Template talk:Cite book/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
← Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9 →

Typo in template

In a specific case, after the value of the editor parameter appears a period (full stop); it should be a comma. The condition is that an author is also specified, either with author or with first / last. Test cases (view source):

Editor A. Editor (ed.). Title Title Title. 

Editor A. Editor, Editor B. Editor (ed.). Title Title Title. 

Author Author. Editor A. Editor, ed. Title Title Title. 

Last, First. Editor A. Editor, ed. Title Title Title. 

The presence of a coauthors value has no effect on the bug, pro or con:

Editor A. Editor (ed.). Title Title Title.  |coauthors= requires |author= (help)

Editor A. Editor, Editor B. Editor (ed.). Title Title Title.  |coauthors= requires |author= (help)

Author Author; Coauthors Coauthors. Editor A. Editor, ed. Title Title Title. 

Last, First; Coauthors Coauthors. Editor A. Editor, ed. Title Title Title. 

It would probably be best to resolve this bug report and the one immediately below since they address the same part of the template.

SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

'ed.' is an abbreviation for 'editor'; therefore a period is warranted. Adding an additional comma (ed.,) would be an option, but looks a bit clumsy. Also, please note that the 'editprotected' template should be accompanied with a specific request of the change to the template required to implement the change you propose. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
I think he meant to have comma before "ed.", like it is now when the author is not specified. Svick (talk) 23:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The "editors" parameter has a typo

Test cases:

Editor (ed.). Title. 

Editors, Editors (ed.). Title. 

The latter should output:

Editors, Editors, eds. Title.

(plural "eds.").

It would probably be best to resolve this bug report and the one immediately above since they address the same part of the template.

SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

The 'editors' parameter is depreciated. The metadata-producing alternative 'editor2-last' etc. will produce the required output.
Editors; Editors (eds.). Title. 
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
If deprecated, but not (yet) removed, shouldn't the typo still be fixed? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 04:50, 18 August 2009 (UTC)
There is no (sensible) way for the software to confirm how many authors the parameter (which is synonymous with 'editor') is used to describe. Changing the function now would produce the wrong output whereever editors had used the parameter to describe a single editor. In time, I'll modify the Citation bot to automatically re-parameterise the editors parameter, which'll fix it for good. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 05:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

A bug in this template

Resolved: Unfixable; editors must simply preview and correct double-dots.

Look at this edit. This template puts a period after the publisher's name. But when the publisher's name already ends with a period, there should still be only one period. When it's "Some Comany, Inc.", it should not be reported as "Some Comany, Inc.." That's what it looked like before I did this edit deleting the period. Michael Hardy (talk) 01:48, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think its the same case as in this template documentation's Note – there is no known practical solution to this problem, due to limited functionality of Mediawiki templates. Svick (talk) 08:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Maybe I'm missing something here. "Inc" is an abbreviation of "Incorporated" and so should actually be spelled "Inc.". Therefore the template surely should display "Inc.." - one period for "Inc." and one to terminate the publisher's name? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
No, double periods shouldn't be used, even though it would be more logical. Also WP:ABBR states: “If a sentence ends with a dotted abbreviation, do not double the dot to signify the end of the sentence.″ Svick (talk) 18:17, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
Please note, the documentation states:
  • publisher: Publisher should not include corporate designation such as "Ltd" or "Inc".
Thus, you should use |publisher=Some Comany and not |publisher=Some Comany, Inc. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Author mask problem

{{editprotected}} These edits to enable the author mask parameter have broken things. Instead of the author's name, a dash is displayed. No idea how to fix it besides reverting. — jwillbur 02:33, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Request made to editor here. wadester16 03:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
A similar change is also causing problems with {{cite journal}}. However, the problem seems to be sporadic. I've seen many instances of both templates working just fine, but other instances that are not. --RL0919 (talk) 03:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
I've undone the edits at both templates so they work as they did before these changes were made. wadester16 03:18, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
{{cite book}} still showing same results, no author name, perhaps because it requires time to be effective! --Ekabhishek (talk) 03:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
For any article that uses the template, add ?action=purge at the end of the url and press enter. Or press the * button next to your watch button, if you have that activated in your preferences. wadester16 03:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Deactivating request, please reactivate if anything else is needed. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 10:13, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

WEZV

Resolved

What did I do wrong?Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 16:15, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

If there's an ISSN, it's probably a periodical and not a book; so use {{Cite journal}} instead of {{Cite book}} --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
You don't say what the problem is but if you refer to missing separation then the citation has an empty separator parameter you can remove. PrimeHunter (talk) 16:40, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the problem is the same one as described at VPT --Redrose64 (talk) 16:53, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
There Vchimpanzee said "Also ..." after mentioning an unspecified display problem. I guess the display problem is the missing separation which can be fixed by removing the separator parameter or setting it to a period or comma. PrimeHunter (talk) 17:44, 25 August 2009 (UTC)
To Redrose: it looks like a book to me.
The punctuation that is supposed to appear did not. I got the ISSN problem fixed when I finally figured out how to see the ISSN template. Svick got the rest fixed.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 23:10, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Problem with ISBN

In this article, Reference 2, the last digit of the ISBN, and the hyphen before it, are not included in the link. Am I doing something wrong, or is that a bug in this template? Peter Chastain (talk) 07:15, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The ISBNs have either 10 or 13 digits, that's why only 10 are linked. Also, according to Special:BookSources/0881254308, the first 10 digits (neither the last 10) of that number aren't a valid ISBN. Svick (talk) 07:54, 26 August 2009 (UTC)
(Scratching head at amazement that I didn't catch that) Of course. Thanks! Peter Chastain (talk) 08:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Bibliographic use and the MOS?

Please forgive me if this is a dumb, an uniformed or, even worse, a controversial question. But is there some reason why the MOS doesn't appear to acknowledge the cite template(s) for bibliographic use? I've searched the archives here and in the MOS list-of-works talk pages for insight. I found nothing notable in the MOS talk archives, but found a previous discussion in this forum. Even there, though, the MOS is only obliquely mentioned. I also searched the Village Pump archives but admit that, due to the superfluity of search results, I may have overlooked some discussion of importance there. I ask because although I like to see/use the cite template(s) in bibliographies and believe it offers advantages, I am concerned that without MOS sanction, I may open myself up to ruthless editing/criticism. Most humbly awaiting enlightenment, JuniperisCommunis (talk) 15:17, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't know what the criticism would be. These templates are widely used. The guidelines on citation say the use of templates "is neither encouraged nor discouraged." (WP:CITE#Citation templates and tools) The MOS doesn't really discuss citation much, other than to explain how inline cites relate to punctuation, etc., so I wouldn't take the lack of mention of these templates to be an indication of any sort of problem with them. --RL0919 (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I've been calling for that for some time (the above discussion is one I initiated in 2007; it started at Use in Bibliography); see Use in Bibliography (redux) & Cite Book in bibliographies. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 18:50, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
I think that the recently-created |author-mask= field is what is needed for a bibliography, to suppress the author (see earlier discussions on this talk). It's not fully documented at Template:Cite book/doc (not being listed in the Usage section), and the documentation is unclear as to whether it should be |author-mask= or |authormask=. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:16, 27 August 2009 (UTC)
That's a start, but as I explained at Cite Book in bibliographies, the resulting output is formatted differently to what usually appears in bibliographies, with the date before the title. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 21:21, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Reprints of old books

