Template talk:Cite book/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Use in Bibliography

I wanted to use this template in a bibliography, on a page about the author, but, if the author's name is omitted, it produces results like:

(1972) The White Island. Longman. ISBN 0-582-10903-5.

when

The White Island. Longman (1972). ISBN 0-582-10903-5.

would be more appropriate, Is there a template to do the latter? Andy Mabbett 15:24, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What you are trying to do is not even part of the aims of this template (which is for citation), there's nothing wrong with doing stuff manually sometimes ;-) Circeus 16:18, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Hence my asking for an alternative template. Using this (or a similar) template inserts COinS metadata, which is not present when the book is listed manually. Andy Mabbett 16:37, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Eh. Templates should always be preferred to doing things manually, for a variety of reasons. In this case, it sounds like the proposed template would provide exactly the same information as this one, except with three of the fields presented in a different order. That shouldn't be too difficult to do with an option, like {{Cite journal}} has an option for whether or not to put quotes around the title:

Smith, Joseph III (1879). "Last Testimony of Sister Emma". The Saints' Herald. 26: 289. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)
Smith, Joseph III (1879). "Last Testimony of Sister Emma". The Saints' Herald. 26: 289. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help); Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)

— Omegatron 23:52, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite - for a bibliography on a page about the author, it's redundant to keep giving the author's name (I appreciate that the name needs to be included in COinS and any future microformatted metadata; though it should be acceptable to hide it with, say, CSS). See the example I gave, above, John Lister-Kaye, and compare the clarity of the bibilography with the redundancy in the adjacent list of references (specific edit cited, as I intend to merge those sections, soon). Andy Mabbett 10:43, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

It's still essentially the same thing, though. You're just removing the author and moving the date. An optional "biblio=yes" parameter to format the output should be what you want. Maybe want to think if other formats might be wanted, too, though. Also might want to look at {{citation}}. — Omegatron 12:58, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

An optional "biblio=yes" parameter Yes, that looks good, thank you. I don't have the knowledge or skill to code that. Can you, or anyone, assist, please? Also might want to look at {{citation}} Interesting, thanks - that might do the job for visual presentation, but has no COinS. Andy Mabbett 13:36, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Before editing this template, we need to get a general agreement that this would be a good change.

Yeah, {{Citation}} needs a COinS, but it's a lot more complicated than these other ones. :-) I'll add it after I've added it to the others it can replace. — Omegatron 23:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'll try to be more patient ;-) Andy Mabbett 00:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Of course anyone else can add them, too. I'm not an expert or anything. :-) I just meant, "I'm planning to add them after blah blah". Doesn't mean someone else can't do it before I get around to it. — Omegatron 14:24, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

(outdent)

Any progress? Andy Mabbett 11:33, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Nudge

What about using {{pagename}} ? Andy Mabbett 21:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Double nudge

-)

Andy Mabbett 21:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Another example of where this would be useful: De_Magnete#Editions — Omegatron 02:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Edits

I've requested help, at Wikipedia:Requested templates#Modify 'Cite book' Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 18:34, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Can you (and others as well) please confirm that the second line on User:Edene/Sandboxes/02 is the expected result when biblio=yes is used?. Feel free to test the template on the doc page eDenE 14:13, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - that seems to work perfectly for single-author works, and the COinS tag is displaying correctly. I think it will be of great benefit. However, please note the multi-author version I have just added to your sandbox page. Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've updated User:Edene/Sandboxes/02 and coauthors show up as you requested. I'm not sure if that is (or there is) a proper way. In addition, I thought it might be better to use hideauthor=yes instead biblio=yes, because this is for a bibliography on a page about the author, not all bibliographies.
Regarding coauthors in COinS, the current template is neglecting coauthors in COinS. This is probably because COinS requires authors to be entered separately, i.e. rft.au=Author1&rft.au=Author2&rft.au=Author3, while this template is accepting coauthors in just one string. eDenE 19:04, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I'm happy for other editors to comment on the presentational; aspects; and hope they will. I'm not sure what to do about COinS, but will ask an expert to look by! Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 19:10, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Anyone got any views? Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 20:02, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Should I just request to replace this template with mine? Nothing will be affected by this change, and we can accomodate formats for biblio=yes if needed. Also, what do you think about changing bibio to hideauthor? or any better idea? eDenE 22:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If the are no objections; please do. You might then want to notify Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (lists of works). Andy Mabbett | Talk to Andy Mabbett 14:37, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

template error: editor

i think something has gone wrong with the editor field..

|editor=Bill Shakespeare   shows   "in Bill Shakespeare:"

...i think editor may be switched with edition in the template. --emerson7 | Talk 04:49, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It was added by this edit. It seems intentional, but it may not be appropriate for some ways the "editor" field is used, for instance a work edited posthumously. Gimmetrow 12:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it would look better if it said

in Billl Shakespeare (ed.): Collected Works of a Blacksmith.

Or something like that. CMummert · talk 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

How would one use the templates to form a citation such as: Francis Bacon, Collected Works of a Blacksmith (ed. Bill Shakespeare)? Gimmetrow 14:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Right - these are different sorts of editors. The editor field here is set up for a compilation where each author is responsible for one piece (like an anthology of poetry) rather than for a critically-edited version of a monograph. I don't see any obvious way to make this template meet your request now that the word 'in' is there. CMummert · talk 15:06, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Looks like the coauthors field is currently the best way to handle critical or posthumous editors of a single work. Perhaps the documentation should clarify that "editor" is for anthologies. Gimmetrow 15:41, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is what we have right now.

Francis Bacon (1999). in Bill Shakespeare: Collected Works of a Blacksmith.

A. Poet (1999). "Ode to the moon", in Big Shot: Anthology of Poetry.

I propose changing the template to produce this:

Francis Bacon (1999). Bill Shakespeare (editor): Collected Works of a Blacksmith.

A. Poet (1999). "Ode to the moon". Big Shot (editor): Anthology of Poetry.

This means removing the word "in", adding "(editor)", and adding a period after the "chapter" field. It makes the same syntax work for both types of citations. CMummert · talk 16:54, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

This doesn't work. (ed.) is already widely used, and all of them would break. Also, they are not always "editors", and it can't take into account multiple editors without complicated syntax. Additionally, "in" is more widespread in referencing styles (independently of the presence of (ed.)).Circeus 20:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What about this, then?

Francis Bacon (1999). Bill Shakespeare: Collected Works of a Blacksmith.

