text:
Box (juggling)

In toss juggling, the box is a juggling pattern for 3 objects, most commonly balls or bean bags. Two balls are dedicated to a specific hand with vertical throws, and the third ball is thrown horizontally between the two hands. Its siteswap is (4,2x)(2x,4).

The box pattern can be seen as a synchronous shower (a fountain), which direction is changed at every throw. The half-box is similar, but asynchronous, with siteswap 441. 441 has been described as, "the simplest non-obvious siteswap," as, "a very popular and pretty pattern," and, "a great pattern." The seesaw (siteswap: 612), is also known as the box. It resembles 441 without the two-in-one or an asynchronous (4,2x)(2x,4).

Vamp Types
The horizontal, hand-crossing throw in the box is known as the "vamp". In a traditional box pattern, the vamp crosses underneath the vertical paths of the other two "side balls". However, there are several variations on this vamp's placement.

Inverse box
In the inverse box, the siteswap stays the same and two balls (4s) are still thrown in straight lines, but the ball thrown from the right hand is going up and down on the left side and vice versa. This results in rather fast hand movements, because after the right hand has thrown all up on the left side, both hands need to rush to the right so that the left hand can throw the next ball on the right side.

Outside box
Outside box is same as the original version, except that the fast horizontal (2x) ball is thrown outside the landing vertical ball and caught outside the next thrown vertical ball. For visual appeal, the 2x should thrown as vertical as possible; very easily its flight path becomes too arced and the trick loses its visual appeal.

Luke's shuffle
Luke's shuffle is a variation on the box in which the throws that are normally thrown horizontally are thrown diagonally downward. In this pattern, the siteswap stays the same, but the throw involves carrying the ball up over the rising 4 throw. The ball is then thrown from above the 4 diagonally downward to the opposite hand. The resulting downward throw is often known as a shuffle, giving the trick its name. This trick was invented by Luke Jugglestruck (Luke Gravett) in 1991 and shown to Charlie Dancey who included it in his book.

title: Box (juggling)


text:
Orange blossom (disambiguation)

An orange blossom is the flower of the orange tree.

Orange blossom may also refer to:
 * Choisya, a genus of evergreen shrub
 * Orange Blossom, a French electronica band
 * Orange Blossom, California, an unincorporated community
 * Orange Blossom Special
 * Orange Blossom Special (song), fiddle tune about the train

Orange blossoms may refer to:
 * Orange Blossoms (musical), a 1922 musical by Victor Herbert
 * Orange Blossoms (album), a 2008 album by JJ Grey & Mofro
 * 124th New York Volunteer Infantry Regiment, known as the Orange Blossoms, an American Civil War regiment
 * Casa Loma Orchestra, an American swing band also known as the Orange Blossoms

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Orange blossom (disambiguation)


text:
GM High Value engine

The High Value engine family from General Motors is a group of cam-in-block or overhead valve V6 engines. These engines feature cast iron blocks and aluminum heads, and use the same 60° vee bank as the 60° V6 family they are based on, but the new 99 mm bore required offsetting the bores by 1.5 mm away from the engine center line. These engines (aside from the LX9) are the first cam-in-block engines to implement variable valve timing, and won the 2006 Breakthrough Award from Popular Mechanics for this innovation. For the 2007 model year, the 3900 engine featured optional displacement on demand or "Active Fuel Management" which deactivates a bank of cylinders under light load to increase highway fuel economy. It was rumored that GM would produce a 3-valve design, but that never came to be. These engines were produced primarily at the GM factory in Tonawanda, New York, and at the Ramos Arizpe engine plant in Mexico. The assembly line for this engine was manufactured by Hirata Corporation at its powertrain facility in Kumamoto, Japan.

As of the 2012 model year, GM no longer sells these engines in any U.S. market vehicles.

3.5

 * These engines should not be confused with the 3.5L DOHC LX5 (Shortstar) V6 engine.

LX9
The LX9 3500 is an OHV engine based on the 3400 V6. Bore and stroke are 94x84 mm, for a displacement of 3498 cc. According to a GM press release from October 2002, the 3500 V6 offered improved performance and fuel efficiency, as well as reduced emissions and NVH compared to the 3400 V6. The 3500 V6 featured an updated powertrain control module, electronic throttle control, fuel injection system, exhaust manifold, catalytic converter, accessory drive system, and improved cooling and sealing systems. Power output ranges from 196 hp to 201 hp, and torque ranges from 213 lbft to 221 lbft.

Applications:
 * 2005–2006 Buick Terraza/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Saturn Relay
 * 2004–2006 Chevrolet Malibu/Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
 * 2005–2006 Pontiac G6 Sedan / Coupe
 * 2006–2007 Buick Rendezvous
 * 2006 Pontiac G6 GT Convertible

LZ4
The LZ4 3500 is an OHV engine that uses a block similar to the 3.9L LZ9 V6. It was introduced for the 2006 model year Impala and Monte Carlo. Bore is the same 99 mm, but the stroke is reduced to 76 mm for a displacement of 3510 cc. It includes continuously variable cam timing (fixed overlap). Output is 211 hp at 5800 rpm and 214 lbft at 4000 rpm. Horsepower rating changed for the 2007 model year to 224 hp at 5800 rpm and 220 lbft torque at 4000 rpm. The Chevrolet Malibu, Pontiac G6, and Saturn Aura came equipped with this engine for 2007 (previously, the Malibu and G6 had the non-VVT 201 hp 3.5 L LX9). In 2008, the SAE horsepower rating was dropped to 219 hp, keeping torque as is. On Pontiac G6 convertible models, horsepower was rated at 217 hp.

Applications:
 * 2006–2009 Chevrolet Impala
 * 2006–2007 Chevrolet Monte Carlo
 * 2007–2010 Chevrolet Malibu/Chevrolet Malibu Maxx
 * 2007–2009 Saturn Aura
 * 2008–2010 Pontiac G6
 * 2008–2009 Saturn Vue XE AWD (222 hp/220 lbft)

Note: GM often refers to this engine in its literature as a "3.5L V6 with Variable Valve Timing."

LZE
The LZE 3500 is an OHV flexible-fuel engine based on the 3.5L LZ4 V6 (it can use either plain gasoline or E85) and includes continuously variable cam timing (fixed overlap). Bore and stroke are 99x76 mm, for a displacement of 3510 cc. Output is 211 hp at 5800 rpm and 216 lbft at 4000 rpm.

Applications:
 * 2006–2011 Chevrolet Impala
 * 2006–2007 Chevrolet Monte Carlo

3.9
Bore and stroke are 99x84 mm for a displacement of 3880 cc.

LZ9
The LZ9 3900 has roller rocker arms, a variable length intake manifold, and Variable Cam Timing, a novelty on a pushrod engine. A computer-controlled plenum divider, along with the VVT cam function, improves efficiency across a broader RPM range.

It produces up to 240 hp and 240 lbft of torque, with a wide torque curve. At least 90% of the maximum torque output is available from 1500 rpm to 5500 rpm.

Applications:
 * 2006 Pontiac G6 GTP Sedan / Coupe / Convertible
 * 2007 Pontiac G6 GT Sport Package Sedan / Coupe
 * 2007–2009 Pontiac G6 GT Sport Package Convertible
 * 2006–2007 Chevrolet Malibu SS
 * 2006 Chevrolet Impala/Monte Carlo (242 hp/242 lbft)
 * 2006–2009 Buick Terraza/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6/Saturn Relay
 * 2009–2011 Buick Lucerne (227 hp (219 hp in California-emissions states))

LGD
The LGD 3900 is a flexible-fuel version of the LZ9, and like its 3.5L LZE counterpart, it can run on E85, pure gasoline, or any mixture of the two. This is the last version of the 3900 V6. The LGD was not available with Active Fuel Management. Output is slightly reduced at 230 horsepower at 5700 rpm and 235 lb-ft of torque at 3200 rpm.

Applications:

 * 2007–2009 Buick Terraza/Chevrolet Uplander/Pontiac Montana SV6
 * 2009–2011 Buick Lucerne/Chevrolet Impala
 * 2007 Saturn Relay (fleet only)

LZ8 and LZG
The LZ8 3900 has the same Variable Cam Timing technology as the LZ9. The 2007 model year introduces the Active Fuel Management system (formerly known as Displacement on Demand), which can turn off a bank of cylinders under a light load for increased fuel economy. Output is slightly lower than the LZ9 at 233 hp and 240 lbft. For 2008, it was replaced by the LZG 3900, a flexible-fuel version of the LZ8.

Applications:

 * 2007 Chevrolet Impala (LZ8)
 * 2008 Chevrolet Impala (LZG)

The LZ8 was replaced by the LGD for 2009.

title: GM High Value engine


text:
User:Nick5000

Hi there! I've been using the Wikipedia for schoolwork, and have been adding to it as I go. Great work everyone!

My Contributions

title: User:Nick5000


text:
Clockwise (film)

Clockwise is an absurdist 1986 British comedy road film starring John Cleese, directed by Christopher Morahan, written by Michael Frayn and produced by Michael Codron. The film's music was composed by George Fenton.

For his performance Cleese won the 1987 Peter Sellers Award For Comedy at the Evening Standard British Film Awards. Most urban scenes were shot in the West Midlands, Yorkshire and Lincolnshire, while rural scenes were largely shot in Shropshire. Menzies High School in West Bromwich was used to portray the fictional school within the film.

Plot
Brian Stimpson, headmaster of Thomas Tompion Comprehensive School, has been elected to chair the annual Headmasters' Conference meeting in Norwich. Openly careless as a young man, Stimpson is now compulsively organised and punctual and his school runs "like clockwork". Stimpson is the first headmaster of a comprehensive school to chair the Headmasters' Conference, that honour usually being reserved for heads of the more prestigious private schools.