I use a number of reprints of old books long out of copyright. The template does not seem to cater for this very well at present. Should 'publisher' be the original, corresponding with 'origyear' or the reprinter, corresponding with the ISBN? I would like to see an additional field for 'reprinted by' to allow this to be clarified. Globbet (talk) 09:57, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I've been using |publisher= for the reprinting publisher, to correspond with |year= and |isbn=. Perhaps what is needed is |origpublisher= to go with |origyear=? --Redrose64 (talk) 11:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
Remember that {{cite book}} is used to identify the actual source used for the purpose of verifying citations. If this is the reprint then all details (publisher, isbn etc) should be for the edition actually used. |origyear= is generally only of interest if the book was written well before the publication date of the edition used (to give historical context - there is a big difference between books written contemporaneous to the events they describe and those written after the event with the benefit of hindsight, research, revealed secrets etc. ). The original publisher is not generally relevant although there are exceptions - when citing the UK Official Histories of the Second World War I use an edition published in 2004 by a commercial publisher. I have included for instance origyear=1st. pub. [[HMSO]] 1956 because the fact that the original publisher was the government stationery office underlines the fact that it was an official history. Bottom line, I don't think we need extra parameters. As the template documentation says, you can put explanatory text in the |origyear= field. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:27, 29 August 2009 (UTC)
I agree with everything Stephen Kirrage says above. The original publisher is not important for most citations, and can be worked in as described, or by providing additional text outside the template if there is a situation that requires lengthier explanation. --RL0919 (talk) 14:21, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I like |origpublisher=. I am often mildly suspicious of "remember"; what are you referring to? I think the original edition would be of greater value as a source than a reprint, which in general is bound to be lower fidelity than the original - digital reproduction of original images, for example. You could even argue that the reprint is an intermediate source. So I think the template should invite information that would help someone to trace the original too. Globbet (talk) 14:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

OK, don't remember then, but you're just playing with words. I repeat: a citation provides the source of a fact represented in the article which allows the reader to check its veracity. The edition cited should be the one actually used by the editor who added the fact (Simply put, "Here's a fact and here's where I found it"). It's irrelevant (and POV) whether a previous edition is "better"; the contributing editor obviously did not have a copy of the earlier edition! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:33, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Please don't misrepresent my argument. I am not talking about editions. Of course I know that it would be POV for an editor to allow a personal preference for a particular edition to be reflected in an article, but that is an irrelevance. I am actually talking about (usually electronic) reproductions of original editions. Let me explain again: reproduction involves no editorial input - the content is exactly the same, except that as an inevitable part of the process detail gets lost, in, for example, technical illustrations, or small characters can become illegible - so a copy of the original printing, in good condition, is objectively bound to be better. This is a matter of physics, not preference. Now, I also understand that if the reproduction is the source used, then that is what should be cited. I still maintain that it would be a good idea if the concept of the citation were permitted to be extended a tiny bit beyond your very tight definition to permit (or even encourage) the inclusion of a morsel of additional helpful information. We have a handy precedent in |origyear=. Globbet (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's agree to disagree. I feel that including this would be bloatware and on the rare occasions one might want to include this info there is a simple work round, you don't. If you can persuade someone to write the code, I'm won't waste my time arguing against it.
P.S. The example I gave above was just one example of an electronic reproduction - of a copy in Bournemouth Public Library: it still has their stamp on some of the pages! - and you will see here (in the Molony book) I have included the original publisher. I accept that the print quality can suffer, especially in complex maps. However, the very narrow point I was trying to make was that if the fact cannot be made out in the printing one has, then that printing shouldn't be cited and if it can, then it is superfluous to give information about previous printings bar giving the original date which gives useful context (e.g. whether a particular book about WWII was written before or after Enigma secrets came into the public domain, or if it was written during the war and so subject to censorship etc). Anyway, enough; this is my last contribution to this thread! Good editing. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:53, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will leave it to see if anyone wants to run with the idea of |origpublisher=. Globbet (talk) 23:37, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Authorlink Issues

Can someone fix the Author/Authorlink sections. Currently, when you type something like {{cite book |author=Claus, Santa |authorlink=http://www.northpole.com/}}, what you get in the references is [|Claus, Santa]., which looks distinctly wrong.

I'm guessing Authorlink was meant to be strictly an internal link, but surely it's easy enough in a template to add something to the effect of "if authorlink contains 'http' then doexternal else dointernal"RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 22:29, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

You are right that this parameter was meant to be for internal links only (see documentation). Usually, external links should be avoided per WP:EL, so I guess that external link wouldn't be appropriate there. Svick (talk) 23:28, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I think you guess correctly. The option to add courtesy links to book content (e.g., the 'url' field) is in line with WP:EL, but other external links wouldn't be. --RL0919 (talk) 23:41, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, that makes sense. While there may be some occasions where an external link is logical, I can definitely see the potential for abuse. Thanks for the info. —RobinHood70 (talkcontribs) 00:04, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Author-block

Can anyone explain what this parameter does, if anything? It's in the documentation but not the parameter listing. I've tried to follow the instructions on a Sandbox page but it appears to have no effect. I'm probably missing something......Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - I mis-spelt author-mask. Fixed. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 17:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Top man.....but I'm still none the wiser what it's for! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:30, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
When creating a bibliography with several books by the same author, you can use this field to suppress the repetitive appearance of the author's name. It's common practice in regular print bibliographies. Potentially useful, although it does presume some stability in the bibliography and a bit of attentiveness from editors. If the first, non-masked book by that author is (re)moved, the editor making the change will need to update the use of this field, or the list will look a bit odd. --RL0919 (talk) 22:40, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
OK thanks. The explanatory text is not clear to the ignorant such as me. I'll give some thought to this. Might be useful to include an example in the examples section. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 22:51, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
The explanatory text is not clear. To what value does one set the authormask parameter? I've tried "y", "on" and leaving it blank to no effect.--papageno (talk) 03:38, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
I think the documentation is pretty clear: Either set it to a number and you will see a dash whose length is the number you entered em, or to some other text and then you will see that text:
{{cite book | author = The Author | title = The Book | authormask = 2}} produces: ——. The Book. 
{{cite book | author = The Author | title = The Book | authormask = some text}} produces: some text. The Book. 
Also, don't forget to fill in the author's name (preferably using first and last), it doesn't work otherwise. Svick (talk) 08:58, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. How about rewriting the documention, following your lead: "Set to an integer value. Replaces the name of the first author (which must still be provided to garner metadata) with a strike-thru of integer value em in length. For example, {{cite book | last = Author |first = The | title = The Book | authormask = 2}} produces ——. The Book. Set to a text value to display that text instead. For example, {{cite book | last = Author |first = The | title = The Book | authormask = Some Text}} produces Some Text. The Book. This parameter is primarily intended for use in bibliographies where multiple works by a single author are listed. You must still include |last= and |first= (or |author=) for metadata purposes." --papageno (talk) 02:41, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Request

{{editprotected}} To allow elimination of the last deprecated accessdaymonth and accessmonthday parameters, please add the line {{#if:{{{accessdaymonth|}}}{{{accessmonthday|}}}|[[Category:Cite web templates using unusual accessdate parameters|{{FULLPAGENAME}}]]}} inside the template, preferably right before the <noinclude> tag. Debresser (talk) 21:54, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes check.svg DoneTheDJ (talkcontribs) 13:05, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing dot after 'ed' in some cases

