Template talk:Header

From Wikisource
Jump to: navigation, search

Archives: 2008; 2009; 2010; 2011

Year parameter[edit]

It has been mentioned that there are some problems with the year parameter:

  1. In some cases, the year parameter is not used but an equivalent category has been added. Is this,
    1. Ignorance of the year parameter?
    2. A conscious choice? If so, why?
  2. Some pages use the header template but have no year and should not be categorised as undated.
  3. Some works have the year in the title. Displaying the year after such a title looks bad.

I have added two parameters to solve some of this, noyear and override_year. I haven't documented them yet as I have noticed some other problems and I'm not sure if they will be staying. Currently the header fails to correctly categorise any work with a year prior to 1000 AD. If you look at On the Parts of Animals by Aristotle, for instance, the year is given as 350 BCE but the category is Category:Works of uncertain date. I recently added a subroutine to the {{author}} template to solve something similar with author pages. This is both an announcement of the problem and a request for feedback. How do we want the year to function, both in terms of display and categorisation? - AdamBMorgan (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • 1-2Learned behavior. If you take the fact the parameter is relatively new compared to the age & previous usage of the header template itself coupled with the long-standing practice on most of our sister wikis to add such date specific categories manually, its no wonder folks aren't clued into using the parameter here properly never mind utilizing the parameter at all. I don't know if it was even wise to try to ween folks off of adding the category manually via a template parameter in the first place.

    Regardless, if the consensus is that the year parameter and the year parameter alone is the accepted method for date categorization over manual categorization in moving forward, then a script should be drawn up & run to make that a reality on all the currently existing main space pages (just like the doing away with all the instances of header2 by scripting did). -- George Orwell III (talk) 02:50, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

  • Adam, there are some pages that have not been migrated to the newer format, and some that have been added that way after the fact.
  • There are some that are translations or works published over a range of years, and there is still some dispute whether the year to use in the header is the year of the original publication, or the year of the translation of the publication. I gave up arguing.
  • Correct about the year in title, take it out, and use the year parameter. It will still be in the page title and not be an issue. Adding more complexity to parameters does not seem to be the way to handle it. Note the Title field != Page title
  • as GO3 says, it is an existing maintenance task — billinghurst sDrewth 14:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)
Copied from Wikisource:Scriptorium#Migration_from_Category:yyyy_works_to_year_in_header--Mpaa (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I have implemented something that will hopefully solve this problem. I've added some stuff to the header template. The parameter "noyear" will stop the year being displayed in the header and the parameter "noyearcat" will stop the header template attempting to categorise a work by year (replacing my previous addition of "no_year" for the same, which would have been confusing if it stayed). There is also "override_year" which will put any text in the year part of the header but will no categorise it; this is an older addition. I've also mostly copied my subroutine from the author template to categorise works by year (overcoming the 1000 AD problem, where works before this date were ignored, and adding more flexibility). I may have to add to this as I've already seen "Medieval" used in one work and the "YYYY-YYYY" format in a few others. Hopefully this will allow Mpaa to continue; users can still add works by year categories manually, of course, and they will probably be caught in future sweeps like Mpaa's current work. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 01:07, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
Hi Adam. I have copied here the description of your changes. I think that it would be good to make a hidden category for pages with noyearcat, as done with override_author, so that we can keep track of where it is used.--Mpaa (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
OK. In fact, it's probably a good idea to track all three new parameters: Category:Pages with noyearcat, Category:Pages with noyear, and Category:Pages with override year. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:49, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
I am obviously on stupid pills, however we haven't documented anything yet, so I will just point the crooked finger. Which parameter is meant to be used to have the work categorised in works by year, however, to blind the display of the year function?
 | year       = YYYY
 | noyear     = yes
I am struggling to find why we would want to stop any work from being categorised by year, I had presumed that the proposal was only about the display component. — billinghurst sDrewth 05:44, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Good point. I'd rather keep the flexibilty for whatever the future may hold though. Maybe we just don't document that parameter for the time being? -- George Orwell III (talk) 07:57, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
Regarding Categorization by year, there has been some talks in the past. The rational is that many of these pages would clutter Category:YYYY works. I made a trial on Presidential addresses (e.g. Presidential Radio Address - 1 April 1995). They are put in a separate Category which is then put under (Category:1995_works). I then stopped moving on waiting for feedbacks. And here they are :-) --Mpaa (talk) 08:10, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
That's right - I recall the discussion now. The parameter is primarily for running series or annual compilations that are better served by custom grouping under the year in question as a sub-folder rather than being peppered throughout the list of titles individually. -- George Orwell III (talk) 08:28, 18 November 2012 (UTC)