Despite constant rehearsal of his speech and preparations for the journey to the conference, Stimpson's ordered world unwinds as a series of unfortunate circumstances delay him en route. He mistakenly boards the wrong train, missing his connection for Norwich, owing to a lingering habit of saying "right" as emphasis in situations where it would be mistaken for a direction; then, in his desperation to board the departing correct train, he leaves the text of his speech behind on the wrong one, and is finally left at the railway station by his wife, who thinks he departed on the train.

Determined to get to Norwich on time, Stimpson searches for his wife at home and then at the hospital where she volunteers looking after dementia patients, but narrowly misses her. Attempting to hail a taxi, Stimpson stumbles across Laura Wisely, one of his sixth form students, who is driving and playing truant during a study break; he commandeers her and her car in a bid to drive to Norwich.

Stimpson's wife sees the two at a petrol station, assuming that her husband is carrying on with the student and taking her down to attend the conference. Mrs. Stimpson, who is still looking after three senile old women, drives after Stimpson and both parties forget to pay for their petrol. The police are called and, responding to a call from Laura's parents reporting the car as stolen and their daughter as missing, attempt to find Stimpson and arrest him for kidnapping. Stimpson's wife, Laura's parents, the police and Mr. Jolly, a music teacher at Thomas Tompion who has secretly been dating Laura, all pursue Stimpson and Laura to the conference.

Taking a break, Stimpson and Laura try to call the conference from a telephone box. A local mistakes them for vandals after Stimpson vents his frustrations at the malfunctioning phones, and calls the police. The local sends her daughter Pat to Stimpson, but she turns out to be a childhood friend and former girlfriend of Stimpson. Stimpson coerces her into driving them to the conference.

After a series of wrong turns, the group desperately turn into a farmer's field in order to escape cows and a lorry, and shortly after get stuck in deep mud. Brian leaves the stuck car to seek help, and ends up at a monastery where he is persuaded to take a bath and collect himself. While he's gone, a local farmer tugs the car out of the mud; Pat finally drives away in the car but is soon arrested for assaulting a police officer. All the while, Stimpson's wife and the others arrive at the conference uninvited, much to the horror of the headmasters; they attempt to sequester the growing group of concerned parents, wives, senile ladies and police officers as the conference continues.

Stranded without transport, Laura and Stimpson (who is dressed in monks' robes, leaving his muddy suit with the monks) attempt to hitchhike. They are picked up by a wealthy car salesman, whom they persuade to come for a walk in the woods. They trick the traveller into swapping clothes with Stimpson under the guise of foreplay, but Stimpson and Laura run away and steal his car.

Stimpson finally arrives at the conference in the torn suit of the car salesman and delivers an improvised recount of his lost speech, which becomes increasingly mocking and oppressive in tone to the disappointed headmasters. During his speech various characters including the old women, Mr. Jolly and Laura's parents walk into the hall, and Stimpson addresses them like he would late pupils, ordering and humiliating the entire collected group with the same authoritarian demeanour with which he runs his own school. Finally, he directs all of the headmasters to stand and sing the hymn "To Be a Pilgrim", as he walks out of the building to face the police. The headmasters watch on as Stimpson and the rest of the party are all led away by policemen, with Stimpson still giving headmasterly orders to all the officers in the car.

Cast

 * John Cleese as Brian Stimpson
 * Penelope Wilton as Pat
 * Alison Steadman as Gwenda Stimpson
 * Stephen Moore as Mr. Jolly
 * Sharon Maiden as Laura Wisely
 * Benjamin Whitrow as Headmaster
 * Geoffrey Palmer as Headmaster
 * Peter Cellier as Headmaster
 * Nicholas Le Prevost as Headmaster
 * Joan Hickson as Mrs. Trellis
 * Pat Keen as Mrs Wisely
 * Constance Chapman as Mrs. Wheel
 * Ann Way as Mrs. Way
 * Tony Haygarth as Ivan with the tractor
 * John Bardon as ticket collector
 * Michael Aldridge as Prior
 * Sheila Keith as Pat's mother
 * Mark Burdis as Glen Scully
 * Nadia Sawalha as Mandy Kostakis
 * Richard Ridings as Policeman at crash
 * Alan Parnaby as Policeman at phone box

Production
The film was an original script by Michael Frayn, then better known as a novelist and playwright. Frayn wrote it on "spec". He said, "I had always wanted to write something about a man who is late because I have considerable problems in relation to that myself, and only get places early by enormous expenditure of psychic energy."

He showed it to theatrical producer Michael Codron, who had produced five Frayn works on stage including the hugely successful Benefactors and Noises Off, and asked if Codron would like to produce it. "I said, 'Why not?'" said the producer. "I've always been interested in movies."

Codron showed the script to Nat Cohen at EMI Films who gave it to the company's head of production Verity Lambert and she agreed to finance. The title was originally Man of the Moment but this was changed when it was realised that had been used for a Norman Wisdom film.

John Cleese was signed to star. "No one will believe it but I didn't have an idea for casting," said Frayn.

Cleese later said the script was "the best I've ever seen. The same day it landed on my front door, I rang my agent and said, 'I have to do this.' "

"Stimpson is a victim of circumstance," Cleese said. "As the pressures increase, his behaviour becomes more and more erratic. Comedy is about things always going wrong, and that's just what happens to him. When you first see him, he's in charge. But as events take over and he can't cope-that's when he falls apart."

Codron, Cleese and Lambert had a meeting to decide the director. They selected Chris Morahan, who had directed Frayn's Chekov adaptation Wild Honey on stage and had recently directed Jewel in the Crown for TV.

Filming took eight weeks in June and July 1985 in Hull, Shropshire and Birmingham.

Reception
On review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes, the film has an approval rating of 80% based on 5 reviews.

Halliwell's Film Guide awarded it one star from a possible four, stating "what was intended as an escalating climax of comic chaos falls away as the script runs out of steam, but the nation's need for comedy ensured box-office success". Radio Times reviewer John Ferguson awarded it three stars out of five, stating "Cleese finds it difficult to be unfunny and he unravels here much like Basil Fawlty, from a simmering starting point to a climax of epic proportions. Perhaps because of Cleese's background in TV comedy, the picture is less a narrative than a series of sketches, plus some rather awkwardly placed propaganda about public and private education in that far-off land called Mrs Thatcher's Britain." He concluded that it was "entertaining fare" but "doesn't stand comparison" with Cleese's next comedy film, A Fish Called Wanda (1988).

Although popular in Britain, the film only played art houses in the US. This prompted Cleese to make A Fish Called Wanda to be accessible to American audiences, to "get out of the art houses" there. Cleese later recalled "there was a scene where I had to make a call from a public phone booth. None of the phones worked and I had to go from booth to booth with increasing fury before I found one that did. In England, that scene got a big laugh because no one here expects the phones to work. But it played to total silence in America, where they all expect to get through on a phone the first time."

A line spoken by Stimpson has become famous, "It's not the despair, Laura. I can stand the despair. It's the hope!" and has been quoted (and misquoted, often as "It's the hope I can't stand!") many times in newspapers and books.

title: Clockwise (film)


text:
Ray Tomlinson

Raymond Samuel Tomlinson (April 23, 1941 – March 5, 2016) was an American   computer programmer who implemented the first email program  on the ARPANET system, the precursor to the Internet, in 1971;    It was the first system able to send mail between users on different hosts connected to ARPANET. Previously, mail could be sent only to others who used the same computer. To achieve this, he used the @|@ sign to separate the user name from the name of their machine, a scheme which has been used in email addresses ever since. The Internet Hall of Fame in its account of his work commented "Tomlinson's email program brought about a complete revolution, fundamentally changing the way people communicate." He is credited with the invention of the TCP three-way handshake which underlies HTTP and many other key Internet protocols.

Early life and education
Tomlinson was born in Amsterdam, New York, but his family soon moved to the small, unincorporated village of Vail Mills, Broadalbin, New York. His father Raymond Tomlinson worked in carpet mills and later worked in the grocery business. His mother Dorothy Tomlinson worked for a dry cleaner. He attended Broadalbin Central School in nearby Broadalbin, New York. Later he attended Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) in Troy, New York where he participated in the co-op program with IBM. He received a bachelor's degree in electrical engineering from RPI in 1963.

After graduating from RPI, he entered the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) to continue his electrical engineering education. At MIT, Tomlinson worked in the Speech Communication Group and developed an analog-digital hybrid speech synthesizer as the subject of his thesis for the master's degree in electrical engineering, which he received in 1965.'''

Career
In 1967, he joined the technology company of Bolt, Beranek and Newman (now BBN Technologies), where he helped develop the TENEX operating system including the ARPANET Network Control Program, implementations of Telnet, and implementations on the self-replicating programs Creeper and Reaper. He wrote a file transfer program called CPYNET to transfer files through the ARPANET. Tomlinson was asked to change a program called SNDMSG, which sent messages to other users of a time-sharing computer, to run on TENEX. He added code he took from CPYNET to SNDMSG so messages could be sent to users on other computers—the first email.

The first email Tomlinson sent was a test. It was not preserved and Tomlinson describes it as insignificant, something like "QWERTYUIOP." This is commonly misquoted as "The first e-mail was QWERTYUIOP." Tomlinson later commented that these "test messages were entirely forgettable and I have, therefore, forgotten them."

At first, his email messaging system was not considered important. Its development was not a directive of his employer, with Tomlinson merely pursuing it "because it seemed like a neat idea." When showing the system to a colleague, Tomlinson said "Don't tell anyone! This isn't what we're supposed to be working on."

Tomlinson said he preferred "email" over "e-mail," joking in a 2010 interview that "I'm simply trying to conserve the world's supply of hyphens" and that "the term has been in use long enough to drop the hyphen."

Death
Tomlinson died at his home in Lincoln, Massachusetts, on March 5, 2016, from a heart attack. He was 74 years old.

