Talk:Alice Ross-King

No link in bold

@user:Nthep With your recent edit (diff) you added a comment "no link in bold" what do you think was in bold? -- PBS (talk) 18:41, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Sorry meant to say no link in first sentence per WP:BOLDAVOID. Trivial links like army ranks can be linked later apart from already being linked in the infobox. Nthep (talk) 18:47, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

@user:NthepWhat has that to do with your removal of the title parameter in the template {{London Gazette}} that I added less than half-an-hour before you removed it? -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

Nothing, but I don't agree with titles in Gazette references especially when it's of the "look here" variety and so many are going to be absent because there is no section heading on the page. To apply context you'd have to insert a link in this case to page 10038 which is the page that starts the listing of MM awards for this issue. Nthep (talk) 19:26, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

So why did you not state that in your edit summary that you "don't agree with titles in Gazette references"?

The reason I came to fix the Gazette citations on this page was because they appear in the monthly error report of the template:London Gazette. They have been wrong since you added them on or before 11:43, 25 September 2015‎.

You write "To apply context you'd have to insert a link in this case to page 10038 which is the page that starts the listing of MM awards for this issue."

Actually that was the page I liked to with the subtitle on that page. however it is not the page that starts the awards that is page 10020. So it seems to me that to follow what you suggest one would have to use the following entry:

• {{London Gazette|issue=30312 |supp=y |date=25 September 1917 |startpage=10020 |endpage=10038 |title=His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to award the Military Medal for bravery in the Field to the undermentioned Ladies, Non-commissioned Officers and Men}}
• "His Majesty the KING has been graciously pleased to award the Military Medal for bravery in the Field to the undermentioned Ladies, Non-commissioned Officers and Men". The London Gazette (Supplement). No. 30312. 25 September 1917.

As the url is created with the entry for the startpage= this means that the person wishing to check the entry will have to scroll through 18 pages before getting to the correct page and then have so scan through half of it before finding the entry. I think that my solution:

• {{London Gazette |issue=30312 |supp=y |date=25 September 1917 |startpage=10038 |title=Australian Imperial Force [See the first 4 entries]}}
• "Australian Imperial Force [See the first 4 entries]". The London Gazette (Supplement). No. 30312. 25 September 1917.

is superior to that solution. or simply listing the page number (when there is a section heading why not use it?) . If you do not like the bit in square brackets than we can remove that.

-- PBS (talk) 12:07, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

so I hit the entry ket before I was ready. You are right I did mean page 10020 is the one that would give context but I certainly do not suggest using all 18 pages as a range when 10038 is all that is needed to locate the correct entry. Here there is a sub-heading but for huge numbers of Gazette references there is no heading or sub-heading on the relevant page so why make a distinction here? Australian Imperial Force tells you nothing about context and a link to page 10020 would be needed to give full context. That said I am not going to die in a ditch over the sub-heading but I do object to the "see first 4 entries" part; a) it looks ungainly and b) it's putting an exaggerated reference in. We don't for every use of cite book after the page reference put "starting at line 20" etc.

As for being errors, |page has been an acceptable substitute for |startpage where there is no endpage so if some database report now throws these up as errors I'd say the report was wrong, sub-optimal possibly but not wrong as the reference was not broken and the link worked if clicked on. If |page is now deprecated then fair enough. Nthep (talk) 20:47, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have copied the text from the template as it was on 17 November 2016 into a test rig under my name. There is no significant difference regarding page parameters between the version at the end of 2016 and 11 July 2015—before you created this page (diff); or between the 2016 and the last time you edited the template in 2013 (diff). Using the version of 17 November 2016 template code gives:

• {{subst:User:PBS/test |issue=30312 |supp=yes |date=25 September 1917 |page=10038}}
• The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 30312. p. . 25 September 1917.

Notice that no page number is displayed and clicking on the link does not link to the given page but to the first page in the supplement. Changing page to startpage:

• {{subst:User:PBS/test |issue=30312 |supp=yes |date=25 September 1917 |startpage=10038}}
• The London Gazette: (Supplement) no. 30312. p. 10038. 25 September 1917.

displays the page number and the link goes to the specified startpage number. I have an unfair advantage over you with this, because I recently dissembled the code and thoroughly tested it before putting it back together as a wrapper around {{cite news}} to make sure it was backwardly compatible with the version I was modifying (most recent change prior to mine being the version in this test rig). There are various new parameters (including title=), but the new wrapper implementation does not break any parameters passed into the November 2016 version that were not already broken.

-- PBS (talk) 20:52, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

Fairy snuff. Nthep (talk) 20:55, 30 April 2017 (UTC)