Microformat data[edit]

Firstly, can someone please explain the purpose of the section, set to display:none, headed "MICROFORMAT DATA"? It doesn't emit a w:microformat. Perhaps the documentation could be updated to explain it? {{Editprotected}}

Second, I have added proper w:hCard microformat markup, in the sandbox. This makes people's names machine-readable, with no visual change. Please will someone update the template. Pigsonthewing (talk) 11:42, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Please check with User:Inductiveload about the microcode thing as he is probably the best person to address your concerns/changes. -- George Orwell III (talk) 19:52, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
The microformat is as specified at old.Wikisource:Microformat and is used for machine-readable data for use in generated eBooks. It is included in the header so that any content page is ready for being rolled into an ebook - this is more or less the limit of my involvement in the microformat data, other than interest. User:Tpt is the architect of the modern ebook system, and would be able to comment on modification to the system. Unfortunately, I don't have time to look at this or I would get into it myself. Inductiveloadtalk/contribs 15:10, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarification. The term "microformat" has a specific meaning; can an alternative term be used, please? My edit request, above, remains current. Pigsonthewing (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
I have used the world "microformat" to call this set of html classes, created to allow machine (and the epub export tool in particular) to read metadata about Wikisource books easily, in order to explain shortly and easily to the community that this set have been created to follow the same objective and with the same basic patterns as the official microformats. So, yes, you have right, it's not a real microformat like hcard and the fact that it's only a set created to be used in Wikisource only should maybe be more explained. Feel free to update the page on oldwikisource.
@George Orwell III and Billinghurst : as the change of Pigsonthewing doesn't affect the hidden section containing microformat, there shouldn't be, I hope, any issue between the sandboxed version of the template and Wsexport. Tpt (talk) 21:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done copy and pasted from sandbox, diff looked fine. Thanks for the comments and assistance.

Postscript All assistance on getting our microformat components futureproofed is welcomed. As can been seen, generally speaking for most it is not our forté. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:25, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

Turned on internal "edition" parameter — seeking comment and looking to approval[edit]

{{plain sister}} has long had an "edition" parameter encoded into it, that was to replace the separately induced version of {{edition}}. The edition parameter, in either form, provides a prominent emblem through to the talk page of the article, the version that is included within the header parameter allows the emblem to be wrapped inside the same box as the interwiki links. Examples.

I have turned it on to allow this to be viewed by the community, and to seek your opinion, and if opinion is favourable, then the approval of the community to deprecate the old template. [note: the old edition template is preferred means to note a source when a scan of a work is not provided.] — billinghurst sDrewth 10:49, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Is there any community comment in favour or against the modification that I have put into place? Are people happy with the change to be implemented, and the flow-on components to take place (ie. {{edition}} to be deprecated and implementations to be merged), or is there other bits that the community would like to address. — billinghurst sDrewth 07:31, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
I like the use of this parameter rather than a separate template. It makes the header look neater where both are used. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 17:57, 18 January 2013 (UTC)

frWS moved header into Module[edit]

Phe says that Tpt migrated frWS's version of the Pages tag generated [Proofreadpage ]header template to the module: namespace. Can be seen at fr:Module:Header template. — billinghurst sDrewth 01:33, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

More translation info[edit]

Does anyone else think it a good idea to add information on the original language and the original language title to the header of translated works? We could use template:translations as an example. The result would look like:

De oratore (On Oratory)
by Marcus Tullius Cicero, translated by William Guthrie

--Jfhutson (talk) 02:06, 25 March 2013 (UTC)

To this time we have generally just put a Category like Category:Works originally in Frenchbillinghurst sDrewth 07:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
I like this idea. Hesperian 07:42, 25 March 2013 (UTC)
Hmm; I'm not so sure now, per George below. It does seem to be giving the original rather too much prominence, considering it is a foreign-language work of no use to many readers. Plus there is that issue of a link clash on subpages. Hesperian 02:02, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Confused. You are linking to the Latin Wikisource hosted base page where we usually find our base page link in your "translation". Is that on purpose? For base pages only? -- George Orwell III (talk) 01:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The base page would be linked from "On Oratory," rather than "De oratore," but it doesn't matter to me whether the subpages link to the original language page. That might be overkill. However, I think linking to the original language of a work in the header for the base page (as is already done with template:translations) is helpful. --Jfhutson (talk) 02:27, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I see the interwiki language link to the Latin version is not set so it does not appear in the left-hand menu(s). Is this why you feel this is needed? What happens to the practice of setting interwiki language links overall if this becomes a new practice? -- George Orwell III (talk) 03:09, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
The interwiki link would still be appropriate in addition, but the original source of the translation is not just another language version of the work, and it seems useful to point the reader to that original source. Honestly I could do without the link, as it might confuse some, but on balance I think it's a good idea. I'm more concerned with presenting the original language title in the header. If we do decide it's not appropriate to link the original source in the header, then the documentation at template:translations should be changed. --Jfhutson (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Damn if you aren't confusing me more. Let's review to be sure we are all reading from the same "bible"....