Awards and honors

 * In 2000 he received the George R. Stibitz Computer Pioneer Award from the American Computer Museum (with the Computer Science Department of Montana State University).
 * In 2001 he received a Webby Award from the International Academy of Digital Arts and Sciences for lifetime achievement. Also in 2001 he was inducted into the Rensselaer Alumni Hall of Fame.
 * In 2002 Discover magazine awarded him its Innovative Innovating Award of Innovation.
 * In 2004, he received the IEEE Internet Award along with Dave Crocker.
 * In 2009, he along with Martin Cooper was awarded the Prince of Asturias Award for scientific and technical research.
 * In 2011, he was listed 4th in the MIT150 list of the top 150 innovators and ideas from MIT.
 * In 2012, Tomlinson was inducted into the Internet Hall of Fame by the Internet Society.
 * In 2022, Email Day, an annual, national holiday was established in honor of Ray Tomlinson and his creation of email. April 23 (Tomlinson's birthday) was chosen.

title: Ray Tomlinson


text:
Talk:Umberto Cassuto

The following text is from the Encyclopedia Judaica article on Cassuto:
 * While he appreciated the scholarly basis of Higher Criticism, he was an opponent of the Graf-Wellhausen theories (see below). In place of the documentary theory, he posited the existence of an oral tradition and a number of ancient poetic epics, which were subsequently woven into the unitary and artistic texts of the Pentateuch and other biblical books. His expositions focused on the existing text, analyzing its spiritual and ethical teachings, pointing out its literary devices, and discussing its exegetical problems, on which he brought to bear comparative literary and linguistic material whenever possible. In addition, his Ugaritic studies throw considerable light on the literary structure and vocabulary of the Bible.
 * ...Among his books on biblical research are: a critique of the documentary hypothesis of the composition of Genesis in Italian (La questione della Genesi, 1934); and in Hebrew (Perush al Sefer Bereshit, 2 vols., 1944–49; English: A Commentary on the Book of Genesis, 2 vols., 1961–64)...

The Documentary Hypothesis
Rather than rely on a secondary source, I read parts of Cassuto's commentary on Genesis. The Documentary Hypothesis, by definition, asserts that someone (known as the Redactor) took several documents covering similar subjects and edited them together. Thus Genesis chapters 1 and 2 are two different accounts of the creation that allegedly were edited together in this way.

Cassuto did not accept the Fundamentalist position that the Pentateuch as we have it was written by Moses and has never been substantially modified. He seems to believe that different parts had different authors. However, equally he rejected the idea of documents edited together. He argued very strongly that Genesis 1 and 2 were by the same hand. Thus it is misleading to deny that he rejected the Documentary Hypothesis.

 * I'm not following you. You say that he believes that "different parts had different editors", yet you also say that "he rejects the idea of documents edited together." Are these not contradictory statements?  Please clarify. RK 00:48, Mar 20, 2005 (UTC)

 * I dodn't say "different editors"; I said "different authors". What I mean is that according to Wellhausen and his successors, there were originally two accounts of say the Flood, which the Redactor skillfully wove together to make one account.  Cassuto denies this, saying that the editor of the torah only had one account of the Flood, which he presumably used with little if any revision.  The Wellhausen school scour the text for inconsistencies, and use these to "prove" that there were two sources.  Cassuto rejected this philosophy and produced arguments for the essential unity of each story.

 * Don't mean to butt in but the thing about Cassuto is he gets attacked from both sides. Fundamentalists disapprove of his denial of the literal Mosaic authorship of the Torah.  I suspect Jewish fundamentalists are doubly outraged that an orthodox Rabbi should do so.  Dogmatic followers of Wellhausen don't like his strong arguments against the existence of JEPD.  Haven't read Wenham's commentary but it's nice to see some modern scholars are in the middle on this.

 * Just edited the Cassuuto-on-Wellhausen section to maake it tighter. But no need to alter anything - the thrust and assessment are right. Cassuuto had the misfortune to be ahead of his time; if he were arund today he'd be mainstream. The DH, by the way, is one of a number of models for looking at the origins of the Torah - Wellhausen and Moses aren't the only alternatives.PiCo 16:38, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

 * I have modified the Cassuto-on-Wellhausen section to make it a bit less dismissive. It is not satisfactory as it stands, not only because of its clear POV, but also because it gives a misleading account of The Documentary Hypothesis and ignores entirely La Questione della Genesi and his other works relating to the same subject.  It hardly deals with The Documentary Hypothesis at all, e.g., omits the basic framework of analyzing the "five pillars" of the DH.  It has clearly been written by someone who advocates some version of the Documentary Hypothesis, and considers Cassuto chiefly in terms of the historical question of when the Pentateuch emerged or was finally edited - which was very much secondary to his purpose in The Documentary Hypothesis.  This work was instead almost entirely given over to a detailed examination and refutation of the thesis that there were separate and distinct documents later patched together into one.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.235.121 (talk) 08:25, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Cassuto and the text of the Hebrew Bible
"His research showed that the printed Bibles generally have an accurate text...where he differs from other Bibles in any of these respects, it is likely that Cassuto has better authority."

This seems like quite an extraordinary claim - that a scholar, working alone, would have better authority than the various groups of scholars who have produced the other translations. They would surely have the benefit of differing viewpoints that could be thoughtfully considered - he would have no one to be accountable to but himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.89.235 (talk) 21:21, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Ugaritic Studies
A notable omission from this article is some account of Cassuto's contributions to a wider understanding of ancient Near Eastern cultures impinging on Biblical Israel. He was one of the world's leading authorities on Ugaritic culture and literature, for example. In fact, that is what he is chiefly cited for in Christian Biblical research, and his more significant work in Biblical documents and in understanding the Pentateuch has been ignored, as pointed out in the article. It would be good if a specialist in Ugaritic Studies and other ancient Near Eastern cultures contributed a section to the article on Cassuto dealing with this topic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.28.235.121 (talk) 11:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Footnote Two
I'm about to make a rather substantial edit to the second reference in this article, because rather than giving a reference, it gives a set of opinions (with no sources cited) some of which are either generally rejected or in serious doubt. The text is as follows: "The actual pronunciation of YHVH is presently quite unknown, "Yahweh" being merely a speculation only somewhat better than the fantastic "Jehovah" of traditional Christian mistranslation. Knowledge of the correct pronunciation has been lost, since for thousands of years Jews have not pronounced the word but replaced it with Adonai, "the Lord," to indicate precisely their acknowledgment of the personal God revealed at Sinai. Thus it is incorrect to suppose that Jews speak of "Yahweh." In fact the word is regarded by pious Jews as an outright desecration, those uttering it presuming that God has a name like any Tom, Dick or Harry, or like the gods of surrounding cultures. YHVH is instead more properly understood as a title, for it is an amalgram and fusion of the present, past and future tenses of the verb "to be" in Hebrew, and signifies God's primal unknowable presence in but transcendence of all time, dwelling in eternity. In short, it is understood to mean "the Eternal, ever-living God."

My objections to these statements are as follows: 1) That many would contend that the original pronunciation is not "quite unknown."  2) That "Yahweh," whether correct or not, is than merely speculation, but is based on arguments constructed not only from Hebrew grammar but also from documentary sources. 3) That "Jehovah," far from being a fantastic Christian mistranslation, was constructed from the Masoretic Text according to the same principles used in the anglicanization of words in even the Jewish Publication Society Version. 4) That the discussion of whether YHVH is a "Name" or "Title" is outside the scope of this encyclopedic article. 5) That in general, this footnote's tone is overly concerned with advancing a particular point of view. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mitchell Powell (talk • contribs) 06:21, 22 October 2009 (UTC)

 * It uses a reference tag, and yet it isn't a reference. It doesn't appear to have anything to do with Cassuto's thoughts, se I've replaced it with a reference.  The third "reference" appears to be original research, which should be dealt with.  Actually, most of the article could use proper references.  I'll be putting this on my watchlist, but I've got some other stuff in real life I need to get to before I can cover this more.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:17, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

It is true that the footnote raises a side-issue, and thus can be deleted without detriment. That is fine. However, the substantive assertions of Mitchell Powell, just above, are mostly incorrect. Those assertions advance a particular point of view, which is traditional Christian, to the detriment and indeed obscuration of the Jewish traditional point of view - and, it needs to be stressed, this is a debate about Jewish tradition and language, in which Jewish authorities have some legitimate primacy and at the very least should be heard. The assertions also ignore fact. There is nothing about "Jehovah" in the Masoretic text, and there is no reference to "Jehovah" in the Jewish Publication Society versions, of whatever edition (there have been several). The Tetragrammaton is given as "Lord" in all the JPS translations, in "The Jewish Family Bible" English translation used by British Jewry since the 1880s (revised as the approved English translation used in The Jerusalem Bible published by Koren Publishers in Jerusalem in the 1960s, still widely available), or in almost all other contemporary Jewish translation of the Bible. Indeed one can look in vain for "Jehovah" or even "Yahweh" given as the name of God in Jewish translations of Scripture and prayer book translations in any language, from any period, or in Rabbinic writings, mystical tracts, works of philosophy or of poetry, down through the ages, or even in scholarly introductions to Judaism written by Jewish authorities in the present day. Even Everett Fox, who presents the term as "YHWH" in his English translation of The Five Books of Moses (1995), admits that it is "jarring" and suggests that it be vocalized as traditionally done, as "the Lord" (his Preface, p. xxix - by the way, he also says, loc.cit.: "Both old and new attempts to recover the "correct" pronunciation of the Hebrew name have not succeeded; neither the sometimes-heard "Jehovah" nor the standard scholarly "Yahweh" can be conclusively proven"). What this most basically means is that Jewish practice shows that the Tetragrammaton is not a Jewish tribal name for an ethnic or localized god, but has been regarded down through the ages by Jews as the reference par excellence to the transcendental and universal God of creation and revelation who is beyond all words and names. Translations refer to the Tetragrammaton as "Lord" or its equivalent ("The Eternal" is also found in some modern liberal prayer-books, reflecting the literal meaning of the Tetragrammaton, as already explained - despite Mr. Powell's asserrtions) in whatever language they are translated into, or, when the text is read aloud in its original Hebrew, it is always pronounced as HaShem, "The Name," or Adonai, "the Lord." In vocalizing the Masoretic text, of course, Jewish scholars wrote in the vowels of "Adonai" beneath the Tetragrammaton, to remind their Jewish readers to follow the established synagogue and study practice when chanting the Torah text to substitute "Adonai" for the Tetragrammaton which was strictly understood not to be pronounced. Late Medieval Christian scholars, ignorant of Jewish religion and practice, misread the text and fused the vowels of Adonai to the consonants of the Tetragrammaton, producing "Jehovah," a name that in fact has never been used of God by Jews either in the Biblical period or since. In recent centuries, the constant use of the term "Yahweh" in Christian Biblical Studies reflects a blunt refusal to respect ancient and present Jewish religious sensitivities (traditionally rooted in the Ten Commandments prohibition against casual or slighting use of the Tetragrammaton). I thought I might point that out to the readers of this article. However, it is a side-issue, and we can readily omit it in the article.