A. Poet (1999). "Ode to the moon". Big Shot: Anthology of Poetry.

This involved removing the word "in" and changing the comma after the chapter field to a period. That would be compatible with people who put (ed.) into the editor field themselves. CMummert · talk 15:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Are there any objections to the above suggestion? CMummert · talk 15:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

Not at all... I had the same issue with the current formulation here ande am dismayed this hasn't moved since the above posting date. (I'm in the midst of asking whether it's technically feasible to have a BOT hunt down cite book uses where the editor parameter is defined, given the above discussion.) Failing it's easy resolution, how about an editor2 parameter without the damn preceding "in", AND why can't someone using it in such cases where it's needed provide the short word anyway? Or any necessary trailing punctuation (for all the curlicues just add limits and reduce general utility!) // FrankB 03:11, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The easiest way to track pages in Wikipedia is the 'What links here' feature. However, for that to work there must be links... so I updated the template to add a hidden link whenever the 'editor' parameter is set. It will take a while for the database to update to list all of the pages, but once it does you can just click on Special:Whatlinkshere/Template:Cite book/editor, to get a list of all pages using that parameter. Once the wording issues above are sorted out, this edit should be undone to remove the hidden links. --CBD 10:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

User:Shoons/Cite

This Template:Cite book seems to be great. I wonder if we can integrate into one convenient Template:Cite instead of having several templates such as Template:Cite or Template:Cite video. Therefore I created User:Shoons/Cite so that everybody can use this convenient Template:Cite. My template is not great as this template, of course, at this point but if you aggree with me, we can upgrade it as good as this template. So please let me know what you think.--Shoons 03:51, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean {{citation}}? — Omegatron 23:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I did not know {{citation}} exist. Now {{citation}} does not do what I really want but I changed my mind. Thanks!--Shoons 10:44, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Multiple citations of the same book

Is there some way I can cite the same book more than once? I have written a number of articles on popular songs, citing Joel Whitburn's "Top Pop Records, 1940-55" for chart and label data. In many cases, the song charted in multiple versions, and I would like to cite it in each place where I refer to a version. But if I just put in <ref> {{Cite book ... }} </ref> at each place, it assigns a new number each time, and I get references 1, 2, 3, ... all alike. This is obviously not what I want, so I've had to put it in only at the first reference. -- BRG 20:24, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

There are MANY ways to go about that. In your case, your problem is not with the template, but probably with the <ref> footnotes system. What you want too check is Wikipedia:Footnotes#Citing_a_footnote_more_than_once.Circeus 20:45, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think this is exactly what I need. -- BRG 14:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the problem is with using these templates in the first place. Why not just assign the reference a name (ref name=xxx) and write the citation manually? Then the ref won't keep on repeating itself, and the text will be easier to read in edit mode, because the reader won't have to plough through all the unnecessary template text. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

The templates have a few advantages of their own, but I really am not how to answer, as I can interpret that "Why not just assign the reference a name (ref name=xxx) and write the citation manually?" bit in at least 3 different ways... Circeus 22:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

A difficult citation

I am trying to use {{cite book}} to cite the introduction of the book "On Social Organization and Social Control" (available here via Google Books). Here's the problem: the book was written by Morris Janowitz, but the introduction was written by James Burk, and Burk is the book's editor. What is the appropriate citation style in this case ...

Burk, James (1991). "Introduction: A Pragmatic Sociology". In Morris Janowitz (ed.). On Social Organization and Social Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-02-2639-303-2. Retrieved 2007-05-12.
Burk, James (1991). "Introduction: A Pragmatic Sociology". In James Burk (ed.). On Social Organization and Social Control. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. p. 21. ISBN 978-02-2639-303-2. Retrieved 2007-05-12.

Neither of the above citations is entirely accurate. In the first case, Janowitz is listed in the "editor" field, when he is not the editor. In the second case, Janowitz is not mentioned at all in the citation.

I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 01:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

You might need to format the citation by hand - the templates have not been designed to be completely thorough. C Mummert · talk 01:33, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

"Editor" is just a field name chosen for practicality. I wouldn't worry too much about it being specifically the "editor" (Which is normally specified with an extra (ed.) anyway), especially as the main author is clearly Janowitz.Circeus 01:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Alright, then. I'll go ahead and use the first format (which is accurate in appearance). Thanks, Black Falcon ^(Talk) 02:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

origdate

I've noticed citations which use the origdate=, origyear=, and origmonth= fields do not properly wikilink the dates. I believe added a couple extra brackets ( [ & ] ) will fix this. See the section of code below; each field currently has just one bracket. Since this page is protected, and I'm really not familiar with templates, I'm bringing this here before making the change.

{{
  #if: {{{origdate|}}}
  |  [{{{origdate}}}]
  | {{
    #if: {{{origyear|}}}
    | {{
      #if: {{{origmonth|}}}
      |  [{{{origmonth}}} {{{origyear}}}]
      |  [{{{origyear}}}]
    }}

- auburnpilot talk 19:19, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen. These dates shouldn't be wikified if they don't have a full date (which is rare as heck, so not necessary). Besides, I'm not sure your system would properly wikify a full date anyway. Circeus 21:44, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Won't happen? The very problem is that the code above, taken from the template in its current form, doesn't properly wikify the date. If the template isn't going to be fixed to wikify the dates, we need to remove the brackets. There's no need for a citation to have random brackets for no reason. See the example below, taken from Natalee Holloway. ^[1]

^ Holloway, Dave. "Everybody's Child". Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. pp. 8–10. ISBN 1595550631. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

- auburnpilot talk 01:11, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

The very problem is that the code above[...] doesn't properly wikify the date.

It's not supposed to The format is supposed to be something like:

Doe, John (2004). "Happy Years". History of Foo. Y-ville: X publishing. pp. 8–10. ISBN 1595550631. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

The square brackets are used in combination with normal parentheses to indicate that an old book has been republished, if one wishes to indicate both dates! If you want to wikify the date (or, indeed any element in a cite X template), you have to do it manually (as I did here). I'm sorry Imisundertood your original meaning. Circeus 01:49, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah, well there you go. I've been looking at it from the wrong standpoint. Thanks for the clarification. - auburnpilot talk 01:58, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

coauthors "and"

All of the examples of different styles in the template docs show using "and" or "&" with co-authors, yet this isn't done in the template. Anyone know why? Is there a workaround? With the ; there, I can't just put "and " at the beginning of the coauthor field. Ingrid 22:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure why. I'm assuming "because people will mess it so much it'll get reverted within a week". It's incredible what a mess people manage to make of these templates when they use them. Circeus 23:21, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Using cite_book in a Mediawiki installation

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask this question, so please feel free to point me in the right direction if not...

I would like to use the "cite_book" capability from Wikipedia on a MediaWiki installation I have. The first question, obviously, is whether it's OK to do that.

The harder question is how to do it. Although I've installed and am successfully running Mediawiki on a LINUX server, I'm not deeply enough into the structure and coding to understand what to do. From what I can see, it's a template that refers to a bunch of other templates. If that's the case, then I should be able to get those templates and install them on my system. I haven't been able to find any references or leads to people who might know what has to be done or who might have done it for their own servers.

Would appreciate any help or guidance. Thanks!