To the best of my understanding, Template:Translations is the header used on pages that act like disambiguation pages do but applied for listing multiple works of similar title translated from one or more languages into English instead. It is used in the mainspace but not as a substitute or replacement of the normal Template:Header for specific works.

You probably should have started this discussion on Template:Translations talk page if that is the template you wanted to modify (which would be odd since its just for listing similar titles of works we have in English but have/are translations in/from other languages and your "title" link should already be listed in some way.

Now, are we any closer to figuring out what exactly you are proposing or not. -- George Orwell III (talk) 04:26, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Jfhutson is saying that the header of a English-language translated work ought to include a link back to the foreign-language original. Jfhutson is saying that we include such a link on translations disambiguation pages via Template:Translations; that the way Template:Translations does it looks pretty good; that we could do it the same way in Template:Header; and that if we object to including such links in headers, then really we ought to remove those links from Template:Translations. Hesperian 04:38, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds right. Apparently I also need a translator. Basically it seems arbitrary to handle translation disambiguation page headers one way and translated work headers another. You get more information about the original language source if we happen to have multiple translations than if we have just one. --Jfhutson (talk) 19:50, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
This type of header will be needed in the new Translation: namespace rather than in mainspace. Once we've got the namespace sorted then we'll be looking to migrate works across, so I suggest work towards that header would be useful. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 02:53, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
I'd think information on the original source of a translation would be just as important for a published and transcribed translation as a wikisource one. --Jfhutson (talk) 03:34, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Year parameters not working?[edit]

The documentation states that things like c/1999 is output as c. 1999 and 1999/? is output as 1999?. However, nether of these appear to be working. You can test this on any page but for convenience:

T0lk (talk) 22:27, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I'll look into it. It should be doing the same thing the {{author}} template does. - AdamBMorgan (talk) 23:24, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Layout options[edit]

Would it be awful to add the layout option inside of the header template? - Theornamentalist (talk) 03:24, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Override editor doesn't seem to produce anything[edit]

I want to move the editor of Dictionary of Greek and Roman Biography and Mythology out of the Author field into the Editor field, but because he's one of several William Smiths, I need to use the override-editor field. But when I do I get nothing. Can someone have a look please? Beeswaxcandle (talk) 09:53, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Look at it again... it seems to work just fine. Did you use the proper parameter/syntax?
| editor = | override_editor = [[Author:William Smith (1813-1893)|William Smith]]
I kept the Author override as well but set it to by Various Authors for completeness sake - you can blank the entire | Author = line if you wish; it won't affect the current editor portions at all. -- George Orwell III (talk) 21:14, 23 June 2013 (UTC)
Thanks George. I think I was using the proper parameter, but I now wonder if I used - instead of _. Anyway, it works correctly, so no further worries. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:20, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Auto-Cat Bug with Year Parameter[edit]

The page Manfred,_a_dramatic_poem (1817) is triggering unexpected behaviour from this template for auto-cat by year. Can someone have a look to see how to fix the bug? Thanks - DutchTreat (talk) 09:50, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

This may have been a problem with a recent edit to this template, which is now fixed but which will take a while to worth through to all cached pages. I purged the cache (append ?action=purge to the URL) of the page you mention above, and the ugly misformed header returned to normal. Has it for you? — Sam Wilson ( TalkContribs ) … 10:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)
Working fine for me, Sam. Thanks -- DutchTreat (talk) 11:06, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Please add to Category:Exclude in print[edit]

Could you please add this template to Category:Exclude in print? This should get rid of the header from the PDF files as Book Creator looks for that category. I would also consider adding noPrint to the class of the div, so class="headerRaw.noPrint ws-noexport" to suppress it from printing if someone just happens to hit print on a page. The Haz talk 05:28, 3 February 2014 (UTC)