The subject does have some relevance, however, to Cassuto's own usage of these terms. As he reminds us, the tendency of secularist-tending or at least non-Orthodox Jewish scholars writing in the academic field of Biblical Studies to use the term "Yahweh" as a kind of password showing their repudiation of traditional Jewish religious practices and norms, and thus their acceptability within the Christian/secular-dominated field of Biblical Studies, is yet another evidence of the complex and ambiguous position of Jews in contemporary society. However, not even assimilated Jews use the term in internal Jewish contexts, private religious prayer or in the synagogue. For scholarly overviews on the subject, I refer readers to the relevant articles in the Encyclopedia Judaica, The Jewish Encyclopedia, etc.

In regard to the footnote showing the lack of in-depth analysis or rebuttal of Cassuto's critique of the DH in most mainstream Christian Biblical scholarship, with all due respect to Ian Thomson this footnote does not constitute original research but is simply a straightforward citation of some highly representative mainstream publications, available to all, which gives the evidence necessary to document the point made in the main article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.107.237.116 (talk) 07:59, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

 * 1. The issue is Umberto Cassuto. The pronunciation of the tetragrammaton is only relevant to the article insofar as original research was being improperly used as a footnote.  Your entire second paragraph, while well written, is not especially relevant.
 * 2. The third footnote is indeeed original research. A proper citation is pointing out on p. 42 of John Smith's Book o stuff those various authors engage in that sort of behavior, instead of pointing at them and saying "see for yourself."  It is a synthesis of sources that advances a position none of those sources advocate to analyze it a trend these sources are not concerned with (which is original research).  We need to find someone else that points out that these sources do this.  Ian.thomson (talk) 14:47, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether it is relevant to mention it or not, but "Jehovah" comes from the Hebrew practice of reverence for the Divine Name. Rather than pronounce it, Jewish readers were expected to use "adonai" - "Lord". To indicate this the Masoretes wrote the vowel points for "adonai" around the letters of the Tetragrammaton. Renaissance Christian scholars, unfamiliar with the convention, read it as it stands and pronounced the combination "Yahowah" - Jehovah.

I read Cassuto's Documentary Hypothesis some years ago and the article as it stands appears fairly accurate, though it doesn't make enough of Cassuto's sarcastic comparison of how the results of literary criticism of Homer were paralleled by the results of literary criticism of Genesis. This, as I recall, took up the major portion of one of his chapters. KendallKDown (talk) 20:43, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Early life and career
"In the 1990s he was for some years deputy mayor of Jerusalem" ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.170.192.91 (talk) 10:09, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Section "Cassuto and higher biblical criticism": ¶7 needs major substantiation or speedy deletion
I've been trying to clean up this Neutrality-Disputed section, which does present some valuable material, but paints with too broad a brush, and tends mightily in the direction of rhetorical flourish. Numerous changes designed to tone down the Tendenz have been effected already (e.g., "Cassuto's refutations above all rather devastatingly demonstrated..." → "Cassuto argued first of all...") in an attempt to save this section; but paragraph #7 just stumps me, and I am inclined just to delete it. How is the reader reasonably supposed to be able to evaluate whether the book being dwellt on here most chiefly, The Documentary Hypothesis and the Composition of the Pentateuch, "can only present a few choice and representative instances to buttress each of the major points Cassuto makes", or whether "La Questione della Genesi ... provides ... a much more detailed examination ... and extends the analysis also to all other significant instances in Genesis used to justify the [Documentary Hypothesis]" (←emphasis mine)?

Anyone who can contribute solutions here, please do so in a timely fashion. Otherwise, after a reasonable wait and when I've got the time, I'm just going to delete the whole paragraph, since it seems to me to represent more of just an apology (i.e., for anyone who still remains unconvinced by the actual support already offered), than it does anything else. Kind regards, and thanks in advance. IfYouDoIfYouDon't (talk) 06:50, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Page Deletion on grounds of notability

 * Oppose. The page has become too long, and the contributions unwieldy. But deleting is not a proper remedy. Cassuto has a lengthy entry at the | Biography at the Jewish Virtual Library with 5 secondary bibliographic references. He is alluded to in the Documentary Hypothesis pages, and with good reason he has had a profound influence on thought in the area, according to the testimony of the proponents of the theory. Another list of secondary sources is found at S.E. Loewenstamm, ed., Studies in Bible Dedicated to the Memory of U. Cassuto on the 100th Anniversary of His Birth (Jerusalem: Magnes Press, 1987), pp. 9-42. Though in Hebrew, since he finished his days in Jerusalem. Cpsoper (talk) 12:24, 18 April 2015 (UTC)

title: Talk:Umberto Cassuto


text:
Bored cylindrical lock

A bored cylindrical lock is a lockset which is installed by boring two circular holes in the door. Door handles may also use the same installation.

Installation

Two holes are bored, perpendicular to one another, into the door. The "face bore" is the larger hole which is bored into the door face and a smaller "edge bore" hole is bored into the door edge. The edge may require additional preparation to receive the latch assembly, typically by routing or chiseling a shallow mortise. Some commercially-sold doors may come prepared to receive one or more bored cylindrical locks, such as entry doors, which typically require both a door knob and dead bolt.

In the United States, typically, the face bore is sized from 1.5 to 2.125 in in diameter and is centered at 2.375 or from the leading edge of the door. This distance is referred to as the "backset." Other, less popular, backsets are at 3.75 and 5 in. Residential doors are normally prepared with a 2.375 in backset and commercial doors have a 2.75 in backset. The edge bore is typically centered on the edge.

History
The cylindrical lock was invented by the German-born engineer Walter Schlage in 1923. The bored cylindrical lock arose from a need for a more cost-effective method of locking doors. The previous norm (still the norm in Europe), the mortise lock, is a more complex device, and its higher manufacturing cost as well as its more labor-intensive installation make the bored cylindrical lock an ideal substitute, both in price and functionality. Because the mortise lock has a larger lock case, a larger and more complex volume must be removed from the door before it can be installed, but the mortise lock may offer additional functions compared to a cylindrical lock; for instance, the mortise lock may include a deadbolt in a single unit, while the cylindrical lock would require separate face bores for a deadbolt and doorknob. The 1923 patent evolved from an earlier Schlage patent filed in 1920 for a lock whose installation required a face bore and surface rabbet, which simplified door preparation compared to a mortise lock.

title: Bored cylindrical lock


text:
Template talk:Book reference

Started a new regression test page under user space
I just started User:Adrian Buehlmann/Book reference regression tests (talk) in the hope that might be useful. Please feel free to contribute there (edits on the page and its talk are welcome). It's intended as an "open house" user page. Maybe we could move that out of user space someday (if the community consents so). – Adrian | Talk 10:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

I moved it to to Template talk:Book reference/regression tests. – Adrian | Talk 22:48, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Logic templates on WP:AUM
See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_meta-templates. – Adrian | Talk 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Can I use this template for press releases?
Can I use this template for press releases? Is it good practice to use a template for a purpose other than it was orginally intended? I don't see a template specifically for press releases. See the press release example. If I set ID = Press release and Publisher = file format (if not HTML), then this template is in the correct format. --Tiger Marc ROAR! 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay. Hope you've noticed press release reference by now. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Location / publisher
Currently, location only shows up if publisher is defined also. For a lot of older works, one often finds the location cited, but not the actual publisher. It would be nice if location showed up even if publisher isn't defined. For example, see Arsène Roux, where I had to add "Publisher=?" because all that is known is that some of his works were published in Rabat. — mark ✎ 08:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

 * May I ask you to wait on this (some days at least). At the moment the further existence of this template here is in danger, because this here has been said to violate WP:AUM, which has recently been elevated to a policy. The exact effects from this has not yet been decided by the lead on this (David Gerard), though the killing of template:qif (which breaks book reference) has been announced with an escape chance that the functionality of qif can be moved into MediaWiki code (the software that delivers this text to you, see proposal). – Adrian | Talk 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Inclusion of hyperlink
Does book reference include the appropriate hypertext to allow for linking the notes (at the end) with the reference (in the text)? Does it include the variables for linking? Here is a portion of the markup from note label  Making this addition (or change) would eliminate the need to have both note label and book reference. Thanks, Steven McCrary 15:29, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

 * Just guessing, but a book reference can and often is cited more than once in an article; possibly in very different contexts. A footnote is always cited only once.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-28 17:22 Z