If I use this template with editor and year filled in, but author left out, the dot after 'ed' is missing, so {{cite book | editor = The Editor | year = 2009 | title = The Book}} produces The Editor, ed. (2009). The Book.  Shoudn't this be fixed? Svick (talk) 13:07, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Test. {{cite book | author = The Author | editor = The Editor | year = 2009 | title = The Book}} produces The Author (2009). The Editor, ed. The Book.  Debresser (talk) 08:48, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
The line }}, ed{{#if:{{{EditorSurname2|}}}|s}}{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.||.}}{{ in Template:Citation/core should have a dot after "ed". I have made the request there. Debresser (talk) 08:54, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I have now seen that I still do not understand some rules standing behind that template, and have revoked my request there, at the same time asking other expert editors to have a look at your question. Debresser (talk) 22:38, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I think i understand it. The code you quote is there to prevent ed.. when the sep is . In those cases it removes the . after ed. However, in the specific quoted usecase, the separator char is not used, instead () is used to set the year apart from the rest of the line. As such the .. prevention routine breaks down, because basically it assumes that everything that comes AFTER ed. will always use the Sep char. I see no easy way around this at this time. —TheDJ (talkcontribs) 23:30, 15 September 2009 (UTC)
I still don't feel I got it completely, but the solution must be an if-clause included in an if-clause. Something like: if you have the "ed" and the separator is not a dot, then have a dot. Debresser (talk) 06:39, 16 September 2009 (UTC)
@DJ: there is an easy way (but note the NB at the end of this comment):
the present if-clause is
if (using-comma-sep) { print-dot } else { do-nothing }
The if-clause should be:
if (have-year-field-next || using-comma-sep) { print-dot } else { do-nothing }
Applying that in template lingo, we need:
}}, ed{{#if:{{{EditorSurname2|}}}|s}}{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.|{{#if:{{{Date|}}}|.}}|.}}{{
which in pseudo-code translates to:
if (using-comma-sep) { print-dot } elseif (have-year-field-next) { print-dot } else { do-nothing }
or even more simply (but hard to grok)
}}, ed{{#if:{{{EditorSurname2|}}}|s}}{{#ifeq:{{{Sep|,}}}|.{{{Date|}}}||.}}{{
the trick here being that the ifeq test will fail if date is non-null.
NB: this clause appears multiple times in /core. Only the first one, just before (year) needs fixing. -- Fullstop (talk) 21:38, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Missing link

Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Further_considerations#Wikilinks_to_full_references the APA link is a 404 Cosnahang (talk) 19:52, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Cite references

Should the ref parameter default to "harv"? The {{Citation/core}} template currently requires a non-empty value for the Ref parameter to generate the id attribute of the cite tag. Perhaps, instead of fixing the Cite book template, one could fix Citation/core. --ilgiz (talk) 22:10, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

{{Citation/core}} has recently (26 Sep) been amended in the opposite direction. The discussion occupies most of the second half of Template talk:Citation/core; go in at Template talk:Citation/core#HTML id and read from there. If you don't want all the backgound, skip right down to Template talk:Citation/core#Fixing what's broke. Basically, since that edit, you must add |ref=harv to each use of {{Cite xxx}} templates (at least, those which use {{Citation/core}}) if you want ({{harv*}} or {{sfn}} to carry on working --Redrose64 (talk) 22:50, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for explaining. So I guess the users of the template should take care of uniqueness of the references or have no references at all. --ilgiz (talk) 23:34, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
The "uniqueness" should be handled automatically. For a working example in a short article, please see Hinksey Halt railway station - admittedly this uses {{sfn}} and not the {{harv*}} templates but the principle is the same. Four different books were used to obtain information, so there are four instances of {{cite book}}, each of which has |ref=harv; from those, ten facts (or corroborations of facts in other books) were obtained, so there are ten instances of {{sfn}}. The {{sfn}} and {{reflist}} have between them worked out that there should be seven unique footnotes, and so the links to references run from [1] to [7]. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

links from Harvnb

Could any recent changes have broken the ID link used by Template:Harvnb? The way it should work is you put Harvnb in a reference, and it links to the spot in the bibliography where the book is. This seemed to work last week, but doesn't today. See articles like Abraham Lincoln or Virginia for where it doesn't work, but Hippocrates where it still does. Is it just me?-- Patrick {oѺ} 23:08, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

See the thread right above this. Svick (talk) 07:44, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Even so, there appears to be a problem.

{{harvnb|O'Connor|Griffiths|2007}}
generates O'Connor & Griffiths 2007
which produces <a href="#CITEREFO.27ConnorGriffiths2007">...


*{{cite book |title=Anti-Americanism: In the 21st century |last1=O'Connor |first1=Brandon |last2=Griffiths |first2=Martin |volume=Volume 4 de Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, and Themes |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=2007 |isbn=9781846450273 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YJkMN0hjOw8C }}
generates

which produces ...

In contrast,
*{{citation |title=Anti-Americanism: In the 21st century |last1=O'Connor |first1=Brandon |last2=Griffiths |first2=Martin |volume=Volume 4 de Anti-Americanism: History, Causes, and Themes |publisher=Greenwood Publishing Group |year=2007 |isbn=9781846450273 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=YJkMN0hjOw8C |separator=. |postscript=. }}
generates

which produces ...

Note the lack of an ID element in the span tag produced here by {{cite book}} Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:01, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

That's exactly what the change in {{Citation/core}} was about. If you want to use {{harv}} with {{cite book}} and similar, you have to use ref=harv parameter in the citation template. Svick (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I obviously had not been following that and had neglected to reread the documentation and pick up on the change. As I recall, it used to work without the need for ref=harv and, if I recall right, some of my past edits probably relied on that and are now broken. I usually only use the cite xxx templates when there is a need to conform with an established citation style which uses them, though, so most of my past edits are probably still OK. I'll try to keep an eye out for the problem on my watchlisted pages. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:38, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Capitalised documentation page

See Template_talk:Cite_web#Upper_case_form_of_template_name. Debresser (talk) 06:38, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Chapter in Work with editor broken when editor1 editor2 style used.

  1. Example:{{cite book|last=Pohl|first=Manfred|chapter=Farewell to a Model? German Experiences with Unification and Its Implications for Korean Strategies|page=338|title=Comprehensive security in Asia: views from Asia and the West on a changing security environment|editor1=Radtke, Kurt Werner|editor2=Feddema, Raymond|publisher=BRILL|location=Leiden|year=2000|isbn=9789004112025}}
  2. Expected behaviour: Pohl, Manfred (2000). "Farewell to a Model? German Experiences with Unification and Its Implications for Korean Strategies". in Radtke, Kurt Werner and Feddema, Raymond. Comprehensive security in Asia: views from Asia and the West on a changing security environment. Leiden: BRILL. p. 338. ISBN 9789004112025.
  3. Actual behaviour: Pohl, Manfred (2000). "Farewell to a Model? German Experiences with Unification and Its Implications for Korean Strategies". Comprehensive security in Asia: views from Asia and the West on a changing security environment. Leiden: BRILL. p. 338. ISBN 9789004112025.

Fifelfoo (talk) 03:01, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm but it works OK using the editorn-first/last approach:
Pohl, Manfred (2000). "Farewell to a Model? German Experiences with Unification and Its Implications for Korean Strategies". In Radtke, Kurt Werner; Feddema, Raymond. Comprehensive security in Asia: views from Asia and the West on a changing security environment. Leiden: BRILL. p. 338. ISBN 9789004112025. 
Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:56, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, will use editorn-first editorn-last as a work around. Fifelfoo (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)
I've had a look at the template source (not the documentation), and there are no such parameters as |editor1= or |editor2=. The full list of recognised parameters which contain "editor" within their names is:
editor editors
editor-first editor1-first editor2-first editor3-first editor4-first
editor-given editor1-given editor2-given editor3-given editor4-given
editor-last editor1-last editor2-last editor3-last editor4-last
editor-link editor1-link editor2-link editor3-link editor4-link
editor-surname editor1-surname editor2-surname editor3-surname editor4-surname
Note that many of these are synonyms: it condenses to there only being twelve distinct parameters, essentially |editorn-last=; |editorn-first=; and |editorn-link=, where n is an integer from 1 to 4. --Redrose64 (talk) 15:26, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Template documentation is incorrect, lists under Vertical, "|editor= |editorn=" Suggest documentation be fixed to match actual behaviour Fifelfoo (talk) 15:30, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
Done. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:17, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

13-digit ISBNs can be easily found

From WP:ISBN:

ISBNs now come in two styles, containing 10 digits or 13 digits, respectively (corresponding to the above "ISBN-10:" and "ISBN-13:" numbers). Please use the 13-digit one if available (if nowhere else, it is written under the barcode...).