Mjgreis 14:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

If you have the ParserFunctions extension installed, you can use the template just by copy-pasting it. Circeus 18:06, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Mjgreis and Circeus. If anyone else finds this and then needs to know: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Help:ParserFunctions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.13.61 (talk) 14:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

ISBN bug

Using all-caps "ISBN" to cite an ISBN # doesn't work; it only works when lowercase "isbn"--annoying. It should allow either identifier... There were broken links on Roswell High School (which I fixed some of) and who knows how many other articles... ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 01:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

All variables in all cite templates are lowercaps, that should be easy enough to deal with. If you really must use the cap, us ISBN=#. Circeus 14:52, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Why can't another all-cap "ISBN=" parameter be made to facilitate the correct capitalization of the acronym? ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:41, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There is no such "capitalization of the acronym" "isbn=" DOES translate to all-caps ISBN in the template.Circeus 00:51, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Um, no. The whole reason for my initial complaint (bug) was that "ISBN=" does't work--only "isbn=" does. I am saying, add an "ISBN=" parameter. You said to use "id=ISBN #", which is not the same as "ISBN=". Duh. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 05:22, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no other uppercase field names, so AUTHOR= doesn't work and ISBN= doesn't work either. There's no reason why ISBN needs to be in all caps as a template parameter, so I think it is unlikely the template will be changed to add it. — Carl (CBM · talk) 13:52, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Basically, we are saying that there is NO BUG whatsoever, only an apparent difference (because really, we're comparing apples and oranges since "ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum" doesn't work any more than "ISBN=1234567890") between the way isbn is handled in templates and normal wikimarkup. Besides, I already mentioned that "id=ISBN 1234567890 Parameter error in {{ISBN}}: checksum" works normally. I fail to see why the change should be implemented now, months after the parameters were added without any complain in-between. Circeus 15:07, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I've already explained why it should be changed--another template, {{Infobox Convention}}, has multiple parameters to deal with different capitalizations of "Genre" vs. "genre", for example. "ISBN" is an acronym which is capitalized; hence, it should have multiple parameters for lowercase and ALL-CAPS versions. ∞Σɛ_Þ² ^(τ|c) 00:54, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Normally I would say we should keep only the lowercase parameters to keep things consistent across all templates, but I'm also in favor of machines being as forgiving as possible. In a case like this, having an uppercase and lowercase parameter will not conflict with anything else, so maybe we should do it? Then again, it would make all the templates more complex to have multiple cases for each parameter... — Omegatron 05:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm a big fan of "OR"ed parameters. For some reason, my fingers automatically hit the shift key for "T" in title and lock in place for URL.<g> Urargggh! ...#if:{{{parm1|}}}{{{parm2|}}}|{{{parm1|}}}{{{parm2|}}}... isn't really a whole lot more complex than just the one, and usually on separate lines in any case. Line separation is easy to force to keep thing more readable by using  to keep nesting clear in a template. It doesn't load the servers much and if it saves a person a preview or two to fix inadvertent capitalization usages, probably nets out way ahead in server time slices saved. // FrankB 03:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Page and pages

How about inserting another "page" besides "pages" into the full-optional template parameter? It might come in handy for those who forget to add an "s", or those who only have one page. I never noted this fact until recently, and I have to add so many "s" to all the mistype edits. It's a good suggestion for this group of people, and it is natural for people to be forgetful at times. Mr Tan 10:51, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, the template option "| page =" needs to be at least mentioned in this article and that it would be filled out as "| page = p. 234 [or whatever the number is]." 5Q5 (talk) 15:06, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

FI Interwiki

Please add fi:Malline:Kirjaviite to the iw. Thanks! -Yupik 19:34, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Done Graham87 14:39, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Documentation tempalte

{{editprotected}} I'd like to request that "{{/doc}}" be replaced with "{{Template doc}}", which wraps the documentation more neatly. —Andrew Hampe ^Talk 22:21, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Andy Mabbett 22:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride 04:13, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

description of the field "id"

I was looking for a (more) thorough description of the field "id" in the {{cite book}}: Empty citation (help) template and others. For example, when one writes 'id = MR2041082' one gets a link to MathSciNet. Are there any other "hidden" features like this? Thanks. Jakob.scholbach 04:01, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Ah sorry, now I see that this is not produced by the template. Jakob.scholbach 04:02, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Please document the 'ref' parameter

I see there's been some discussion here of how the ref parameter (not the <ref> pseudo-HTML tag) is implemented, but I'd like to point out that the very first thing this template does is test for the presence of the ref parameter, and that's not even mentioned, much less explained, in the documentation. - dcljr (talk) 19:42, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I fail to see any discussion of it, but a look into the template code explains how it works. Doing it now. Circeus 17:55, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Title

Currently the title field is a required field since it has no default parameter. Having a null default parameter in the title field is sometimes useful since often times an article will have all of the book's information in the References section and then, when referring to the book multiple times, citations will reference only the author's name, publishing year, page number, and possibly a quotation, but the title of the book is not referenced again. This setup reduces a lot of repetitiveness, but currently the title= field is unnecessarily required in this template resulting in a space in between two commas, , being added to the citation. See the History of Algebra article for an example. Simply adding the | to this template's title field will remove a minor, but nonetheless present, annoyance from Wikipedia. selfworm^Talk) 05:32, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

f consensus develops to make the change I'll do it, but I don't think it matches the intended use of the template. This template is meant for full references only, not for partial references. The metadata will be very odd without a title. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Using this template for partial references will not in any way damage this template. Further, if there is no citation template for partial references then one should be created, or allow this template to be used for that purpose. selfworm^Talk) 21:51, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Calling Special:Booksources w/ ISBN

This is the closest I could find for this. I don't want to use the full cite book template, but just want to have an ISBN link that goes to Special:Booksources or similar in an article, with the ISBN passed. How would I format it? I tried looking through the template, but it's a bunch of gobbledygook to me. Andyross 16:26, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Just ISBN in all caps follwoed by the ISBN: ISBN 0123456789. The explanation page is at Wikipedia:ISBN. Circeus 18:16, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Volume parameter

{{editprotected}} Any chance of a "volume" parameter, for books that span multiple volumes? Thanks :) Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 10:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Are you sure {{cite encyclopedia}} won't do the trick? And how exactly can this NOT be done with the current "title" parameter? "Collected works of X, Volume 3" works just fine. Circeus 16:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

You could use {{cite encyclopedia}}, if you are citing an encyclopedia. If you're not, then you shouldn't. A volume number shouldn't be included with the titlee, IMHO, because it shouldn't be italicised. Besides, it isn't really part of the book's title, any more than any other parameter is. Lewis Collard! (baby i'm bad news) 17:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

If there is consensus for this, the code needs to be written, tested, and agreed upon before the template is changed. Adding an editprotected tag is the last step in the process. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:45, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed that Volume is a useful parameter, and that Encyclopedia should not be used. Can we call this consensus? Cleduc 06:10, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

How is it impossible to integrate volume in "title"? It boggles me how we OMG NEED a new aparmeter when "title=Fooing the Bar, Volume 3: In Search of Foor (19XX-19YY)" would do the trick just fine. What formatting is of such necessity that such a parameter absolutely must be added?? Circeus 14:59, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have a couple of books, both in two volumes, where the pagation starts over in the next volume. My workaround is to set the "pages=" field to something along the lines of "vol. 1, p. 108". Still, it is a kludge. -- llywrch 17:56, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Problem Citing Book

I have noticed that whenever I specify author link, using cite book template, it shows only first name author and puts square brackets around.