 * Yes I agree with that, but the ref harvard template (used in the text) includes a link to the notes at the bottom of the page. That way the user can link to the note from the text.  It would be simple enough to include that hypertext in book reference.  A back link (from note to text) is not needed.  Sorry for the confusion (I deleted the  from my original question above.) [[User:Stevenwmccrary58|Steven McCrary 17:30, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite due to WP:AUM
Hi all. Based on work by Netoholic and CBD I prepared a version of the template code for book reference that uses Netoholic's CSS trick. The code is at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/1. Test cases are at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/1. If template:qif really gets removed without a replacement in WikiCode (see Tfd) we could probably use said b-ref/1 which does not include any other template and would thus be compliant with that accursed WP:AUM (See also the lengthy discussions there). Please provide ideas and opinions on how to proceed. Many thanks in advance. Adrian Buehlmann 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I prefer to think of it as the "beloved" WP:AUM :D. I'm sure I'm not the only one that will continue to look into less ugly alternatives as we go forward . -- Netoholic @ 10:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Do you still prefer to remove inclusions of template:book reference from articles (as I think you once hinted) or would you find it acceptable that book reference is used in articles given that we use that proposed new implementation (or any better one as soon as available or invented)? --Adrian Buehlmann 10:18, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I support development of a bot that will replace (but not directly subst:) the occasions where this and other such templates are used. Providing a handy shortcut for creating references is tolerable, but depending on them long-term is burdensome. -- Netoholic @ 17:12, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * So this is where we still disagree. I think using a template:book reference (in a version that complies with WP:AUM)) to add citations to articles clearly outweighs its costs. One benefit is that book data is clearly identified with metadata which can later be used to migrate references to something better (possibly database entries). Another benefit of using such a template is that even newbies are able to create consistent and correct book references. Given that you were willing to further discuss here, could you further specify what makes the new version of book reference so burdensome (from your point of view) that you prefer to rather not use this template at all? Would there be anything we could do such that you would tolerate the insertion of calls to the WP:AUM-compliant book reference template into articles, or do we face the threat that you are actively going to remove such calls? --Adrian Buehlmann 20:08, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I would like to add my voice to Adrian Buehlmann's - The potential and actual benefits of reference templates far outweigh their cost (from an editorial point of view). Furthermore, the implementation possibilities will presumably only increase and improve. Even if there is some cost at present, it is likely to decrease as software improvements are made, especially if they are directed towards this particular problem. "depending on them long-term is burdensome" needs to be elaborated. PAR 20:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Rather than replacing/deprecating templates in general, we should focus on replacing/deprecating meta-templates. Book references, like series boxes, are to me a plausible and useful way of using templates. Radiant_ >|< 17:59, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But that's the point, Book reference is a meta-template. I've been removing it in every article where I've encountered it over the past week or so, after becoming aware of the full ramifications of WP:AUM. Angr ( tɔk ) 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Please note carefully that my proposal to change (which is nearly 100% made by Netoholic) is not a metatemplate. May I ask you to reconsider your removals given that my new proposed version of book reference (see on start of this thread) would be used (instead of the actual revision). Thank you. --Adrian Buehlmann 23:15, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
 * But at the moment, book reference is still a meta-template, right, until it gets replaced by your version? I'll stop removing the template if it's going to be replaced by your non-mt version in the immediate future. There must be some good reason I don't understand why it hasn't already been replaced. --Angr ( tɔk ) 06:02, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
 * The reason is that WP:AUM is difficult to implement and thus takes some time. Second, Book reference is a high use template (WP:HRT) and thus should be changed with caution in order not to stress the servers and the users/wikipedians needlessly. We just cannot do our template-surgery "in situ", reverting back-and forth because every save ripples instantly through to all affected articles. There was also some disagreement how to do that surgery. And last, book reference is protected (due to its high-volume status, see also WP:HRT) and thus it can only be edited by admins. Thank you for giving us time to adapt to WP:AUM. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:48, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The proposed replacement is a "css hack" version of the template, right? Has someone created a "weeble" version? —Michael Z. 2006-01-18 00:49 Z
 * Yes, see User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4. --CBD ☎ ✉ 01:05, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Comparing html output of CSS-trick:

 * with html output of weeble:

 * --Adrian Buehlmann 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * --Adrian Buehlmann 12:33, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * The weeble style call for that would be:

 * --Adrian Buehlmann 12:40, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If we can get a license from Netoholic and Phil Boswell to use that (or at least a promise not to revert us), I would agree to take the weeble solution, given that strong CSS-hack opposition we now have (see MediaWiki talk:Common.css). BTW we can add some newlines to the weeble code so that it doesn't look so ugly (an example of a weeble template with newlines can be seen at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Infobox TV channel/2006-01-02). --Adrian Buehlmann 12:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Couple of things. First, I've seen some indication that Netoholic is working on ways to reduce/remove the non-CSS browser problems... still using CSS to hide data, but stripping out any extraneous 'junk' from the final rendering. I'd like to see more about this and get thoughts on whether it is viable. There are a couple of minor things where CSS coding is tricky or doesn't work right (parameters with line breaks in them & conditionally setting styles), but there are similar issues with Weeble (problems with anything that uses '|' as a separator - including table markup), but those can be worked around. The biggest issue is the browser compatibility problem. Second, is it worth exploring 'dual calls' for things like Book reference if we go the Weeble route? That is, change the current 'Book reference' template so that it contains nothing except, and then put the 'Weeble' version at a 'Book ref2' template. This would allow all of the existing 'Book reference' calls to continue working without adjustment (the '|if=' gets inserted prior to the call to the second function) while future calls could go directly to 'Book ref2' by including the '|if=' in the new calls. It is double transclusion, but would result in a seamless transition. A bot could then later be set up to change the older calls to the new format or this could be done manually to eventually remove the intermediate step. --CBD ☎ ✉ 13:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Used newest idea from Netoholic as per User talk:Adrian Buehlmann: The code (CSS variant) is at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/2 (diff). Test cases are at User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/work/b-ref/2 --Adrian Buehlmann 14:01, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * html output of b-ref/2 is:
 * Certainly an improvement. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Certainly an improvement. --Adrian Buehlmann 14:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Documentation for Netoholic's CSS trick
I have started a detailed documentation of Netoholic's CSS trick under my user space at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Conditional expressions with CSS. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

CSS hack reduces accessibility
I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion. I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.

This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS. This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers. This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility. Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens. —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z

EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Locked
Why is this page locked? Please add sk:Šablóna:Knižná_referencia into the section. I don't know if that is common practice but sounds reasonable to me and it's practical. helix84 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, and thank you. —Phil | Talk 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to change
I hereby request to exchange to contents of template:Book reference with http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adrian_Buehlmann/work/b-ref/2&oldid=35708984. The actual content of template:Book reference violates WP:AUM. The replacement conforms to WP:AUM and is a full replacement for the existing template. All features are kept. It is a good replacement for now. See also discussion above. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:14, 18 January 2006 (UTC) Withdrawn. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:36, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I've used a modified version of that replacement template to replace Template:Conference reference, which wasn't protected since hardly anyone uses it. It works. Thanks, Adrian! Melchoir 21:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Credits should go first-hand to Netoholic, who is the original inventor of this CSS trick and to CBD. I've just tested and formatted/commented a bit. Please note that this might not be the definitive solution for all times but at least we have something that works and is compliant with WP:AUM. Very best thing would be to have a conditional feature in MediaWiki but unfortunately we cannot wait until that happens. BTW thanks for helping on Template:Conference reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:06, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Ya! Melchoir 22:13, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this change (as you may have expected). The proposed template may be compliant with WP:AUM, but it's not at all compliant with controlling the basic content of pages. Although hidden from visual browsers using the CSS hack, the blank template contains the following literal content:

 |,,  . ""  [ ], , , , : . ..

As mentioned elsewhere, this technique breaks accessibility (including a WCAG priority 1 checkpoint), and adds arbitrary classes to HTML elements on the page risking page layout breakage. —Michael Z. 2006-01-19 00:21 Z

 * Applying the blank template violates its semantics as the title paramter is required. So you will never find the blank temlate applied regularly to any article. The minimum required parameter is title. If its value is gieven as "TITLE" the html code of my withdrawn proposal would have been:
 * . :--Adrian Buehlmann 09:44, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * With due respect: Per "and adds arbitrary classes to HTML elements" you are plain wrong. By carefully reading you will notice that I have integrated a very good idea from Netoholic that ensures that only the class "hiddenStructure" is used (exactly written as this). There are no more "arbitrary" classes. Please note that there has been a significant update to the CSS trick. The core element of the newest version of the CSS trick now looks like this:  .   is then removed by HTML Tidy so you will never find things like "classXXX" in the html. --Adrian Buehlmann 10:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If I understand correctly, Netoholic's adjustments greatly reduce the amount of extraneous text which would be passed in non-CSS browsers, but (as above) don't eliminate it entirely. I think Neto's changes hide the CSS structure and unset parameters (by just always defaulting them blank) but leave hardcoded text (in this case the punctuation) triggered by the conditions in place. Is that correct? There also seems to be some concern about not complying with accessibility standards. Does the Weeble example above comply with those standards? Since Weeble is entirely based on Wiki logic I'd assume it doesn't break any standards, but may not be any more portable than CSS. If CSS only has a problem with unsuppressed conditional text (non-parameters) then I'd think it is ok to use it on templates which don't have such text - of which I can think of a few. I'm still wondering what people think of double transclusion Weeble... existing calls stay the same and the existing templates are changed to just call weeblecode versions by inserting the '|if=' (as outlined above). I'm pondering a 'Reference' template in Weeble which is called by 'Book reference', 'Journal reference', et cetera and just passes in the relevant parameters for each (along with the 'if'). --CBD ☎ ✉ 00:40, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I withdraw my request to change. I think it would have been a viable temporary solution. If anybody can agree with CBD's proposal above (weeble plus an additional level of template call) I agree with that. I would also be willing to add the necessary |if= directly to all calls of book reference such that there is no additional call level. If there is clear consensus to do this, I would offer to do this with my bot account. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:32, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I object to your bot doing this task. This "if=|" statement will be confusing to new editors, and there is still an option on the table to make it standard practice that reference templates be replaced with their wikitext equivalents on a regular basis. -- Netoholic @ 09:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Objection accepted. I will not run my bot to add this. So there remains the additional call level option. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think '|if=' is any more confusing than templates in general. If it is used people will learn to understand it. That said, the best option may be text replacement with some sort of marker template that never gets updated. The reason I say this is the frequent use of book references. No matter how a template for them is implemented they will still run afoul of the primary concern driving WP:AUM. It really doesn't matter whether there are several thousand meta book references or several thousand simple book references... every time the formatting template is updated every page which calls it gets purged from the cache and then needs to be rebuilt the next time it is called. So how about this idea. We have a template which does nothing except attach the anchor point to the text; . This passes in the text and the id name for the anchor point (in this case you could link to the text with  ). Since the template has no conditional behaviour CSS & weeble become irrelevant. All references are still linked to a template, but since that template does very little updates to it should rarely be needed. The only drawback is that you can't quickly change the format of all references to a new standard... but you could have a bot which goes through and updates the parameters passed to this simple reference template to put them in whatever new format. Thoughts? --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:06, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Now it's me who strongly objects. The calls to the template now designates the book info. It is meta-information that should be kept ("Which string is the title?", for example). This can later be converted to citations supported by MediaWiki. Compare:

 * with
 * I cannot see what a bot could do to book references if that meta information is removed. bref's will quickly detoriate without any chance for a bot to extract the book data. The general idea isn't that bad, but why for god's sake do you all try to fix each and every problem that might possibly emerge in this one step? CSS trick gets added all around and is now in thousands of articles. Why do you folks make an example here. I think some people simply use WP:AUM as a lever to shoot book reference. Why can we not keep the status quo and use the CSS trick for now (in its newest form) as a temporary solution to implement WP:AUM? We could then look in all calm for a better approach to handle all issues brought up. Qif is up for immediate shooting, guys! --Adrian Buehlmann 12:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm just enumerating options. To me any of them are acceptable as a temporary solution. I believe the objections are;
 * I'm just enumerating options. To me any of them are acceptable as a temporary solution. I believe the objections are;

 * 1) CSS - Doesn't comply with accessibility standards and generates extraneous text on some browsers (though not as much as it used to)
 * 2) Weeble - '|if=' is confusing (I disagree) and requires alot of existing calls to be updated (though that can cause zero disruption if done with a doule template and bot)
 * 3) Ref template/No template - difficult to update format of references in the future
 * The first two seem like the best temporary (until MediaWiki incorporates conditionals) solutions to me. At which point it really comes down to whether we prefer to have the accessibility problems or the extra work. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Summing up Request to Change voices
Summing up the actual state of voices: I do have support to change template:book reference to the newest CSS trick version:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Adrian_Buehlmann/work/b-ref/2&oldid=35708984

(at least as a temporary solution) from: Opposing:
 * Netoholic
 * Phil Boswell ,
 * Sam Korn ,
 * Radiant!
 * PAR
 * angr
 * CBDunkerson
 * Mzajac
 * Mike Dillon (use qif)
 * Xolatron use qif or if (see bottom of page below - Changing qifs to ifs)

--Adrian Buehlmann 13:11, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Done, as a temporary solution. —Phil | Talk 16:24, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

 * It's not entirely clear to me after skimming this page if this whole thing is the result of trying to avoid meta-templates, but if it is, please go read what lead Mediawiki developer Brion VIBBER wrote on that page about the realities of using meta-templates (a breath of fresh air after the constant FUD about them). Mike Dillon 16:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the notice. But it is still not clear what we should do. Brion wrote "I'd like to ask that anyone fighting against ugly, fragile meta templates at this time do so based on their ugliness and fragility". This still leaves a lot of room for interpretation. Qif, CSS, weeble - alle are ugly and fragile. Qif was up for immediate shooting. I have no clue wheter this still holds true. But I doubt if we gain much by replacing one ugliness with another. Lot of clarification is needed. I've asked Brion at WP:AUM. No answer yet. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:42, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Brion also said (at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Questions re server load from images in userspace):
 * Generally, you should not worry much about little things like templates and "server load" at a policy level. If they're expensive, we'll either fix it or restrict it at a technical level; that's our [the developers] responsibility.
 * To me, this seems to make the accessibility issues created by the CSS hack trump any supposed "server load" argument. This is why qif should be used, despite its "ugliness", since it is no more "ugly" that the CSS thing and doesn't break accessibility. Mike Dillon 19:00, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Me too. But there are lots of strong prominent opponents of qif (Snowspinner, David Gerard, Netoholic, Sam Korn, others?). We should wait upon this is clarified. Ugliness and fragility are not helpful without clarification. There is a lot of confusion ATM. --Adrian Buehlmann 19:22, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I oppose the CSS trick for this template. It breaks pages in browsers that don't support CSS, e.g. lynx. (Perhaps it wouldn't be too hard to make MediaWiki strip out the contents of <div class="hiddenStructure"> tags. I know MediaWiki already uses some HTML tidying program.  That would solve the problem.)  dbenbenn | talk 22:19, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Wikipedia CTO Brion VIBBER is with you. He has indicated that he would consider adding something to the MediaWiki software. See Wikipedia talk:Avoid using meta-templates. I propose to be nice to him and not asking more than needed. Maybe we can keep qif until we have that in MediaWiki. I would propose to watch closely what Brion says. The future looks bright... --Adrian Buehlmann 22:48, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * If MediaWiki had the equivalent of Qif implemented natively (e.g. as new wikitext syntax), this whole thing would be pretty much moot. I've seen at least one prototype implementation floating around at m:User:AzaToth/Logic. Mike Dillon 22:37, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Better to add qif or whatever is necessary to make the template work right, than implement another after-the-fact fix. An extra text filter to strip junk template output is still a hack, but not nearly as bad as extra CSS classes to hide it from some browsers.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 21:05 Z

Removing this template is easy
Since the CSS hack has been added, I've replaced book reference and journal reference with literal text in the references section of "T-34". The change was pretty easy, although to approximate the template's previous output I added something like  to each item on the page.

Removing the template actually allowed me to improve the format slightly, adding quotation marks around article titles, avoiding double punctuation after an article title ending with a question mark, and avoiding an undesirable space between the issue and page numbers.

This could be made even easier by using a simple template that wrapped the citation tag around the literal content and added a backlink, but it's not necessary. —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 21:19 Z

 * I've created wikicite and wikiref to make this easier. Example of use: T-34.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 04:19 Z
 * No, please don't remove the template. Changing to use the CSS hack is a temporary measure to stave off the deletionist hordes: there is every possibility that we can revert to some version of the conditional syntax at some future stage, and we need to have the template in place to take advantage of the change. —Phil | Talk 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Request to switch back to using qif
The policy tag on WP:AUM has been removed by CTO Brion VIBBER, it's not even a guideline. So I see no longer enough reason to use the CSS hack on book reference or on any other citation template. I hereby request to switch back to using the qif variant (11:42, January 18, 2006 UTC by Phil Boswell) and keep that until the minute we have conditionals in MediaWiki, which Brion indicated that he would be willing to do. --Adrian Buehlmann 21:53, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Oppose. Brion said that meta-templates have not been proven to have a impact on the server level, though he still says meta-templates should be avoided.  Let's stop touching this template, and start removing it from active use by replacing with wikitext and Cite mark-up. -- Netoholic @ 22:08, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you're referring to Cite/Cite.php, which would make rather more sense, that is actually a replacement for the footnotes system, which should actually be used in conjunction with the citation templates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Support. Actually Brion said that meta-templates should not be used if they are ugly/confusing to users. Qif isn't confusing... and unlike 'hiddenStructure' it has the advantage of working in all browsers and other language Wikipedias. --CBD ☎ ✉ 22:33, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support fixing the broken output of this template. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 00:54 Z

 * Support - Cite markup does not help users format references consistently, whereas this template does. Mike Dillon 03:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Support - From an editors point of view, I am in favor of any technique which imposes a database-like standard on citations, so that:
 * new users can easily write properly formatted citations
 * certain operations such as gathering statistics on citations, collecting all citations by author, or some other database field, etc. can be done easily and reliably.
 * Massive changes by bots can be done reliably.
 * Anything that makes that work has my support, given that it is not a detriment to the big picture. If "qif" does it better than "hiddenStructure", then qif it is. User:PAR 03:35, January 24, 2006 (UTC)

 * Support a little late for the poll ;). QIF can do things that the CSS hack can't and the CSS hack has accessibility issues that others have raised. The accessibility issues are actually legal issues as they raise the spectre of Section 508 compliance. David Newton 16:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

At this stage, I would (surprisingly you might think) advise caution. Frobbing the template back-and-forth between the rival implementations simply hands over ammunition to those who want to make out that these templates are evil. As we know well, it's changing these templates which is likely to put most strain on the servers, so I think we ought to keep the changes to a minimum.