I'd been struggling with a book that lists both "regular" and "deluxe" ISBNs until I found the above. I previously didn't realise books' barcode corresponds to their ISBN. This seems useful enough to be worth including on this (fully-protected) page, along with any necessary caveats (is it only for recent books?). Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 10:16, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

The template itself is fully protected, but the documentation isn't, so you can edit it. Svick (talk) 10:50, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

*donks self on noggin* Of course, thanks. I've updated the documentation ([1]), though if someone could check if I've left anything out I'd appreciate it. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 13:39, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Looks fine; personally I'd have placed it just before the sentence about 9-digit SBN rather than just after. Books that are old enough to have a SBN instead of an ISBN are almost certainly too old to bear a barcode (sounds like a challenge to find one that has both!). --Redrose64 (talk) 22:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
Actually, try finishing the sentence "... beneath the barcode as a number beginning 978 or 979." as extra guidance. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:12, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed; moved and expanded ([2]). Thanks Redrose. Adrian J. Hunter(talkcontribs) 02:02, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Two problems with ISBN numbers

    1. Many books appear in both cloth and paperback versions, usually with different publication dates. It would be nice to be able to include the isbn numbers for both within the citation.
    2. Not everyone recognises the modern isbn-13 format. It would be nice to be able to add both.

For example see the first two references in Map projection. The first is for the cloth version. The second is for the paperback version. However, the paperback was first issued with an isbn-10, and this is the only isbn in many books (about a 100,000 of them). However the publisher has now changed to a catalogue showing the book with an isbn-13. So the old number will stay out in the wild and it will probably be used by people like second hand dealers for some time to come. One can't just tell people to add/subtract a 978 prefix for the last (check sum) digit is different. Peter Mercator (talk) 18:37, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

You should specify the ISBN for the edition which you consulted. I know of instances where the differences between hardback and paperback amount to more than the cover, so if somebody were verifying your reference, it would be misleading for them to consult the hardback edition for something that's only in the paperback (or vice versa). If you posess both editions, and can find the same fact in both, give two references. --Redrose64 (talk) 19:42, 6 December 2009 (UTC)


I echo Redrose. Surely the point of the {{cite book}} template is to identify the actual edition which was used by the editor who added the reference - which has a unique ISBN. This goes to the core of Wikipedia's concept of Verifiability. So the template is not there to provide a buying guide menu which identifies several different available editions. This is particularly relevant where page numbers are given for citations because pagination can vary from edition to edition (black mark for the ref in Map projection not giving a page number - I'd have to search the whole document to verify the citation). If the reader wishes to find an alternative edition (say paperback) to purchase then this is easily done by finding the cited edition in say the WorldCat catalogue or an online bookseller's listings (perhaps using the cited ISBN) and performing a search for alternative editions. By the way, who doesn't 'recognise' isbn-13? - putting in both 13 and 10, if available, is unnecessary overkill. By the way, I added the text below to my Wikipedia monobook.js settings page and now when I click on an ISBN number in Wikipedia it automatically takes me to the entry in the WorldCat catalogue for that book - brilliant! (If you want to find out more about this clever feature go to User:Lunchboxhero/monobook.js).
var magicURL = "http://www.worldcat.org/isbn/MAGICNUMBER";
importScript('User:Lunchboxhero/externISBN.js');

Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:07, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Bibliography

For preparing a bibliography (distinct from references), is it possible to order the fields in the order given by, for instance, the Library of Congress? In particular, the date of publication in the LoC catalog is usually the last item preceding the ISBN number (the order is the logically defensible one of decreasing importance: Author, Title, Publisher, Date). Because I often copy and paste my bibliographies either directly or indirectly from the LoC online catalog, to maintain consistency of format I must either edit their entries or avoid using the template for books that may not be in the catalog. PKKloeppel (talk) 16:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

You can list the fields in any order you like within {{Cite book}}. The order of output however, is defined in {{Citation/core}}. So, I can put:
  • {{cite book |last=Butt |first=R.V.J. |title=The Directory of Railway Stations |year=1995 |publisher=Patrick Stephens Ltd |location=Yeovil |isbn=1 85260 508 1 }}
or
  • {{cite book |first=R.V.J. |last=Butt |title=The Directory of Railway Stations |publisher=Patrick Stephens Ltd |year=1995 |isbn=1 85260 508 1 |location=Yeovil }}
and both come out just the same:
  • Butt, R.V.J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations. Yeovil: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 1 85260 508 1. 
  • Butt, R.V.J. (1995). The Directory of Railway Stations. Yeovil: Patrick Stephens Ltd. ISBN 1 85260 508 1. 
--Redrose64 (talk) 17:04, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
No, you have missed the point. It is the output that must be reordered. I do not particularly care about the input order. PKKloeppel (talk) 23:54, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
In which case Template talk:Citation/core is the place to ask. There are, however, some discussions already in progress regarding the order that the information is output. I suggest that you examine these; some of the rejected proposals may have been archived. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:08, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Volume in bold

see Template talk:Cite book/Archive 5#Volume parameter, againand Template talk:Cite book/Archive 5#Volume (again)

I think having the volume in bold is distracting to the eye. I would like to replace it with "vol. #". -- PBS (talk) 01:57, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

What about named volumes then? Foo, Bar. Ducks of the World. Volume 2: The mallard. … The bold apparently comes from citation core. Fifelfoo (talk) 02:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
The bolding of the volume is indeed done in {{Citation/core}}, so it should really be discussed at Template talk:Citation/core.
In cases where I don't want the bold, I put it all in the title, thus:
{{cite book |last=Dow |first=George |authorlink=George Dow |title=Great Central, Volume One: The Progenitors, 1813-1863 |year=1959 |publisher=[[Ian Allan]] |location=Shepperton |isbn=0 7110 1468 X }}
which produces:
Dow, George (1959). Great Central, Volume One: The Progenitors, 1813-1863. Shepperton: Ian Allan. ISBN 0 7110 1468 X. 
--Redrose64 (talk) 10:44, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Missing spaces if empty fields are used

Consider the missing spaces in the first of these two citations:

  • Biermann, Christpher J. (1996). "3". Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 0-12-097362-6. 
  • Biermann, Christpher J. (1996). "3". Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 0-12-097362-6. 

The two are in fact identical, except that the first contains a couple of empty fields, probably because someone used copy-and-paste to enter the template. The template should be fixed so that empty fields do not make a difference for the final layout. The {{citation}} template has the same problem:

  • Biermann, Christpher J. (1996), "3", Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking (2nd ed.), Academic Press, pp. 72–73, ISBN 0-12-097362-6 
  • Biermann, Christpher J. (1996), "3", Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking (2nd ed.), Academic Press, pp. 72–73, ISBN 0-12-097362-6 

This might therefore be a problem somewhere deep in the citation core. AxelBoldt (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)