Below is an example, how output looks like

[K. N.] [1980] (2002). An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation (Hardbound), 2, International Geophysics Series (in English), USA: Academic Press, 583. ISBN 0-12-451451-0.

Below is example how I used it

{{cite book 
  | last = Liou
  | first = K. N. 
  |authorlink= http://www.atmos.ucla.edu/~liougst/ 
  |title= An Introduction to Atmospheric Radiation  
  |origyear=1980 |format=Hardbound  |edition=2 |series=International Geophysics Series         
  |year=2002 |publisher=Academic Press |location= USA |language=English
  |isbn= 0-12-451451-0 |pages=583}}

pruthvi 21:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks like authorlink must be a link to a Wikipedia article, not an http link. (From the template documentation: Title of Wikipedia article about author.) Andyross 15:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying. Is there any option to include external link of author. Also this problem is only with cite book template, author link works fine with other citation templates. Second part of this problem is why first name appears when using author link instead of usual Lastname, Firstname format. pruthvi 21:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

"author link works fine with other citation templates" That's incorrect. No citation templates that have "authorlink" accept external links in it. This is not a bug, it's a misuse of the authorlink parameter. Circeus 16:36, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Circeus to clarifying it. Now I notice that whenever author link works fine, it is wikipedia link for author. Though the problem mentioned above can not be called bug, nevertheless it requires attention for improvement of template. Firstly, it is not a bad idea to allow for external link of author, secondly, the word authorlink is not intuitive enough to say only wikipedia link is allowed. pruthvi 20:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

We do not encourage such links because they are to pages that are neither sources nor directly relevant to the content at hand. If people actually want info on the author, they will google the names themselves. We have no reason to send them there. Circeus 20:56, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Formatting problem with this template: The entire reference should not display in italics

I've used this template for a long time and maybe it's always done this, but I think I would have noticed long ago. Today I noticed that all of the fields in the resulting citation are displaying in italics. This isn't proper formatting. Only the book title should be italicized. -- WikiPedant 13:54, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Where did you notice this? Circeus 14:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I first noticed this on 2 pages which I watch:

However, it can be seen on any page which invokes the template ,although sometimes it's not very conspicuous, since people sometimes invoke the template within footnotes. But, just looking through the "What links here" for the template, I found these examples which are quite visible:

Abraham Lincoln#Lincoln in art and popular culture
Ayn Rand#Further reading
Andy Warhol#References (Note: In this example, some book citations in the list use the template and some don't.)

-- WikiPedant 17:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

PS - I'm wondering if the problem resulted from an edit to the template by COGDEN, done yesterday (Aug 2) and I have left a query on his talk page. -- WikiPedant 17:09, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This started happening just yesterday; I believe yesterday's edit caused it. Full entries are now italicized, when they were correct prior to yesterday. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:15, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

An error was introduced into this template by yesterday's edit; book references are now incorrectly fully italicized. Can someone pls fix? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm a bit mystified. The template seems to be displaying book citations correctly now, but the History page does not show that anyone has been in there today to fix it. I'll check again later. -- WikiPedant 18:55, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Still incorrect for me; maybe one of us needs cache clearing, aybe the problem was fixed elsewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I cleared my cache, and they're fixed now. That means the problem was elsewhere, and it's been fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:58, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

This is a temporary caching problem. The problem actually has to do with the local page caching for the Common.css style sheet, which sometimes takes a while to update. Some formatting for this and other templates was moved to Common.css, but the Common.css cache is sometimes not updated automatically by the local browser. So some users may have had interim problems for a while. If anyone still has problems, they should clear their cache (Ctrl-F5 or F5, depending on browser) to load the new version of Common.css. COGDEN 20:20, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Translator field

I'd like to suggest an additional argument field -- that of translator. Suggested format and action: Addition of "|translator=Dr. Übersetzer", for example, would add "translated by Dr. Übersetzer" to the expansion (perhaps right before the expansion of the publisher field). I would add it myself, but the template is locked. Karl Hahn (T) (C) 20:57, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

"editor" is normally used for all manners of "extra hands" such as those. However, it is exceedingy rare that the translator be relevant. The most common case is for ancient material (e.g. Greek,latin, anglo-saxon, old indic, medieval texts etc.) that include historiographic comments. However, those work are usually put with the translator as authors because the title mentions the original author. Circeus 15:03, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

In-line 13-digit ISBNs not working for me

This isn't a cite-book problem, but I don't see a better place to ask. For example, none of the 13-digit ISBNs under the three cover images from ...for Dummies work for me. Each results in an Amazon.com 404 error. If I substitute the equivalent 10-digit ISBN, it works fine, an example below. Is this some sort of personal problem, Wikipedia's, or Amazon's? My monobook.js is HERE; I've tried a more vanilla one with no better results. FWIW, pasting the 13-digit number straight into Amazon's search box works fine. --CliffC 21:35, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[[:Image:Wfd_cover.jpg|thumb|150px|left|13-digit ISBN not working, ISBN 9780470043998]]

10-digit ISBN works fine, ISBN 0470043997

Not wikipedia's problem: It's Amazon who can't be bothered to handle them properly. Circeus 15:04, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hanging indent proposal

For a proposal to add an optional formatting parameter to this and related citation templates, which would allow display as a hanging indent, see this discussion. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:47, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A proper hanging indent is practically impossible to achieve by altering only the template: you'd have to style the list they're used in too.
Altering a template for purely aesthetical alternative purposes is silly, this is worse than the quotes thing.
Those things are exactly why user styles were created.

Circeus 03:41, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

In any case, I subsequently created a separate template, {{ref indent}}, which can be used to achieve the same effect over the entire bibliographical listing, whether or not the listing's entries are (aesthetically) formatted via the cite templates. So no need now to make any changes to the cite templates themselves.--cjllw ʘ TALK 01:40, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think it is pointless to pander to every aesthetic variation that is available in the word. Circeus 02:19, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

"Pages" parameter

Hi, what about tweaking this template so that it accepts both "page" and "pages" as parameters, like {{Citation}} does? It's annoying to have to remember that {{Cite book}} only accepts the "pages" parameter when {{Citation}} accepts both. Cheers, Jacklee 15:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Given that it's not that complicated to do, done. But shhhh, don't go touting it everywhere! Circeus 03:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Why? :o Also, how does it work? Does the template return "p." if you use the "page" parameter, and "pp." if you use "pages"? Shouldn't there be something in the documentation about this? Cheers, Jacklee 12:54, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