I am aware that there were various changes afoot just before this whole thing blew up: I reckon this would be as good time as any to buckle down and test those changes thoroughly before we put them into action. I have a thing I was working on, and you can see the small amount of progress I made here. Does anyone else have some changes they wanted to make? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 08:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. I generally agree with you. But you were not that reluctant to do this. Didn't that lead to a cache invalidate of all articles which include book reference? If this was worth it, I would consider to just revert to the latest qif version because those Wikipedia users that are visually impaired are actually affected by the CSS hack. See also MediaWiki talk:Common.css. We also have editors that remove book references due to that. I agree that nedless switching back and forth should be avoided, but this switching back is caused by the switching back and forth of a policy and a group of prominent admins pushing it without understanding its consequenses. I think we have now seen enough of those consequenses. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * You know full well why I made that change since you were the one who posted the request on my talk page to do it as a temporary stop-gap measure to stave off deletion. We need to tread carefully until the situation can be resolved one way or another, and avoid shooting ourselves in our collective feet. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:23, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Puzzled. But ok. No intention to shoot in anyone's feet. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:36, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Phil, you seem to be talking about the change to the CSS version... the link Adrian asked about above was actually a change to add a link to a foreign language version of the template. He was asking whether a change like that wouldn't have also invalidated the cache and suggesting that it thus wasn't really that big of a deal. As to what to do... well, these references are currently being converted to plain text to fix the CSS hack caused display problems. If you wait to replace it you'll have to rebuild more of them or leave them as simple text. --CBD ☎ ✉ 12:46, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Still puzzling. Just to make shure that there is no misunderstanding: Phil, you are certainly not part of that "group of prominent admins pushing it" (the CSS hack). I thought you know who I mean. I was in fear of snowspinner blanking qif, that drove me to request the CSS here. Yes I was the one who asked you to put the CSS thing here, because I felt book ref was in danger and CSS was the best thing I had at that time (remember: evreybody was against nearly everthing and Neto still wearing his WP:AUM license). The removal of the policy tag on WP:AUM completely changed everything. Just to make shure, the diff I was referring to above was the addition of an interwiki link to give an example of a change. Hmm, seems I've gotten between the fronts now... sigh. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:56, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, yes, I misunderstood which diff you were referring to: that was a minor alteration which would not have sparked any meta-template row, and I went ahead and did it because I couldn't think of any good reason not to. I'm obviously having a bad week [[Image:Cry.png|16px]]. My argument stands, however. We need to avoid bouncing straight back with a qif-based implantation which we then proceed to fiddle with, adding new features to and tweaking. This is an excellent opportunity to test out some additional features which we have been wanting to consider for a while but got distracted from, like adding a chapter-specific URL for instance. If there is the outside possibility that the conditional syntax might be added in any reasonable time-frame, it would also grant us a much higher moral ground if we were willing to wait a bit and cooperate with Brion at WT:AUM. FWIW I haven't seen anyone commenting on my thing yet: I was wondering if anyone had any better ideas? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Looks like Phil's answer wasn't good enough. Why are people in such a hurry? -- Netoholic @ 16:32, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

 * No wonder, what a fabulous statement. May I remind you that it was me who asked you to wait abolishing book ref until we have conditionals in MediaWiki (My "deal or no deal question" - remember?). When it comes to implement your agenda, it can't be fast enough. But when visually impaired users complain about lousy html and Wikipedia CTO Brion VIBBER says we shouldn't produce that kind of html then we are in a "hurry". Messing up things again? --Adrian Buehlmann 17:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Per 4/5 consensus above, I've reverted to the version of 05:42, 18 January 2006. —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 15:22 Z

New parameter ChapterURL
Phil Boswell wrote above:
 * "FWIW I haven't seen anyone commenting on my thing yet: I was wondering if anyone had any better ideas? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)"

Looks good to me (diff). I see not reason to be against that. I assume you have tested that. So, why not? --Adrian Buehlmann 15:39, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Added, following successful testing. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Changing qifs to ifs
Why not change the qifs that just test for the parameter's existence be replaced with ? It would help against meta-template arguments. -Xol 03:16, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * There are non such params. (You can see that a lot of them perhaps look like that, but adds a comma or a space also) → Aza Toth 03:18, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Thank you; never mind, you are right - it was a hasty judgement, sorry. -Xol 03:27, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * I'm a big advocate of that method, but it requires an 'if' parameter to be set blank in the call to the template. There are basically two ways to accomplish that:
 * Go through and change every single existing call to.
 * Change Template:Book reference to

 * The first is a huge amount of work. The second is exceedingly simply (it just adds '|if=' to the existing parameter list), but technically would make it a 'nested template'. Of course, it is currently making something like twenty 'nested' calls to qif and booland (which itself again calls qif)... as opposed to just one extra template call under the version above. I actually set up Template:Reference with the if parameter method above and tested it on User:CBDunkerson/Sandbox4... so we really could just change the template to the code above and all existing book reference calls should work with that one extra template call instead of the current twenty or so. Good idea? Of course, people could also just include the '|if=' in a direct call to 'reference' and then it isn't a 'nested' template at all. --CBD ☎ ✉ 03:36, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Given the recent vaporization of WP:AUM I would recommend not to waste wikipedian-hours in another trip on premature optimization until the wiki gods know what they want in re conditionals in MediaWiki. --Adrian Buehlmann 17:52, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Yes, I'm all for that vaporization. Limiting useage of qifs is/was a terrible idea. I'm sorry about posting this when looking at it for a longer time, it appears best how it is. -Xol 05:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Optional feature
It would be nice if there were an option for generating an unparenthesized date at the end, which is one standard reference style. This is not urgent; I'm keaving the year out and adding it by hand; but the template would be a more useful information store the other way. Septentrionalis 04:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This is what I was afraid of
I knew it would eventually happen, but I'm very sad it did. An editor actually replaced a perfectly standard wikitext reference sections with this template. It's one thing to try and argue that this template is needed as a handy shortcut tool for new and old editors. It is another thing completely to take this tool beyond that point. It seems to me that editors that like these reference templates ought to first decide whether any "special markup" for references, beyond simple italics, is specifically necessary and desireable across the board. If so, then there is no way this template can even begin to be usable across more than a simple percentage of articles. Don't use template to take the place of making software feature requests, like Cite.php. If you expand the use of this template too far, you're only creating extra work for editors down the line. I'd encourage people to use this minimally and only for adding new references. Where possible, straightforward wikitext is better and complex meta-templates should be avoided, since they can be a barrier to new editors. -- Netoholic @ 21:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * Noone complained besides you. BTW by using this kind of wiki source:

 * I actually increased the information compared to the original wiki source:

Berkeley: University of California Press, 1996, ISBN 0520089065
 * Ruth Lewin Sime, Lise Meitner: A Life in Physics,
 * As you can see the information is now tagged. We now know that "Ruth" is the first name of the author, and "Lewin Sime" is her last name. Something which is not deriveable by a computer from the original reference as there is such a wide range of formats. I would say this alone merits my edit on that article, which you reverted (there are other benefits too). The goal of wikipedia is not only to write good articles, the wikitext itself also represents a value. These kind of references can be easily gathered by any bot to be used for whatever we will have for book references in the future (best some support in MediaWiki, which is very likely to happen some day). In the mean time, I would recommend not going around and systematically remove these template calls. You had no valid reason to revert these book reference calls on Lise_Meitner. Please note that Netoholic is pushing againg his message on WP:AUM (despite it has been downgraded from policy to essay by Brion). He is the only person requesting not to add conditionals to MediaWiki. So he must be against templates like book reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to add meta-data to articles, write a proposal for standard (see Persondata for a similar proposal, though still a little premature). Once you have a standard, then ask the developers to create a reference tool for you to use, then we editors can go out and make one single pass and implement it. -- Netoholic @ 22:36, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this is the wrong way to do it. We need some initial use of things like Book reference to see what exactly is needed. If we do not start such activities, we will never have any progress. It is normal that wiki source capabilities lags behind actual need. Otherwise we all would write plain html. --Adrian Buehlmann 22:42, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but by all measures we're well past the "initial use" phase, and your edit shows you think this mechanism is ready for broader use... replacing perfectly fine wikitext. -- Netoholic @ 22:51, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes I think this is ready for broader use. Another question: do you say you remove book reference calls only if they were used to replace perfectly error free references? Does this mean that you do not remove calls, if they were inserted to replace erroneous references to books? (Just to know what kinds of reverts we will face from you in the future). --Adrian Buehlmann 23:05, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That is uncalled for. -- Netoholic @ 23:29, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

 * As a somewhat philosophical side note: I find it very interesting, that writing a bot that converts calls of book reference to plain old wiki source is easy. But the other way round is impossible. So I see not much danger in using book reference for Wikipedia. In fact it's rather the other way round. --Adrian Buehlmann 00:00, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Netoholic, I'm an editor that is very glad to use templates like Book reference whenever I can, instead of plain wikitext. The reason is that it helps me do a better job, more easily. It helps me gather all the relevant data, by giving me a list of parameters to fill out. It takes care of formatting, letting me concentrate on the content only. And I have confidence that in the future it will be easier for an automated mechanism to carry forward data from a structured template than plain wikitext. Templates as a mechanism have weaknesses, but I'm surprised that you seem to prefer no mechanism to this limited mechanism. What am I missing? --Jdlh | Talk 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Can I use this for papers & essays?
The only template I can see is Citepaper, which is most unsatisfactory. Is it okay to use this template instead? ··gracefool |☺ 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Why not? It's up to you. It's good not to fork a template if it isn't needed. BTW, there was once an attempt to merge the citation templates into one big thing (template:citation). But this has lost some momentum due to the recent WP:AUM hell. At the moment, there seems to be a little ceasefire though. But confusion and disagreement about WP:AUM is still eminent. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * It's lacking a few attributes, however - eg. the Parent Publication & its details. ··gracefool |☺ 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