This is not an error in those templates. The parameters separator and postscript decide what characters are used to separate fields and what is the last character of the citation, respectively. In {{cite book}}, both are set to “.” (period) on default, but you change that if you want. In the example you gave, both are set to empty string, so that's what is displayed. This is the intended behavior, so there is no reason to fix it. The solution is to remove those two parameters:
  • Biermann, Christpher J. (1996). "3". Handbook of Pulping and Papermaking (2nd ed.). Academic Press. pp. 72–73. ISBN 0-12-097362-6. 
Svick (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
The same user raised a similar query at Template talk:Citation#Missing spaces if empty fields are used and the responses given are inconsistent. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:28, 31 December 2009 (UTC)
Well, not really. I overlooked the whitespace bug, but if usual output is desired, both parameters have to be removed or set to a period. Svick (talk) 19:55, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
Svick is correct, forcing an empty parameter will result in no separator and this is the intended behaviour. The whitespace bugs however, were not intentional and affected roughly a third to half of the parameters. This is fixed in {{Citation/core/sandbox}} (along with some other bugs and issues, see Template:Citation/testcases#separator parameter) and just needs to be copied over to {{Citation/core}} to fix all of these subtemplates which use {{Citation/core}}. This discussion really should have taken place on Template talk:Citation/core though instead of here and Template talk:Citation, as that was where the whitespace bugs were occurring. --Tothwolf (talk) 20:30, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Archiveurl

This template has the parameter url, but not archiveurl and I think it should be added. Is anybody here against that? Svick (talk) 19:49, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

It shouldn't be here. |archiveurl= is for archived webpages only, not books. This is specified in the documentation of e.g. {{Cite web}}. Debresser (talk) 18:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
So, what to do if a book has an URL that contained the text of the book, but is dead now and the Internet Archive contains archived text of that URL? Just link the archive? Svick (talk) 19:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Probably. Although actually that would be a legitimate use of the archiveurl parameter. Debresser (talk) 19:03, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
After spending so much time working with {{Citation/core}} I'm starting to think all the templates that use the |url= and |accessdate= should also provide |archiveurl= and |archivedate= for consistency and these very reasons. --Tothwolf (talk) 19:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
Didn't know you were one of the editors who contributed to {{Citation/core}}. I dealt with that template once too. Well, basically I think you are right. Although that will doubtlessly led to misuse of the archiveurl parameter, that is not a new thing, and improved documentation has helped to reduce that. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

date, year, or either?

My understanding of the month/year/date parameters has always been this: 1 January 2010 (etc) is a date; January 2010 is a month and a year; 2010 is a year. So, if the only time of publication information that we have is (eg) 2010, 'year=2010' is correct and 'date=2010' is incorrect. It doesn't seem to make any difference to how the information renders on screen , but I guess it would affect reference scrapers.

So, as an opener, is my understanding correct? Mr Stephen (talk) 11:22, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

It does affect how Coins metadata (don't ask me to explain) is generated. IMHO, a |date= is for precisely that: it should not be a partial date. So:
  • year, month and day: fill in |date= using whatever date format is normal for the article
  • year and month, but no day: fill in |year= and |month= and omit |date=
  • year only: fill in |year= only
If you have filled in |date= with a valid date, there is no harm in also filling in |year=, and indeed may be needed for certain reference link styles to work. See the first two Beeching references (the 1963 ones) in Reading Southern railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:58, 2 January 2010 (UTC)
It is my understanding that if you specify a full date including a year then the 'year' parameter is NEVER needed - I believe for example that the {{Harvnb}} family of templates can use the 'date' field to find a year. I'd like clarification if that's not the case. I agree that it's better to have a month and year in 'month' and 'year' rather than together in 'date'. Rjwilmsi 00:06, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Year is never needed. In the sense that there is a ref field and the only time the Harvard referencing cannot use the date field is when there are two works by the same name in the same year: in this case they are "Good 2006a" and "Good 2006b" (or "Good 2006" and "Good 2006a", whatever) - and in this case the "ref" field can be used (ref=Good 2006b instead of ref=harv). Moreover having a year field set to "2006b" seems like a bad thing. As far as using the date field for a year or a year-month, that seems good sense to me. It is widely accepted that 1492 is a date, for example, if someone asks for the date on a magazine and the reply came "June 2002" no one would think that strange. I would say simplicity here is a single date field, rather than a set of three fields whose correct use depends on what granularity we happen to have for the date of publication. Rich Farmbrough, 00:31, 3 January 2010 (UTC).

If you would care to examine the article I mention - Reading Southern railway station - you will see referencing thus:
The first Beeching report recommended curtailing the passenger service at Guildford and the closure of all stations between Shalford and Betchworth inclusive.{{sfn|Beeching|1963a|pp=107,110-113,119}}{{sfn|Beeching|1963b|loc=map 9}}
==Notes==
{{reflist|colwidth=20em}}
==References==
*{{cite book |last=Beeching |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Beeching |title=The Reshaping of British Railways Part 1: Report |url=http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=13 |accessdate=7 December 2009 |date=27 March 1963 |year=1963a |publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information|HMSO]] |location=London |ref=harv }}
*{{cite book |last=Beeching |first=Richard |authorlink=Richard Beeching |title=The Reshaping of British Railways Part 2: Maps |url=http://www.railwaysarchive.co.uk/docSummary.php?docID=35 |accessdate=7 December 2009 |date=27 March 1963 |year=1963b |publisher=[[Office of Public Sector Information|HMSO]] |location=London |ref=harv }}
which displays as:
The first Beeching report recommended curtailing the passenger service at Guildford and the closure of all stations between Shalford and Betchworth inclusive.[1][2]
  1. ^ Beeching 1963a, pp. 107,110-113,119.
  2. ^ Beeching 1963b, map 9.
would somebody please explain how to do that without specifying |year=, and so that the Harvard reference linking still works to distinguish the two sources? --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
You can use the parameter ref to do that, althought I'd say it's quite inconvenient. You have to use e.g. ref=CITEREFBeeching1963a:[1][2]
  1. ^ Beeching 1963c, pp. 107,110-113,119.
  2. ^ Beeching 1963d, map 9.
Svick (talk) 14:29, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
At first sight this offers no advantage compared to |ref=harv because you'd left the |year= in both. I've removed those; and it does still work. Bit cumbersome though. I have an idea that {{sfnRef}} (aka {{harvid}}) can be used in such cases... but I do like the automatic nature of |ref=harv. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:42, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Request new parameter booklink

We have authorlink, makes no sense not to have booklink. This would require either a new element, or pushing online versions into their own text, which I would prefer. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 08:26, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The authorlink is there, because when you use the parameters first and last, there isn't any reasonable place to put the link, so you use something like last = Smith | first = John B. | authorlink = John Smith (writer), but if you want to link the book title, you can do that directly: title = [[The Book|The Book: Subtitle]], so there's no need for new booklink parameter. Svick (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The problem is, what happens when I have both an article and an online edition, as is the case for Pseudodoxia Epidemica? I could of course trust in the reader to scan the page for the online edition, but that is not really a satisfying solution. Suggestions? Paradoctor (talk) 11:07, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
The title may be wikilinked as above, but should only target another Wikipedia page, so put the URL for the online edition in the |url= field. --Redrose64 (talk) 12:13, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Tried it. Looks funny, but it works. You might want to update the documentation. The |url= entry states "Cannot be used if you wikilinked title.". Thx. Paradoctor (talk) 12:56, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
Yes it does. I overlooked that. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:43, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Relevant discussion

There is a discussion occurring at Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style. Your participation would be appreciated.
V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 23:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Interferes with five-tilde timestamping

{{editprotected}} When I include accessdate=~~~~~ in Cite book's parameters (e.g. this edit), the tildes aren't automatically replaced with a timestamp as normal. This makes it harder to add an access date when citing an online edition of a book. p858snake says at Bugzilla that this must be an issue specific to the template. NeonMerlin 06:46, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the date accessed parameter is called |accessdate= and secondly it asks for a date, not a date and timestamp. Rjwilmsi 12:01, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
It's not a problem in {{cite book}}, but in <ref>, as Alex Z. pointed out in the bug discussion. Removing {{editprotected}}. Svick (talk) 13:43, 25 January 2010 (UTC)
{{plain now}} seems to work. In cases where it doesn't, it's probably better to use automation on your own computer. I use AutoHotKey to insert timestamps with a single keystroke. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

New tool to generate citations from Google Books

Reftag screenshot

I have made a web tool that automatically makes a citation based on a Google Books url. Input a URL for a book, and the tool will pull information such as title, authors, publisher and isbn from Google Books. It will also produce a {{cite book}} template that can be copied and pasted right into an article. As a web tool, no installation required.