As with "editor", the template does not, nor has it ever taken in charge the abbreviations used. I only allowed both "page" and "pages" to be used as the variable. Given the number of cases where this would duplicate the abbreviation, it would quite stupid to implement. Circeus 22:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I see. I could have sworn that at one stage either {{Citation}} or {{Cite book}} returned the abbreviations "p." and "pp." for page numbers, but this feature seems to have been removed. No worries, and thanks for your help. Cheers, Jacklee 23:06, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I've figured it out. It's {{Cite news}} that returns the abbreviations "p." and "pp." for page numbers depending on whether you use the parameter "page" or "pages". Obviously this doesn't matter for {{Citation}} and {{Cite book}} as these don't use the abbreviations at all, but it seems to me there should be some consistency across these citation templates: either all the templates should use the abbreviations, or none at all. Cheers, Jacklee 12:26, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Expecting perfect consistency on Wikipedia when a significant portion of the "populace" is staunchly oppose to the concept of the citation templates is at its best wishful thinking. We have infighting right now at featured lists over the formatting of discographies. Circeus 16:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

I had no idea that there were people opposed to citation templates! Still, since those people won't be using the templates anyway, perhaps it may be easier to obtain a consensus regarding the abbreviations "p." and "pp." among people who do? :) Cheers, Jacklee 23:23, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

It has to be pointed out that sometimes they do run into the template inclusion limits (a page can only translate ca. 150 templates) so that some lists (usually) run out of templates. Also, the template is not perfect (which leads to all these innumerable requests for new features and the current difficult to edit and understand Ravioli code. Circeus 01:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

{{citation}} does use pp.. Hesperian 02:49, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

But it's an absolute mess that is inconsistent in formatting with the rest of the cite series which is at best irregularly updated/fixed, and that I wouldn't touch with a ten-foot pole. I wouldn't exactly take it as a model. If it wasn't already so damnedly popular, I would have it deleted.

A damned good reason not to hard code "p. and pp." is that a) we can be certain there are references out there that won't fit that nifty pattern (e.g. that need to cite section or paragraph numbers instead of pages; we already have problems with a simple field like "author"!) and b) [as just mentioned] all the references already including the abbreviations will nicely break. It's basic primum non nocere principle applied to Wikipedia templates. Circeus 03:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a pity you won't plunge into the fray, though I understand completely why. All the {{cite}} templates should really be updated in tandem so they're consistent with each other. I'd be quite happy either if all the templates had "p." and "pp.", or if all of them omitted the abbreviations. Perhaps, for now, you can just eliminate the "pp." abbreviation from {{Citation}} since it's causing grief to Hesperian. (I agree that it looks really bad when you only have a single page number.) Cheers, Jacklee 04:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Circeus, I agree wholeheartedly with not having monolithic templates like {{citation}}. But this is the only template that allows me to write "Cavanagh; Pieroni (2006), pp. 5–21 {{citation}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)", i.e. omitting first names, title, publisher, etcetera, for situations where a reference differs from a previous reference only in page numbers. If {{cite book}} would just loosen up enough to support that, I would use it.... Or perhaps the solution is not to use templates at all for such trivialities.

I also agree with your logic on not hardcoding p. and pp., as I have recently found myself needing to cite plate numbers, in the form "t. 1461." Hesperian 12:21, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why we would need a template to get that format in addition to the normal format (I have, however, been considering a template that would allow a bibliographic-style removal of the author from the displayed result).
That's longer that if you just typed it by hand, with no other appreciable gains.
If cite book did that, all those references would display faulty COinS tags (cite book does not currently check that all uses are proper, and it would be even more unwieldy if it did).
I've long advocated separation of references and notes for such cases anyway.

Circeus —Preceding comment was added at 15:04, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Initials bug

Search this edit for the word "Jerry". I changed "first=Jerry W." to "first=Jerry W" (removed the period), because before my edit it printed as "Jerry W.." (2 periods) which is a software bug. Perhaps it was programmed to add a period to an initial but there shouldn't be 2 periods. Art LaPella 03:13, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't a bug. As far as I'm aware, what happens is that the template adds a full stop after the author's name (e.g., "Gore, Al."). If the first name ends in an initial with a full stop, then you get two full stops in a row (e.g., "Bush, George W.."). It's annoying, but the simple way to fix the problem is to remove the full stop from the initial when you spot the redundant full stop. Cheers, Jacklee 03:56, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I would define it as a bug. Semantics aside, the software could presumably be programmed not to add the extra period/full stop when one already exists. Art LaPella 04:03, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

S'pose so. Sounds like it might require a lot of complicated acrobatics, though. It may not be worth the trouble when there's a simpler (though less elegant) workaround. Cheers, Jacklee 04:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Alas, no. Describing templates as "programmed" is overstating their capabilities. There is no ability to do things like check for a trailing ".", etc. It's a pure text-substitution capability with extremely rudimentary if-then-else and switch constructs. RossPatterson 04:14, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Resolved

– Art LaPella 04:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If you had coded the date= parameter correctly, it would have looked like this: "Ward, Jr., Jerry W. (April 7, 1998). M. Graham (ed.). To Shatter Innocence: Teaching African American Poetry. Teaching African American Literature. Routledge. p. 146. ISBN 041591695X. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)" instead of this: "Ward, Jr., Jerry W. M. Graham (ed.). To Shatter Innocence: Teaching African American Poetry. Teaching African American Literature. Routledge. p. 146. ISBN 041591695X. {{cite book}}: Text "dateApril 7, 1998" ignored (help)"RossPatterson 04:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I added the equals sign accordingly. (I didn't code the date parameter - it was already there when I proofread the entire article for errors like redundant periods.) Art LaPella 04:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Just so it's not overlooked

#template_error:_editor above was never resolved, and bite me lately. My post above. // FrankB 03:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Xpost of thread posted on User talk:Circeus#Cite book news or #Cite book @ user talk:FrankB

Hi! Hope your studies are coming along well.

re: Template:Cite book(edit talk links history)

As you seem to have been the most active responder on this template, I thought an alert to a way to resolve an old issue here, one which recently became an ongoing problem for me has been given a method of resolution by CBDunkerson here in response to my query. I'd also bottom posted to renew the discussion on that.

{SNIP} Cheers! // FrankB 19:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

from: Cite book @ FrankB

I'm starting to think the cite templates (as pointed out) needs a thorough revision in code and formatting. As is, "editor" is both too broad and too strict (we'd need a generic authority field to place after the title, which could include everything from editor to translator). It's a very touchy issue. I haven't reviewed the discussion yet, but I think any addition of (ed.) os something alike is a very bad idea (if only because we need to handle the plural too!) Circeus 19:14, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

The strange thing there on this one was Omegatron did do some sort of upgrade. Or at least I saw a included sandbox in the category, which was a workup for the /doc page. Nonetheless, my own take on it is any additional short punctuation or curlicues (e.g. your '(ed.)' example, my problem with 'in') just limits the flexibility of such tools in the long run. Some inline formatting, when and if common, is in order, but for curlicues saving the five/six characters of " (ed.)", not necessary. Same deal with "in " so far as I can see. I've been away from academic citations for 30+ years until people started using {{unref}} everywhere here, so I can't opine on what is most useful, and standard but if one form is favored in some cases, submit that an alternative 'blank' parameter occurring in the same place in the string being built's stream is a good way to have your cake and eat it too. This sort of logic is simple enough to implement as I did there and in many cases won't need parser logic, as the first or second parameter (leftmost(?), iirc) specified rules, or by the equivalent {{#if:{{{long|}}}{{{l|}}}|then ...| else...}} most of the time. That particular if block has a bug, for now, but that'll be handled. OTOH, that template suggests a good generic solution—style templates adding the mix of desired curlicues calling the plain vanilla Cite templates as a subtemplate. Just as I'm doing in the cite templates here. [Call them Cite book1, Cite book2, ... Note using CBD's technique, where there is a fork in style use, a few days with such temporary link calls can enable substitution by BOT of the pertinent 'styled' Cite template... and bypass unnecessary edits. Where those break points are can be tested in sandboxes, then implemented enmass if each style is first initialized with the current Cite book template, the BOT(s) are run, then the style versions are replaced by the ready sandbox versions. That will also allow spreading out the impact on the server update que, pacing the changes over several days.]

