefully the correction. Ludvikus 23:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mark Saul
Pegship, I noted your minor change to the 'musician stub' part of the Mark Saul page. I have respectfully un-done your contribution for a number of reasons. For starters, Mark Saul plays various instruments which may not all be classified as woodwinds. Mark Saul does not only play Highland bagpipes, so it makes more sense to use the stub as reflecting him as opposed to him in conjunction with one of his numerous instruments of expertise. And unless I am mistaken -- which does happen -- bagpipes (meaning the many different kinds of pipes, not just one of the 1/2-dozen or so Scottish kind which is highly recognized but is specifically named Highland bagpipe) are not a woodwind instrument but an aerophone (as indicated on Wikipedia itself) -- which is why I myself originally removed the woodwind aspect of the stub. If you can provided me with beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt information as to otherwise, please let me know and give your sources -- until such time as yourself or someone else giving good argument otherwise, I will change the stub. ManOnPipes —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 04:47, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My bot's done what it can with these for the time being, at least until there's a new db dump, but they're still over 800. Do you reckon there's any percentage in hand-re-sorting these? BTW, shouldn't the thriller and romance types be subs of this one? Alai 03:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, and actually I was misremembering the permcat structure: neither is a subcat of Category:drama films, so there's not reason the stub-types should be. Given that there's already a rom-com type, and a Category:romantic drama films permcat, perhaps that would have been a better idea (but this'll suffice). No hurry about the re-sorting, just thought I'd mention being "done" with them. Alai 03:50, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Novels WikiProject Newsletter - Issue XVII - October 2007
The October 2007 issue of the Novels WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This is an automated delivery by grafikbot -- 09:49, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
1) I've noticed some publication info pages using 'id=' parameter instead of 'isbn=', when using this template for publication information. (Not sure that's a good use of the template, but at least it standardizes display of publication data within the same article. Is there any advantage or disadvantage to one or the other. Both seem to need ISBN to be added as a prefix as well.
snippet: (rearranged to shorten)
...
{{#if: {{{editor|}}}| in {{{editor}}}:}} <i>{{#if: {{{url|}}} | [{{{url}}} {{{title}}}] | {{{title}}} }}</i>
...
2) Why pray tell, does 'editor', when defined, have the prefix "in " before what should be the editor's name? The help clearly suggests this is deliberate. I can understand "editor: " as a prefix, but "in"?????? (I can even see something like 'Editor: {{{editor}}} in {{{title}}}, but as written, in applies only to {{{editor}}}, which has no punctuation between it and the url following.) Seems like a everlasting hanging prepositional phrase sans sensible syntax.
3) Not sure why someone would have the title as a pipetrick in a url, that title can be added when giving the url merely by inserting a space, and leaves title for the book name itself, unburdened by a link.
...just stumped...I can do lots of song & dance with categories & minor code cleanup, but template coding is so far beyond me I would have to send it a postcard to see how it's doing. So how's life otherwise?! Cheers, Her Pegship (tis herself) 22:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
The thought never crossed me mind. Roger the postcard. I saw on check back you've been in RL vice here.
Leave the template coding to me then, but what I was asking about was why the displayed output of the template would ever inserts the word "in" before displaying the "editor" parameter (name).
Bear in mind, we're building a string of displayable characters and links within the template, all of which goes into reference notes. This snippet is mid-template somewhere. Just know for 'this' point, ignore your crossed eyes and know that tripleted
named parameter
(as opposed to a numbered parameter such as {{{1}}} seen in many templates—all really just a 'place defaulted name' eliminating the need to explicitly give a name. (dUHHHH, OH! FIRST, second, third... obviously advanced concepts here Peg! <G>) )
Double curlies signify either some parser function (an if-then-else branching code in this case) or a template/sub-template call.
Hence the logic above reads: "IF 'editor' defined, then display what I've bolded" ... next, process some url stuff. (I've bolded the section now above— note also the trailing colon, so the string built would read "in Editorname:" .)... then url stuff if present.
So why would "in" precede the editors name?
Thanks by-the-way on [now] {{1632-sectstub}} discussion. Things would be sooooooo much simplier if people were patient enough to make an inquiry before going off all official on others. ttfn (like a bad penny--I'll be back!--Gonna do a full court press on 1632 series! // FrankB 00:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well it clearly addresses the same issue... but has been left unresolved. From that looks like we needs an editor2 field perhaps. I hadn't seen the /doc talk page was populated. That's a new curveball from the way we were morphing template documentation last winter, so this is a good 'burned hands' lesson. I'll watch for those. this goodness came out of that too, so thanks, as usual! // FrankB 14:41, 18 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Edjumakate II
How about massaging a pair of cites for me into acceptable (minimum ambiguous information that can't be mistaken?) standard. Notes 1&2 (both named the same) in
WP:BB!], in me own humble way!) The problem is one of focus, natch! Not having had to do more than a handful of "papers" in my science and engineering track, thirty years is too long to remember what the heck expectations and "sufficient" are. I'd expected these two with the same name to combine as (I think now is note #5 did—showing a, b, c— but suspect that didn't happen as the quotes are different. [I did try just a naked ref name="PPno7" for the second with the quote in the ref/end-ref block, but then it had no heading information at all, and was just the quote all by it's lonesome self. There's got to be a happy middle ground... the key parts of {{cite web}} and the second quote at a guess. So what are those minimums? (Jes edit them into shape so I can see the diff, though be my guest to proffer advice and instruction! Thanks // FrankB 03:01, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply
]
III
It occurs to me that the three "parts" of note 5 may or may not be copacetic—I used ibid inside the ref block, sans citation, as I recollect. That okay. (Thought I saw something somewhere saying not to use ibid, but that may have been a specific application. The effect, in that all three carry the same note number certainly worked. Cheers! // FrankB 03:09, 20 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There is some debate about the name and/or content of this. I believe you were involved early on. It might need some input. :: Kevinalewis : (Talk Page)/(Desk) 08:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]