The tool is here: http://reftag.appspot.com/

The tool will also check if the authors have articles on Wikipedia, which can be put in the authorlink= parameter. For convenience, there is a preview area that shows what the citation will look like in an article.

It probably has bugs and may not be compatible with all browsers. Comments bugs and ideas are welcome here or on my talk page. For example, is the big table of text fields too overwhelming?

Some questions related to the use of this template:

  • Is it recommended to include an access date when linking to Google Books?
  • Is it good to include a full date when available, or is only year better for books?
  • Is it recommended to wiki-link the publisher? I often do, except for university presses.
  • is it really better to use the 13-digit ISBN over the 10-digit one when both are available? The 10-digit ISBNs seem to be more commonly used.
  • How much is it worth to have the hyphens in an ISBN? Somewhat useful, or completely trivial?

--Apoc2400 (talk) 23:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I hope it doesn't add huge clutter to the edit-mode text. Tony (talk) 01:35, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A bookmarklet simplifying usage when you're already at Google Books can be found here. Paradoctor (talk) 02:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Sounds like two interesting tools, despite Tony's not very encouraging response. The documentation says: give |accessdate= when a URL is given, a full publication |date= is preferred over just the year (though for books often only the year is available, in which case use |year=). Not sure about wiki linking the publisher, probably not particularly useful. The documentation asks for the 13-digit |isbn= if available, hyphens don't matter. Probably it is better if the tool generates the {{cite book}} specifying only the parameters it completes, rather than specifying all but leaving lots of them blank (which does add a bit of clutter); most people prefer the horizontal style, but vertical is also supported. Rjwilmsi 08:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. The tool generates only the fields that are filled in. It automatically chooses whether to use |date= or |year=, |page= or |pages=, as well as the various author parameters based on which boxes are filled in. It also makes sure the page(s) parameter is formatted properly and with en dashes, which Tony might appreciate ;-). Horizontal style is default, and there is a checkbox for vertical style. --Apoc2400 (talk) 11:01, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
A requirement you didn't ask about: the date and accessdate should use the same format already in use in the reference section of the article. If the book is old enough that the date is in the Julian calendar, the date must not be given in the YYYY-MM-DD format, regardless of any date inconsistency that might result. --Jc3s5h (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)
The tool does not know which article the citation will be inserted it, it is copied and pasted there manually by the user. The user gets to choose between dmy mdy and y-m-d, which affects both date and accessdate. It is up to the user to not use y-m-d for Julian dates. The default it dmy. Perhaps I should remove the y-m-d option completely. Btw, there is now also an (experimental) option to generate plain wikitext citation without templates. --Apoc2400 (talk) 01:51, 27 January 2010 (UTC)
Adding an option "Julian" that avoids the y-m-d format should suffice, methinks. Paradoctor (talk) 03:05, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Multiple OCLCs

I frequently find multiple OCLCs for the same work, e. g. OCLC 46704038 and 469812750 (check the ISBNs). Specifying more than one number in the OCLC field breaks the link in the rendered template. Is there a way fixing this? I don't mind specifiying a primary OCLC number, but I'd like to record the additional numbers somewhere in the template. A generic, non-displayed note field would entirely suffice for me. I could invent an arbitrary field and stuff the notes there, but that doesn't seem like a good idea. Regards, Paradoctor (talk) 16:40, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Template {{OCLC}} could be used here. Paradoctor (talk) 16:50, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you should use the id parameter and the {{OCLC}} template. This way, both numbers would be displayed. Svick (talk) 17:06, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
That's already taken by the LoC number! ^_^ Thankfully, it's a freeform field, so squeezing in the alternate OCLC is no problem. Thanks for the tip. Paradoctor (talk) 17:19, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
This seems to happen a lot. In my opinion the main purpose of listing an OCLC number is to permit our readers to easily find library copies of the works referenced. In the above-referenced case, the first number is held by many libraries, while the latter is held by only one; suggesting the latter was created in error or just isn't associated with other versions of the same work. In most cases where I've seen multiple un-linked OCLC numbers for a single ISBN, there's usually one "clear winner". Wouldn't linking just that number be the most useful thing for our readers? —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
By that reasoning, we could delete redirects, because the article usually sits at the most frequently used name for the topic. Besides, knowing about additional libraries may make the difference between paying and waiting weeks on the one hand, and going to your local library on the other. If there were twenty OCLCs instead of two, yes, that would be overkill. Paradoctor (talk) 04:53, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
If every page textually listed every redirect that pointed to it, then certainly I'd agree to removing the extraneous ones. But as to the immediate case, I just don't see any substantial utility in listing extra OCLC numbers for single libraries.
But this is probably a moot point; there is apparently a way to submit an dupe report to OCLC. —/Mendaliv//Δ's/ 05:34, 5 February 2010 (UTC)
Tsk, tsk, what do you think I tried when I noticed this issue for the first time? ;) If you go to the actual duplicate reporting page, you'll see that only OCLC members can report dupes. They're no wiki, I'm afraid. Paradoctor (talk) 06:03, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

"archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters should be addedT

The template supports a "url" parameter, but unlike {{cite web ...}}, does not support an "archiveurl" parameter. It would be useful to support "archiveurl", as more books are going into various archiving systems which may not be their primary source. I've cited some scans of 1920s manuals on line that aren't on major sites. I cite them, but also put them into WebCitation so they'll be archived someplace safer. I can't use both the original citation and the link archive citation. --John Nagle (talk) 18:35, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Placement of "others" and "edition"

Pardon my ignorance about reference formatting, but should the output of the "others" parameter be shifted around so that the "title" and "edition" remain together? For example:

I would think that the edition number would come after the title and then be followed by the "others" info. – VisionHolder « talk » 17:19, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Formatting for books with an editor + separate chapter authors

As shown in the template's examples, books with one editor and different chapter editors will display like this:

  • Bloggs, Fred (2001-01-01). "Chapter 2: The History Of The Bloggs Family". in Doe, John. Big Book With Many Chapters and distinct chapter authors. Book Publishers. pp. 100-110. ISBN 1234567890.

It's a minor point, but this period, lowercase i configuration doesn't make much sense to me. Seems it should either be:

  • ... "Chapter 2: The History Of The Bloggs Family" in Doe, John. ...

or:

  • ... "Chapter 2: The History Of The Bloggs Family". In Doe, John. ...

Thought? --ThaddeusB (talk) 05:37, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Coauthors

Please see Template talk:Citation#Coauthors for a discussion which appears to concern this template as well. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:58, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Just one URL?