Hence, an hypothetical 'editor2' (Or perhaps 'editor_pv'/'pv-editor' for plain vanilla!) param would allow a blank canvas if specified, or specifying multiple phrases that all accumulate instead of any fixed 'editor' field with curlicues; that is both display in the same stream location of the aggregated and displayed string, and depending on the curlicues in some cases could both be used (if ordered properly), or only one (mutually exclusive). For ways of handling the "optional" parameters in help, see {{Cite GG01/doc}}—you just add the explanation as an options note. Similarly, I've seen some infobox or perhaps another cite template where three variations on 'XXXdate' were depreciated in favor of 'XXXdate2' fields of the same nature, but evidently a different (depreciated) display format. [CBD's technique would allow curing those anomalies if desired, given someone with BOT access and capabilities.]

God knows I'm interested. I posted an offer earlier this month in both the VPP and Wikipedia talk:Citation templates offering to generate a different guide that compliments WP:CITET. Be glad to help with any coding changes needed too (excluding those protected, never being interested in being an Admin, except for these kinds of things). So if you want a hand, I'm willing. (I suck at watching both my watch list and talks though, so be advised! <G> I get there eventually, but it may be a few days!) Let me know what I can do, where and when! // FrankB 20:25, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume number

How do I indicate the volume number of a multi-volume work? --EncycloPetey 19:51, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Use {{cite encyclopedia}}. Yes, even if your multi-volume work is not one. Hesperian 04:57, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We've had this discussion before. IMO this isn't the right thing to do if you're not citing an encyclopedia. Lewis Collard! (rock me mama like a southbound train) 21:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Fer Pete's sake, then either alias cite encyclopedia with a redirect template, or copy it to an {{cite MV work}} template and adapt it. The 'Cite MV work' can just pass parameters too, so long as the base format of the template now used as a sub-template is acceptable. The technique is particularly handy if one only wants to add to a given template, particularly at the end. Otherwise adapt it and reformatting is in order. If you aren't handy with coding, ask, I can help. // FrankB 00:06, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

implement volume

~~Could the volume parameter be implemented? Because I'm trying to cite Inorganic Syntheses, which is a book series with multiple volumes. --Rifleman 82 18:52, 27 October 2007 (UTC)~~ Inorganic Syntheses should use {{cite journal}}. --Rifleman 82 20:00, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

COinS Genre

See this note in the zotero forums. Is it possible to have a different rft.genre in the COinS tag based on whether or not the chapter info is present? --Karnesky 04:03, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is possible. :)

I'm not an expert with the parser functions though. Something like this?

 -->{{#if: {{{chapter|}}}      | &rft.genre=bookitem | &rft.genre=book     }}<!--

— Omegatron (talk) 23:27, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Language

Why do other similar templates (cite web, cite news, etc.) use grey text in brackets to outline the language (like (in Hebrew)), while this one uses black text, like: (in Hebrew)?

I think this should be consistent and the grey version is better. Any thoughts? -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 22:41, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Most commonly used fields

Why does this not include pages?Geni 00:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC) {{editprotected}}

No objections so can we have pages added to most commonly used fields?Geni 17:38, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Done DMacks (talk) 18:58, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

When forming the url for authorlink, a pipe is used where a space is needed.

Ok, here's the bug (I don't know how to fix it, and I'm not able to since I don't have editing powers over protected pages). If you attempt to use authorlink, you are required to at least use the field 'last'. If you do so, the contents of authorlink will be appended with the contents of last like so: [http://www.google.com|Brin, Sergey]

Which produces: Sergey

Which is wrong. It sends you to the url with |Brin, appended, and this will break things. There is no workaround at the moment other than to not even use the fields. --TIB (talk) 08:55, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No, the problem is that you're not supposed to use authorlink for URLs (e.g., authorlink=http://www.google.com to produce Brin, Sergey), only for Wikipedia links (e.g., authorlink=Sergey Brin to produce Brin, Sergey). As the doc says, "authorlink: Title of Wikipedia article about author." RossPatterson (talk) 01:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Publisher

What is meant by the publisher of a book? Is this printing firms who print text on paper and manufacture books. Snowman (talk) 16:27, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

←

→

Access date

Someone has pointed out that the template includes the access date, but I can't see whether it does or, if so, how to remove it. Can someone advise, please? Knowing when someone has looked at a book would never be relevant to a citation. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

I made the field only show when the url field is entered, per that comment as well as the existing documentation. -- tariqabjotu 19:53, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, Tariq. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 20:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Please contribute to this discussion at Citing sources: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again --EnOreg (talk) 16:12, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus: We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:19, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And also modify the information page on cite book. Snowman (talk) 09:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Right, I'll be happy to do that once the code has been updated. --EnOreg (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I expect a lot of editors will wonder why it is not displaying, but it will help to give a clear description of the concept. Snowman (talk) 09:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} All it takes is to comment out these lines:

 }}{{
  #if: {{{url|}}}{{{chapterurl|}}} | {{
  #if: {{{accessdate|}}} | 
  . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
  | {{
    #if: {{{accessyear|}}}
    | . Retrieved {{
      #if: {{{accessmonth|}}}
      | on [[{{{accessmonth}}} {{{accessyear}}}]]
      | during [[{{{accessyear}}}]]
  }}}}
  }}

--EnOreg (talk) 11:41, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Commenting code out is poor form in my mind. Do you simply want that section removed? --MZMcBride (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I wrapped the "retrieved on..." phrase in a CSS class (reference-accessdate) like the other cite templates with this request, so it can be hidden in personal or sitewide CSS while still being visible to those who want to see it. See the centralised discussion linked to above for more details. Happy‑melon 18:08, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Dutch template problems

The template http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjabloon:Citeer_boek is not working properly. 1. The parameters 'UITGEVER' and 'PLAATS' do not appear. 2. The parameter 'TAAL' appears in the beginning. This should be replaced by: , to make it the same as in http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sjabloon:Voetnoot_web. I tried this, but it did not work. 3. There should be a parameter 'MEDEAUTEURS', which means 'co-authours'. Can anyone help? On the Dutch site I don't get a reaction. At the moment the template is only used on the pages about G.W. Bush, and those about the Bahá'í Faith. Once it will work properly, I hope other users will follow... Wiki-uk