 * You may also want to look at Journal reference. Mike Dillon 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Mike. ··gracefool |☺ 04:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Needs accessdate and accessyear attributes to go with URL
This template needs some date and year attributes to show when the URL was last accessed, in case the link dies (as they often do). See Template:Web reference. Any time you have a URL, a date of last access is handy because it often means the page can be recovered through the Internet Archive. ··gracefool |☺ 04:21, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've created which adds these. It also adds the format attribute from web reference. All-lowercase attributes are now allowed. Any objections to changing the template to this? ··gracefool |☺ 01:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Some preliminary comments (I have yet to think about your proposed new parameters "accessmonth", "accessyear" and "format"). First it would be good if you could put such proposals under your user space and not in the template namespace. I would recommend for example to move the contents of template:book reference test to User:gracefool/Book reference test (or whatever name you prefer after the "/"). Technically, there is no need to have test templates in template namespace. For the example I gave, you then can just call that template as . Please move template:Book reference test to under your user space and then edit the remaining redirect at template:book reference test and replace it if  . --Adrian Buehlmann 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I perfectly agree to switch over book reference to lower case parameters. But I would recommend not to do it as you are proposing. I think it is better to create a new template, for example under the name template:cite book which provides lower case parameters exclusively and then replace all calls to book reference with calls to "cite book", thereby adapting the paramaters call by call. I would volunteer to do this on all articles by using WP:AWB. book reference could then be deprecated and deleted when done with this. I made a similar proposal at template talk:Journal reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:35, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Hmm. As per the proposed new parameters "accessmonth", "accessyear" and "format" I see a bit a problem with the recently added parameter ChapterURL (see Template talk:Book reference). Would that need an access date too then? (just some ruminating, your idea needs further thinking). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Thanks. Moved. I don't see the benefit of having exclusively lower-case parameters - what's wrong with being able to do both, like with web reference? As for ChapterURL, I don't think that's a problem it should be at the same site as URL, and it's unlikely that one page would disappear without the other also disappearing. If ChapterURL does disappear, it should be easy to fix, so long as there is an accessdate for URL (which is less likely to break). ··gracefool |☺

 * The benefit of having exclusively lower-case parameters is simplicity of the template code, and ease of maintenance on the template itself and on the call side. It seems to me that the users tend to prefer lower case params anyway and that there is some consensus to prefer that. On web reference the doc talks about upper case params as "obsolete". I would propose to deprecated upercase entirely. It is very hard to go back from a two-way template (upper- and lower case) to single way (lowercase only) template. Onother – maybe no longer so important – argument comes from that pressure originating from WP:AUM and the threat to template:qif. The reasoning behing this is that if qif should get abolished (which happend to if) before we have conditionals in MediaWiki (see my talk with Wikipedia CTO Brion Vibber at User talk:Brion VIBBER) it would be nearly impossible to convert book ref to using weeble code trick (example) or hiddenStructure (the only stop-gap alternatives of qif known today). WP:AUM lost some momentum (policy tag has been removed). But the battle on qif is not yet over. I think we have a ceasefire now. Wikilife is still dangerous and complicated here. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:56, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

 * No freakin' way. qif is so much better than the alternatives. hiddenStructure is not an option, since it breaks the site for many browsers. I'm in favour of a meta-template for references, since they are all almost the same. Eg. using a meta-template with Media=Book for books, Media=Journal for journals, etc. So I see my new as a temporary measure. Keeping the same name makes adoption faster and easier. Qif can't be deleted easily, since so many templates use it, so I don't think the added complexity of different casing matters much. ··gracefool |☺ 12:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * In re qif "No freakin' way" you might want to make yourself heard on WP:AUM. Another battleplace is here. I'm in favour of a meta-template for references too. But I recommend going low case params in the long run (but is not so important). Interim question: do you agree at least to deprecate the uppercase params in the doc on book ref like on web reference? --Adrian Buehlmann 14:55, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm entertained that you think of it as a "battleplace". This template is far more complex than the very simple wikitext it's trying to replace. Ugly. -- Netoholic @ 15:52, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Welcome back. This was just for the "No freakin' way" section. BTW, I strongly disagree with you (as most of the time). See the whole useless discussion at WP:AUM (at least we have a place to dump that there :-). --Adrian Buehlmann 16:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Ok, I will. Yeah, lowercase in the doc is a better idea. ··gracefool |☺
 * Actually, I now agree it should be only lowercase. Changed my template to only lowercase, and moved to User:gracefool/cite book. ··gracefool |☺ 06:57, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Looks much simpler now. It is good to keep it as simple as possibly (as per the ugliness). How about deprecating book reference and start a new one at template:cite book (with only lower case params)? I would volunteer to convert all calls to the new cite book. We are already doing the same on template:journal reference (see User:Adrian Buehlmann/AWB/migrate to cite journal), which I deprecated in favor for template:cite journal while talking with user:Splash on this. It is better to do the migration by the help of a new template. See also the discussion on my talk with Splash on this. --Adrian Buehlmann 08:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * If you like. What would be really cool is to merge them all straight to citation and save ourselves a bunch of work. I suppose that may be a bit much for people to swallow though.
 * The other thing is, I'm not finished with it yet. I've just added a link field for when the referenced book has its own Wikipedia article. ··gracefool |☺ 10:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I think a one big step into citation is a bit too much in one step, but we might keep that as a general goal in mind. I would propose to do a divide and conquer algorithm and move the reference templates first to lower case one by one. It is also a quite tough job to convert the calls. I'm doing this on journal ref with WP:AWB at the moment (see contribs). Though I have that great WP:AWB I still do have to check each diff carefully as there are some nasty cases that are difficult to catch with regexes. Proposals for better regexes are always welcome. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, cite book is now the stable version of . ··gracefool |☺ 23:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't start moving yet though, I'm still making changes to field names. ··gracefool |☺ 02:57, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont't think starting to move is a problem. As long as we can agree on the spelling of the preexisting parameters (all lowercase). Your new parameters aren't touched anyway, as they are inexistent in the old book reference. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've broken backwards compatability - most of the author fields are different, as well as one or two others. I think most uses of book reference would have been uncompliant anyway because the example template to copy was not lowercase. ··gracefool |☺ 10:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Deprecated
Someone please add the Tdeprecated tag to this template. The new version is cite book, which is easier to maintain because it only allows lowercase fields. It also adds a few necessary fields. ··gracefool |☺ 23:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree with Gracefool. Let's deprecate Book reference in favor of cite book. I will begin to convert calls of Book reference to cite book. This will take some time though (I suppose a few weeks). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Do you want to put the AWB settings somewhere convenient for when we've finished the journal reference→cite journal process? —Phil | Talk 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Shure yes. I will put a pointer here (or you? Feel free to edit my user space!). You are welcome to help improve as done on the settings for cite journal. I intend to use what we have developed on User:Adrian Buehlmann/AWB/migrate to cite journal as a starting point. I think this is quite strong now. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * There are currently some clitches about moving to cite book that need to be resolved first. See template talk:cite book. There is also some opposition from the TfD of Journal reference regarding the name "cite journal". So I do not intend to start moving to cite book right now. Put it on hold. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops. We are a bit too lame here. After looking at the whatlinkshere of cite book I must say that it already spreads into articles (it's used by editors!). So there is not much left for discussing then about breaking changes. I think I will launch my AWB now and start converting book references to the new cite book. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * It's a shame the real problems I mention below are not worthy of your attention either. Pcb21 Pete 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've seen them, but I do not understand them. That's why I haven't answered. The cite book template does the same as book reference. It's only a new name for the template and all parameters are in lowercase. Gracefool added some new stuff, which I partially reverted, because it is not compatible to the old book reference. While I was talking with him about these new proposed things, I noticed that the new cite book already spreads into articles. So what's that bad about cite book then that isn't already bad in book reference? Is it the name "cite book" you have problems with? We already have a bunch of cite xxx templates (see category:Citation templates). --Adrian Buehlmann 13:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Isn't there a difference between a specific citation of a book and listed a book as a reference? For example when citing, I habitually include (a) page number(s), but when referencing I generally don't. Won't the final scheme leaving us having to use the "wrong" template? Pcb21 Pete 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * Further perusing the talk page, I see that the template has a complicated set of instructions for usage. I don't mind implementations being relatively complex (qif etc), as only a small subset of editors will be dabbling there. However almost every editor can be expected to give references, so the client templates need to simple - even if that meets we have to provide a suite of templates rather than one uber-template. Pcb21 Pete 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

 * I've simplified the documentation. ··gracefool |☺ 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I was reciently looking at an old revision of an article which used this template. Which unfortunatly made it imposible to see the actual reference. Would it be possible to change the template so its posible to at least see the basic info, with a less obtrusive depreication notice. --Salix alba (talk) 10:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 3 February 2019
Please tag this redirect with. Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — JJMC89  (T·C) 02:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

title: Template talk:Book reference


text:
Talk:E. D. Nixon (version 2)

Merged content and redirected to Edgar Nixon — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunchboxhero (talk • contribs) 14:36, 16 August 2004 (UTC)

title: Talk:E. D. Nixon (version 2)


text:
User:PPGMD

Hypocrites of Wikimedia, I find it ironic that Wikipedia and Wikimedia demand that all images be of a suitable copyleft license but Wikimedia doesn't give their logo out under the same license, not only that a Featured Picture was delisted because it used the Wikipedia logo. They are all for free information until it's their information that you want.

title: User:PPGMD


text:
User:TheHungryTiger

Howdy!

I should let everyone know that my spelling is amazingly rotten. I will have to lean on other users here to edit any posts I make. Thanks in advance for all the help folks.

I will get around to making more on this page later .....

title: User:TheHungryTiger


text:
User talk:MKing3472

Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Hope you like it here, and stick around.

Here are some tips to help you get started:

 * To sign your posts (on talk pages, for example) use the '~' symbol. To insert just your name, type ~~~ (3 tildes), or, to insert your name and timestamp, use ~~~~ (4 tildes).
 * Try the Tutorial, and feel free to experiment in the test area.
 * If you need help, post a question at the Help Desk
 * Follow the Simplified Ruleset
 * Eventually, you might want to read the Manual of Style and Policies and Guidelines.
 * Remember Neutral point of view
 * Explore, be bold in editing pages, and, most importantly, have fun!

Good luck!

Good article reassessment for Mileena
Mileena has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Kung Fu Man (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

title: User talk:MKing3472