The current format supports the inclusion of only one URL, as far as I can see. Is there way we can work around this? Cavila (talk) 09:52, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

I suppose that including a second URL outside the template is the easiest remedy. Cavila (talk) 10:19, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Why would you want to do this? The citation is supposed to show where you found the material. If you found it in the printed edition of a book, leave the URL blank. If you found a book online, give the URL for the actual online edition which you consulted. If you found it in two places on the web, give two full citations. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
Alright, then we should rephrase "URL of an online location where the text of the book can be found", which suggests an optional extra even when you've used the printed edition. I've seen editors 'abuse' the url parameter by inserting links to Google Books (complete and incomplete) simply because they found them convenient, not because that's what they used. Cavila (talk) 10:49, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
As I mentioned in a posting above, "cite book", unlike "cite web", doesn't understand "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters. It should. That's a good way to provide both a definitive and a backup URL. --John Nagle (talk) 21:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Editors

Can someone explain why the "editor" fields are no longer working? For example, here (both editions of Conway's All the World's Fighting Ships, specifically), where the relevant information no longer appears. Thanks in advance. Parsecboy (talk) 12:09, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Odd. If the year of publication is omitted, the template is rendered ok, except that you don't want to get rid of the year of publication. Server-related trouble perhaps? Cavila (talk) 12:34, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
That is odd. It must be a server thing, it was working fine yesterday. Parsecboy (talk) 12:42, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
Maybe the problem lies with a recent change (?) in the primary template. See Template talk:Citation#Problem with editor parameter. Cavila (talk) 12:48, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
I think we'd better centralise the discussion of these related problems, I suggest the talk page of the template which is at fault, ie at Template talk:Citation/core#Last change breaks Editor fields. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:10, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
A new version of {{Citation/core}} has been published which appears to fix these problems. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Sandboxed changes

I have sandboxed proposed changes to this template similar to the changes to this template similar to recent changes to {{Citation}}. The intent of these changes is to remove the use of info specified in the coauthors parameter in constructing the target anchor which is produced when the ref parameter is set to "harv". Barring objection, I plan to go live with the sandboxed version in a few days. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:06, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

I've published the sandboxed changes. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 05:04, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Chapter and url

I note with mild frustration that, if chapter and url are specified but chapterurl is not, the hyperlink is on the chapter rather than the title. Has that always been the case? It seems wrong to me; if I want a link on the chapter, I will specify chapterurl; therefore, if I specify url, it means I want a link on the title. jnestorius(talk) 23:00, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

I've asked about this at Template talk:Citation/core#Titles, IncludedWorks, and URLs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:36, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Thanks; I didn't find that because I searched for chapterurl. I wonder if this was changed when contribution was added as a synonym of chapter? If it's desirable behaviour for contribution but not for chapter, then they're not really synonyms. The handling of url could change to link title if chapter is specified but contribution if that is specified. Or else add a titleurl parameter (and then maybe deprecate url). jnestorius(talk) 08:02, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Further discussion ongoing at Template talk:Citation/core#Titles, IncludedWorks, and URLs. My guess is that something will happen to address this, but some details need to be worked out first. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:35, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I've sandboxed changes to Citation/core to add a parameter named TitleURL and sandboxed changes to this template to add a parameter named titleurl and to usde the sandbox version of core. This is intended as an alternative to the url parameter, and would always associate a url supplied in that parameter with the title parameter. As yet, there has been no discussion for or against publishing these changes. Feel free to try the sandboxed templates out (e.g., {{Cite book/sandbox |titleurl=titleurl |title=title |chapter=chapter}} -- until the sandboxes get changed), and to comment either here or (probably better) at Template talk:Citation/core#Titles, IncludedWorks, and URLs. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 04:35, 22 April 2010 (UTC)

Table number

I have a book mostly consisting of tables without page numbers. Another situation might be a book with several tables on the same page. We should be able to give a table number instead of (or as well as) a page number. Something like this:

Cordell, Bruce R.; Jeff Grubb, David Noonan (September 2001). Manual of the Planes. Table IX.

Can we add a field "table"? Zerotalk 09:44, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can work your way around this, first by suppressing the "p." or "pp." for page numbers - "nopp=[insert random character]" - and second, by writing "Table [X]" or Tables [X, Y] in the parameter for page numbers. I wouldn't mind an extra pair of parameters though ("table" and "tables"). Cavila (talk) 09:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
You can use the (hmm, undocumented) at parameter. It works the same way as page/pages, but i doesn't add p./pp. Svick (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I've documented |at= based on that for the similar parameter on {{citation}} and {{cite journal}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:16, 7 May 2010 (UTC)

last/first vs last1/first1

Please see new thread at cite journal and comment there. --Redrose64 (talk) 13:11, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Cite option on My preferences

cite book is without cap. Admins are changing the "C" to cap. So, what is right? --Chris.urs-o (talk) 12:04, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what option in your preferences are you talking about
Wikipedia:RefToolbar Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
Thx, right: option> My Preferences> Gadgets> RefTools --Chris.urs-o (talk) 14:15, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
nor what admins are you talking about (maybe some bot is doing that), but the answer is that both variants ({{cite book}} and {{Cite book}}) are right. I don't think there is anything that makes one better than the other. Svick (talk) 13:18, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
There are advantages either way, lower case is easier to type, dyed in the wool lower-case programmers prefer it, it can look more natural with in-line templates. Upper case reads slightly better when the template call is considered on its own, outside sentences, especially if it is standing in a bulleted list or on a line by itself, if you perceive the {{}} as creating an out-of-text entity. Moreover upper case can help distinguish between named parameters and templates, {{{{{Template and {{{{{parameter. Finally the name of the page is in upper case, the reason both calls work is that en.wikipedia is set to case-insensitive on first letter, not all wikis are set up this way, including some of our sister projects, therefore capped template calls are slightly more portable. Rich Farmbrough, 13:40, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
There are also reasons for leaving the template name exactly as entered by the editor who first placed it: a change from {{cite book}} to {{Cite book}} has absolutely no effect on the page, but shows up in the diffs, so it's very tedious wading through a series of unnecessary changes just to find a very few that are significant. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:44, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Pseudonym argument?

How best to cite Recollections of Old Liverpool by A Nonagenarian. The author in question is James Stonehouse, but his name is nowhere mentioned in the book. What comes to mind is cite book |last = Stonehouse | first = James (aka "A Nonagenarian"). Would a new argument be handy? --Tagishsimon (talk) 16:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Remember that what goes into first/last or author ends up in the COinS metadata, which when processed might give the wrong impression about the author's first name. If the true author is not mentioned in the book, perhaps he did not wish to be; so I don't think we should mention him either. I would use |author=A Nonagenarian. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:15, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure we should feel ourselves bound by the presumed wishes of a 150 years dead author. It is of interest (to me, at least) to know who the author was. It's for the reason of not screwing up the metadata that I think a means of distinguishing the real and pseudonym would be useful. (I accept your preference to respect the author's decision, , R64, but it doesn't work for me. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:21, 28 June 2010 (UTC)
We should cite sources as the information appears in the book. This is also how the information is indexed in databases. Project Gutenberg credits this to "A nonagenarian" & so should we. In notable cases (e.g. Mark Twain, Lewis Carroll, J. D. Robb), there should be an article or redirect that links pen names with legal names. In cases where this is not possible, we can use the authorlink parameter. --Karnesky (talk) 17:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

TWO ISBN NUMBERS

Can we have another space on the template for the second ISBN numbers?Дунгане (talk) 21:14, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Each publication can have two, of different lengths. I usually pick the longer one and use it, as that system is newer, as I understand it. - Denimadept (talk) 22:55, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
As explained in ISBN, if a book has both an ISBN-10 and an ISBN-13, then the two numbers are redundant. So there is no need to list both. Older books (before 2007) will only have the ISBN-10. On the other hand, if the original request relates to listing multiple ISBNs because there are multiple editions, then normally you should only list the one for the edition that was actually used, per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. --RL0919 (talk) 01:34, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Linking the ISBN.