PLAATS and UITGEVER are not displaying because you forgot a |. Instead of {{#if:{{{Plaats|}}} {{{Plaats}}}: }} it should be {{#if:{{{Plaats|}}}|{{{Plaats}}}: }} The same applies to UITGEVER. I moved the Taal parameter after the URL. Check how it is looking now. The MEDEAUTEURS should be easy to add, just copy the PLAATS or UITGEVER parameter (with the |) wherever you want the coauthors to be. -- ReyBrujo 01:21, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks a lot for your help! It's perfect now. Wiki-uk 10:56, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I noticed just now that parameters "Auteurlink" and "Medeauteurs" don't work. Could someone check this? Wiki-uk (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Code lacks an HTML comment

{{editprotected}} The code lacks an HTML comment and generates a title="..." containing a newline. Fix by inserting HTML comment as follows:

  -->{{#if: {{{date|}}} 
       |&rft.date={{urlencode:{{{date}}}}}<!--
       -->|

Wikiborg 17:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Done. Also, if anyone's ever really bored, the code in Cite book could use some major cleanup... Cheers. --MZMcBride 03:51, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Looks like this change broke the template. It does not recognize the "year" field any more. — Omegatron (talk) 18:13, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The "hidden" link in the editor parameter

See template error: editor for background on this. The "hidden" link is not hidden at all for users of JAWS, the most widely-used Windows screen reader, in at least the two most recent versions. When there is no image and a link text is a space or is non-existent, JAWS will say the link title, which in MediaWiki is the page name that is linked to. For example, in the article hyrax, where I first found this problem, JAWS reads citation 1 as: "Hoeck, Hendrik (1984). in Macdonald, D.:, link Template:Cite book/editor, The Encyclopedia of Mammals ...". I have tested this out at User:Graham87/sandbox3 and the non-breaking space also does the same thing. I plan to undo the edit by tomorrow morning my time (in the next 12 hours or so), if there are no objections or another admin hasn't gotten to it before me. There are at least 5,000 links to Template:Cite book/editor so sorting them out would be difficult ... I suppose all instances of the edit parameter have been caught by now. Graham87 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

I have undone the edit and made a list of pages using the editor field at User:Graham87/Editor field. Graham87 01:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Author and Titles in alphabets other than Latin

What does one do with book titles and author's names that are originally in alphabets other than English? I have just cleaned up a reference in Nanuchka class corvette by adding the Cite book template (the reference is the book written by Berezhnoy, S.S). The previous edit included the book title and author's name in both Latin and Cyrillic alphabets. Using Cite book, I added the title of the book in Cyrillic in brackets after the Latin version in the title field, where it would seem to logically fit. Not quite sure as to where to put the author's name in Cyrillic. I used the co-author field and used italics. Any suggestions welcomed. papageno (talk) 18:43, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

year after publisher, please, again

i also would like the "year" parm to show up after "publisher", as previously discussed here.
--Jerome Potts (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt that is easily done. It's there primarily because author/year short cites are very common in WP, and thus this location for the date makes matching them to a full citation far easier. Circeus (talk) 00:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

The current style facilitates (author,year) references. The most important information about a reference is the author and year, since very often that is enough for the reader to deduce the publication. If it isn't, the title should be enough extra information. The publisher, on the other hand, is a very minor detail. — Carl (CBM · talk) 00:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There are {{Harv}} and {{Harvnb}} for that. --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Those templates are for the inline references; full references still need to appear at the end, and it's much easier to match the inline to the full reference if they look similar. Even apart from Harvard references, there are articles that put author,year,page in footnotes and put full citations in a references section. I can't see any particular advantage to putting the year at the end of the citation. It is used in some style guides, but we don't claim that these templates match any particular style guide, and we do have an established style already. — Carl (CBM · talk) 04:45, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, Harv is for inline ref., whereas Harvnb is well suited for footnotes. Look at note 28 in History of Venezuela#Notes, which will take you to the corresponding entry in the bibliography section if you click on it. --Jerome Potts (talk) 04:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

How to cite

Can someone tell me how to convince this template to cite the paper given in the BibTeX below? I can't figure it out. I may have to do it by hand, but it would be nice if I could do it with a template. Any ideas would be appreciated. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

@incollection {MR0054922,
    AUTHOR = {Gale, David and Stewart, F. M.},
     TITLE = {Infinite games with perfect information},
 BOOKTITLE = {Contributions to the theory of games, vol. 2},
    SERIES = {Annals of Mathematics Studies, no. 28},
     PAGES = {245--266},
 PUBLISHER = {Princeton University Press},
   ADDRESS = {Princeton, N. J.},
      YEAR = {1953},
   MRCLASS = {90.0X},
  MRNUMBER = {MR0054922 (14,999b)},
MRREVIEWER = {S. Sherman},
}

Something like this?

{{cite book | author= Gale, David | coauthors= Stewart, F. M. | chapter= Infinite games with perfect information | title= Contributions to the theory of games, vol. 2 | series= Annals of Mathematics Studies, no. 28 | pages= pp 245–266 | publisher = Princeton University Press | location= Princeton | year= 1953}}

Gale, David (1953). "Infinite games with perfect information". Contributions to the theory of games, vol. 2. Annals of Mathematics Studies, no. 28. Princeton: Princeton University Press. pp. pp 245–266. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help) Mr Stephen (talk) 18:35, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the series and volume numbers can't be in the metadata for the series and (especially!) title fields. Otherwise, it won't be possible to match this against other citations from the same series or book. It's less bad in BibTeX, because that is not intended to create metadata in the same way that our templates do. But really the AMS is already doing it wrong in the BibTeX above, and my question is how to do it less wrong than they do. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

AIUI. As things stand I think you'll have to decide between machine-friendly and human-friendly. I think you're asking for fields to (a) identify one book of a multiple-volume set, and (b) separate out the number in a series, where given. I don't see them, so either use the format as above, or throw out the offending data (ugh!). Personally I'd go for human-friendly, but I'm open to be persuaded that metadata is useful. You could always make a case for more fields in the template. Mr Stephen (talk) 22:58, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Interwiki add

Please add pt:Predefinição:Ref-livro to the interwiki list. Nuno Tavares (talk) 00:44, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

You can add it yourself - they go on Template:Cite book/doc and that's not protected. RossPatterson (talk) 01:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Done —Ms2ger (talk) 11:29, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

A question to which I should probably already know the answer

If a book's being cited many times in the same article, with the only information that changes from cite to cite being the page number, is there another template that produces "Smith - 87" or something to that effect for uses after the first? When I try to create that effect with this template, by leaving everything except the "last name" and "pages" fields blank, it still shows up with a spot for the title field. Are we just supposed to fill out the template completely for every use of the book? It's not that it would be much work to do, but it seems to me that it makes the references section unnecessarily unwieldy. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 12:25, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

What I usually do is in that situation is use {{cite book}} for the entry in a "References" section, and for individual notes — which are in a separate "Notes" section — use "Smith, p. 87." If an author has several works listed in the references section, I use something like "Jones, Dogs, p. 94." or "Jones, Cats, p. 49." — Bellhalla (talk) 13:39, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Volume parameter, again

I would like to echo several comments and sections above and request that a Volume parameter be added to {{cite book}}. I am aware that {{cite encyclopedia}} is often proffered as a replacement, but feel that several useful parameters — "origdate"/"origmonth"/"origyear", "format", "language", "isbn", "oclc", and "ref" — are lacking from it. So it seems easier to add one "volume" parameter here than several over there. Are there any editors experienced with {{cite book}} code that can come up with an implementation? — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

I just came here to make the same request.

