Henry William Carless Davis

“ I can live with author information in the header too. There are things like categories and linking the subject of the article to an author page (when there is one) that seem interesting to me, but I don't have interest in or time enough to pursue myself. Having an additional display of the author in the header looks like it would not cause problems. The layout makes it reasonably clear it is not eb1911 that is by the author, but the section. So on reflection I won't object to it. I have been an advocate of giving people the flexibility of doing things more than one way, so why not here too? ”

“ I disagree that we should never annotate EB1911 articles. We do not do so in general largely because we mass-add them without any particular attention paid to a single article. However, it is quite possible that an editor may wish to add notes to an article. {{EB1911}} only exists to simplify the use of {{header}} by filling in the constant values, so I don't think we should see this as anything other than a normal use of {{header}}. The links to Wikipedia and Wiktionary are part of the notes, and aren't so relevant as to require that they be more prominently displayed. ”

“ X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia; and our disclaimer" and not "A and B in the Wiktionary, X, Y, and Z on Wikipedia, and our disclaimer". No, that's no always necessary, but sometimes—like "Fashion"—it absolutely is: the Wiktionary entry hits all the bases but the Wikipedia articles for the EB topic are spread all over. ”