Template talk:Update-EB
Generic version of this template[edit]
I believe we need a generic version of this template, to denote articles that need updating due to reliance on obsolete sources.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 21:29, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
- Something like ru:Шаблон:Актуальность? Colchicum 22:39, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Appearance in {{multiple issues}}[edit]
When used within {{multiple issues}}, as in Gobi Desert, this template explains that the article is based on the 11th edition but not why this is an issue or what ought to be done about it. Can this be fixed? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
Proposed change to address the Template:Multiple issues problem[edit]
Please leave this discussion open for at least a week, as this change may be controversial.
I've made a sandbox (permalink, diff) that should solve the problem. As a bonus, it links to Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/1911 verification in the "details" at the end of the "issue" line.
I've also added an example set to the bottom of the test cases to show what it looks like. (permalink, diff). davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 22:08, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
- I don't have a problem with this. David Brooks (talk) 13:56, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Quotes around article name[edit]
@Jonesey95: I don't see anything controversial about putting quotation marks around the EB-article's name as you did in the sandbox. Once you've got it all tested, I see no reason not to put that change in the main template. Just be careful not to include the other change that is being discussed above. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 23:38, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
Reason parameter is needed[edit]
How about a reason parameter? There can be various reasons for the material to be inappropriate, ranging from simply outdated figures, arcane or superseded language, anachronism due to terms meaning different things in 1911 and 2021, the phenomena or entities described in present tense no longer existing, balance problems, or scholarly consensus having changed. The tagger knows why they think this tag applies, and readers and other editors should not be kept guessing. I occasionally see articles with this tag incorporating a free form text note explaining what is wrong with the content, e.g. Chaetosomatida, suggesting that this template could use an actual reason parameter. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:48, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- I think that's a good idea, if someone else can add the code to the template (not in my skill set). As I've been the primary user, I'll then go back over my most recent uses and add a reason. One suggestion: if the reason is provided, "to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any)" could probably be suppressed. David Brooks (talk) 00:18, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Implemented in the sandbox:
{{Update-EB/sandbox|article=Jane Doe}}:
 | This article is largely based on the article "Jane Doe" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which was produced in 1911. |
{{Update-EB/sandbox|article=Jane Doe|reason=to update verb tenses per [[MOS:TENSE]]}}:
| This article is largely based on the article "Jane Doe" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which was produced in 1911. |
- Does the additional reason stand out enough? Suggestions or sandbox changes are welcome. The reason parameter follows "...if any), and" if it is present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- For one of my more recent additions, Tubes and primers for ammunition, the resulting text (using italics to indicate the boilerplate) would be something like: "It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any), and either renamed to properly indicate its historical context or describe more modern approaches." I'm not completely convinced the and allows enough flexibility; would it be better to make the reason a replacement for the entire clause in italics? However, it would probably work for the Tree fern section. David Brooks (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the boilerplate text does any harm there, and it maintains the original purpose of this template. It is called "Update-EB", after all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been slow to respond these days. I concede the boilerplate, but I think the "and" makes it more difficult to create the reason wording. It would be more flexible if the reason could be its own sentence. I see you've already propped the change, but can we discuss that option? David Brooks (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Of course. If you can describe in words how you would like it to work, and give some plain-text examples, I can try to implement it in the sandbox. I'm sure it can be better than my first attempt. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- This article is largely based on the article "Ammunition" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which was produced in 1910–1911. It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship, including any references. More contemporary designs of ammunition could be described, and/or this article could be renamed to indicate its historical nature.
- Of course. If you can describe in words how you would like it to work, and give some plain-text examples, I can try to implement it in the sandbox. I'm sure it can be better than my first attempt. – Jonesey95 (talk) 15:11, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry I've been slow to respond these days. I concede the boilerplate, but I think the "and" makes it more difficult to create the reason wording. It would be more flexible if the reason could be its own sentence. I see you've already propped the change, but can we discuss that option? David Brooks (talk) 14:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the boilerplate text does any harm there, and it maintains the original purpose of this template. It is called "Update-EB", after all. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- For one of my more recent additions, Tubes and primers for ammunition, the resulting text (using italics to indicate the boilerplate) would be something like: "It should be brought up to date to reflect subsequent history or scholarship (including the references, if any), and either renamed to properly indicate its historical context or describe more modern approaches." I'm not completely convinced the and allows enough flexibility; would it be better to make the reason a replacement for the entire clause in italics? However, it would probably work for the Tree fern section. David Brooks (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Does the additional reason stand out enough? Suggestions or sandbox changes are welcome. The reason parameter follows "...if any), and" if it is present. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- In this case, the WP article is based on part of the EB article, so that's not comprehensively accurate, but I think it will do. Most examples are wholesale copies. David Brooks (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can modify the default first sentence to something like "Some or all of this article is based on the article...". As for the reason parameter, it looks like you would like to keep the default guidance, "It should be brought ... references.", and then have an optional
|reason=added after that, as a complete sentence that the template-adding editor creates. Am I reading your mind correctly? If not, please explain what you want. – Jonesey95 (talk) 01:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)- Well, I realize I meant that "some or all of this article is based on some or all of the EB article", which is way too pedantic. Let's leave it for now and revisit after I've come up with some sample reasons. I may need a few days for that because of a lot of IRL right now. David Brooks (talk) 21:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
- We can modify the default first sentence to something like "Some or all of this article is based on the article...". As for the reason parameter, it looks like you would like to keep the default guidance, "It should be brought ... references.", and then have an optional
- In this case, the WP article is based on part of the EB article, so that's not comprehensively accurate, but I think it will do. Most examples are wholesale copies. David Brooks (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
Needs a parameter for 1922[edit]
Needs a parameter for the 12th ed. {{EB1922}}. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 20:27, 17 October 2021 (UTC)
- Implemented in the sandbox:
{{Update-EB/sandbox|article=Jane Doe}}:
| This article is largely based on the article "Jane Doe" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Eleventh Edition, which was produced in 1911. |
{{Update-EB/sandbox|article=Jane Doe|edition=12}}:
| This article is largely based on the article "Jane Doe" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Twelfth Edition, which was produced in 1922. |
{{Update-EB/sandbox|article=Jane Doe|reason=to update verb tenses per [[MOS:TENSE]]|edition=12}}:
| This article is largely based on the article "Jane Doe" in the out-of-copyright Encyclopædia Britannica Twelfth Edition, which was produced in 1922. |
- Comments or edits to the sandbox are welcome. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great, Jonesey95. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have applied this update and the above one. I am open to feedback about the wording or implementation of either change. If one of you could add to the documentation, that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Done – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 00:59, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
- I have applied this update and the above one. I am open to feedback about the wording or implementation of either change. If one of you could add to the documentation, that would be helpful. – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:16, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
- Looks great, Jonesey95. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:04, 18 October 2021 (UTC)