Here is the code:

Insert:

{{
    #if: {{{volume|{{{number|}}}}}} |  {{{volume|{{{number}}}}}}
}}

After:

{{
    #if: {{{series|}}} | , {{{series}}}
}}

Here's a "before and after": Bond, G.C., Showers, W., Elliot, M., Evans, M., Lotti, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., Johnson, S., (1999). "The North Atlantic's 1–2 kyr climate rhythm: relation to Heinrich events, Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles and the little ice age". In Clark, P.U., Webb, R.S., Keigwin, L.D. (ed.). Mechanisms of Global Change at Millennial Time Scales. Geophysical Monograph. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC. pp. 59–76. ISBN 0-87590-033-X.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: extra punctuation (link) CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Bond, G.C., Showers, W., Elliot, M., Evans, M., Lotti, R., Hajdas, I., Bonani, G., Johnson, S., (1999). "The North Atlantic's 1–2 kyr climate rhythm: relation to Heinrich events, Dansgaard/Oeschger cycles and the little ice age", in Clark, P.U., Webb, R.S., Keigwin, L.D.: Mechanisms of Global Change at Millennial Time Scales, Geophysical Monograph 112. American Geophysical Union, Washington DC, 59–76. ISBN 0-87590-033-X.

The bold type is used in the same fashion as {{cite journal}}.

Thanks. Verisimilus T 13:28, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for figuring out the code for a volume parameter. One small note, however, {{cite journal}} no longer makes its volume parameter bold in the output. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Edit request has been appropriately modified. Thanks for pointing that out! Verisimilus T 19:38, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Done Any ideas how to build it into the COinS tag? Happy‑melon 18:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

My example

For people questioning the "volume" parameter, this (ISBN 3805576404) is the book I'm trying to cite, for example.

{{cite book
  | author = Simopoulos, A.P.; Cleland, L.G. (eds.)
  | title = Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence
  | series = World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics
  | volume = 92
  | pages = 1–174
  | year = 2003
  | month = September
  | isbn = 3805576404}}

It consists of articles like in a journal, each written by different authors, but the book itself is a cohesive unit with its own editors, and is part of a larger series with different editors by the same publisher. I'm citing the whole book; if I was citing a certain article I'd use the "chapter" parameter. —Werson (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Publisher

I was doing some dabbing, and someone pointed out to me that the pipe trick doesn't work in the Publisher field of this template. For example, what should ordinarily be rendered as Doubleday instead shows up as Doubleday (publisher)|.

Anybody have any idea how to fix this? Mlaffs (talk) 14:46, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

It's the "ref" tags, not the template, see WP:pipe trick. {{cite book | title= foo | author= Smith, John | publisher= [[Doubleday (publisher)|]]}} comes out as Smith, John. foo. Doubleday., which is fine, but wrap it in tags and it fails. Mr Stephen (talk) 15:36, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

See it - thanks! I'll keep that in mind. Mlaffs (talk) 00:14, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate for chapter URLs

The accessdate parameter ought to be displayed if the chapterurl is specified, even if url is not specified, shouldn't it? — Andrwsc (talk · contribs) 22:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment to update /doc.

{{editprotected}} Please put  at the top of the template. -- Jeandré, 2008-03-16t19:58z

this should have a smiliar effect without adding 89,000 pages to the job queue. Happy‑melon 20:19, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Volume (again)

{{editprotected}} Volume is missing a space (and should maybe be boldface now that the other templates have been updated).

{{cite book | author = Simopoulos, A.P.; Cleland, L.G. (eds.) | title = Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence | series = World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics | volume = 92 | pages = 1–174 | year = 2003 | month = September | isbn = 3805576404}}

appears as

Simopoulos, A.P.; Cleland, L.G. (eds.) (September 2003). Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence, World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics92, 1–174. ISBN 3805576404.

and should probably appear as

Simopoulos, A.P.; Cleland, L.G. (eds.) (September 2003). Omega-6/Omega-3 Essential Fatty Acid Ratio: The Scientific Evidence, World Review of Nutrition and Dietetics 92, 1–174. ISBN 3805576404.

Thanks. —Werson (talk) 01:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Done — Tivedshambo _(t/c) 07:42, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Pages

Much to my embarrassment I have been assuming pages means the number of pages in the book. Perhaps it would be harder for people (who do not read the content page fully) to make this mistake if the parameter was renamed 'page(s)'. The old parameter would still work as well (i.e. |pages), but the new one would be shown here and available for copy-pasting into the article when adding a reference. Richard001 (talk) 03:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of pages, what if I do want to include the number of pages? This is always featured in journal citations (though here it is necessary to find the article), but is also useful in that it gives the potential reader an idea of how long the article is. I think it would be useful here as well, but would have to be a distinct parameter from the one above. When not using this template for a citation, but as a way of standardizing the appearance of the listing under something like Further reading, giving the length of a book is especially important, as the potential reader will want to know how much information the book can provide, and how much reading will be required. But because this encyclopedia cites its own references (unlike many), further reading sections can at times be redundant; the reader can often work out what would be a good set of further readings from the citations in the references section. So even here giving the number of pages can be useful. I suppose they're not part of a 'standard' citation though, so that's one possible mark against this. Still, most citations don't include internal links to authors and journals either, do they? Richard001 (talk) 08:15, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

You could always do something like this:

{{cite book|author= … (fill in parameters here) … }} (237 pages).

Not perfect, but certainly workable. — Bellhalla (talk) 12:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, but the whole point of using cite book is to make things look standardized across articles. If people did this manually they would often look different. Richard001 (talk) 06:30, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, if the point were standardization, then {{cite book}} would be mandatory on all articles. As it is, there are several acceptable way of citing sources—some involving templates, some not. The goal is for a consistent style of referencing within each article. Good luck with your edits. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

If the point weren't standardization, we could delete cite book right now. It's certainly a lot easier to cite things manually than to fill in the fields of a detailed template like this, which requires a long time just to memorize. Just because the template isn't mandatory, it's still desirable. Richard001 (talk) 05:33, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Richard001. I usually only cite to one page and "pages"usually is used in the publishing business to mean number of pages in the book. Cite news uses pages= and page=. Suntag (talk) 15:12, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

[1] Holloway, Dave. "Everybody's Child". Aruba: The Tragic Untold Story of Natalee Holloway and Corruption in Paradise. Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson. pp. 8–10. ISBN 1595550631. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |origdate= ignored (|orig-date= suggested) (help)

[1]