ISBNs entered with the isbn= parameter is currently not linked, which means users need to use "id=ISBN 1234567890". Is this a technical difficulty, or is it on purpose? I find the automatically created links very useful, and would prefer to have them linked when using "isbn=". -- Jeandré (talk), 2010-07-10t14:22z

That ISBN linking, if I remember correctly, was not long ago a part of this template. If that is true, then I wonder why it would be removed? And if I'm thinking of another ref. template, then I agree that autolinking the ISBN number would definitely be an improvement.
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  15:38, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
PS. Thank you very much, editor Jeandré, for the "id=" tip. Learn something new everyday 'round here.
PPS. See discussion at Template talk:Citation#ISBN Links —Preceding unsigned comment added by Paine Ellsworth (talkcontribs) 17:02, 10 July 2010
It's caused by a recent change to {{citation/identifier}}, which as Paine states, is discussed at Template talk:Citation#ISBN Links. I believe it's an undesirable change, and have requested a reversion. You shouldn't need to use the |id= fudge, because the |isbn= parameter was originally added to avoid such use of |id=. There's a bot which amends instances of |id=ISBN 1234567890 to |isbn=1234567890. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:01, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
Thank you, Redrose64, for that clears some things up!
 —  Paine (Ellsworth's Climax)  18:07, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

can add "origtitle" ? Or just "comment" field  ?

I would suggest to add "comment" field to the template where some unclassified information can be stored. Currently I want to cite a book which original (1959) title is different from the current (2000) one . (Book is translation - actually several things changed - like chapter numeration - the change is motivated by the fact, that they return to title and numbering in the original Russian edition...) So may in comment field it will be worth to put information like - page and numeration follow 2000-edition... Alexander Chervov (talk) 17:53, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

You can just put that information after the template, I don't think there is any need for an additional field. Use e.g. <ref>{{cite book | first = Jane | last = Doe | title = The Book}} Some comment.</ref>. Svick (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2010 (UTC)
Oops... Thank You! I overlooked such a simple way:( Alexander Chervov (talk) 19:06, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

archiveurl and archivedate

Unless I'm mistaken this option are missing that you can find on {{Cite web}}. How can you archive a book you may say. Well simple it can be available in pdf form. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:41, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

This has been mentioned before, see earlier: Just one URL?, also archive 7: Archiveurl requested, archive 8: Archiveurl, archive 8: "archiveurl" and "archivedate" parameters should be addedT. I don't think that any experts were in too much hurry to carry out the required changes. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:35, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. It's good to see it was discussed and agreed before. Now is it possible an admin can make the change? Regards, SunCreator (talk) 01:26, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
Sandbox the changes and I am sure I, or another will. Rich Farmbrough, 13:23, 20 June 2010 (UTC).
I've sandboxed lightly tested changes. This removed the previously sandboxed but unpublished addition of the titleurl parameter. If the changes are published Cite_book/doc needs to be updated accordingly. I'm traveling beginning tomorrow, and may not be able to pay much attention to this for the next week or two. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:02, 20 June 2010 (UTC)
Thanks – what's the current status? I don't see archiveurl=/archivedate= working in cite book at the moment. --Lexein (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I made the changes to the template (I updated the previously sandboxed version a bit) and to the docs. Note that this is a simpleminded change and doesn't address concurrent use of the chapterurl parameter. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:17, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Help with citing an old source

I am trying to properly cite the following source, but I'm finding it difficult to fit the last part into this template:

  • Milne-Edwards, A. and A. Grandidier. 1875. Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar. Vol. VI. Histoire naturelle des mammiferes, Tome I, Texte I (Imprimerie Nationale, Paris 1875).

Should "Histoire naturelle des mammiferes, Tome I, Texte I" be used as a "chapter"? – VisionHolder « talk » 23:18, 28 July 2010 (UTC)

How would you describe this? I see two authors, and the rest isn't clear to me. – Denimadept (talk) 02:29, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Two authors, year of publication is 1875. The title "Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar" is that of a 40-volume set. To be honest with you, because I don't have access to these old books, I'm not sure what "Histoire naturelle des mammiferes" is... though I suspect that it's a chapter. It's mostly the "Tome I, Texte I" ("Volume 1, Text 1") that I don't know how to deal with. Let me ask someone who's actually had the privilege to look at these old, rare books, and maybe I'll have a better answer for you. Sorry for not being clear and not having a good answer to your question (yet). – VisionHolder « talk » 03:41, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
Having a search through WorldCat, this entry says that Histoire naturelle des mammiferes is the name of Volume VI of Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar. Other search results suggest the volume is in turn is split into books ("Tomes"). This particular search result suggests (looking in the Notes in the Details section) that Texte 1 translates as Part 1 rather than chapter......do you think there are chapters as well?!!.....those crazy French..... Stephen Kirrage talkcontribs 09:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure about chapters because I've never seen the original source, just photographs of the few pages that I'm working from. So how do you cite a volume with a name, and furthermore, how do I include the "tomes" and "part number"? – VisionHolder « talk » 13:40, 29 July 2010 (UTC)


OK. Let's give it a go trying to use the {{cite book}} template:
{{cite book|first1=Alphonse| last1=Milne-Edwards| first2=Alfred |last2=Grandidier| title=Histoire naturelle des mammifères, Tome (Book) 1, Texte (Part) i|series=Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar| volume=Volume VI| year=1875| language=French| location=Paris |publisher=Imprimerie Nationale| oclc=494592496|lastauthoramp=y}}

which gives
Milne-Edwards, Alphonse & Grandidier, Alfred (1875). Histoire naturelle des mammifères, Tome (Book) 1, Texte (Part) i. Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar (in French). Volume VI. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. OCLC 494592496. 

Which outturn is not that elegant but OK I suppose. I've always disliked the bold "Vol" rendering and if you want it unbolded then don't use the volume parameter but include the Volume number at the end of the series parameter text. Stephen Kirrage talkcontribs 15:14, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

On second thoughts it would be better to use the trans_title parameter thus:
{{cite book|first1=Alphonse| last1=Milne-Edwards| first2=Alfred |last2=Grandidier| title=Histoire naturelle des mammifères, Tome 1, Texte i|series=Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar| volume=Volume VI| year=1875| language=French| location=Paris |publisher=Imprimerie Nationale| oclc=494592496|lastauthoramp=y| trans_title=The natural history of mammals, Book 1, Part i}}

which gives
Milne-Edwards, Alphonse & Grandidier, Alfred (1875). Histoire naturelle des mammifères, Tome 1, Texte i [The natural history of mammals, Book 1, Part i]. Histoire physique, naturelle et politique de Madagascar (in French). Volume VI. Paris: Imprimerie Nationale. OCLC 494592496. 

Stephen Kirrage talkcontribs 15:26, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why do we still list people by their last name first?

Why do we still list people by their last name first? |last1= |first1= |authorlink1= It is only useful if you are going to sort a list of references by the author's last name and we never do that. Why don't they appear the way the appear in Wikipedia as first_name and then last name. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 04:35, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Some articles use parenthetical referencing. Those articles have the choice of using the Cite xxx family of templates to format each entry in the list. Jc3s5h (talk) 05:00, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
See, for example, a recent TFA. The short notes are in the order in which they first occur in the text; they give author's surname, year and page. Below that, the full citations are given, in order of author's surname. If there had been two or more books by the same author, these would be further sorted by year. --Redrose64 (talk) 10:51, 3 August 2010 (UTC)

Archiveurl revisited

This was discussed here with apparently weak consensus that archiveurl= is useful to add, 1) for consistency's sake, and 2) for when book url= links rot, as they oh-so-frequently do now (the economy and all). I'd like to add to that, the fact that cite web hides isbn= (this was the suggested alternative if cite book url= link is dead) which excludes its use as a cite book alt. No action was taken. So I'm reviving the topic with a vote FOR inclusion of archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters in cite book, for the above reasons. Please discuss. --Lexein (talk) 22:13, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

Please see #archiveurl and archivedate earlier on this page; discussion is still open. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:26, 10 August 2010 (UTC)
Doh! We can delete this thread, if you agree. --Lexein (talk) 00:51, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

volume

I think the "volum" part is bolded unnecessary. --Aleksd (talk) 10:41, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The bolding is done within {{Citation/core}}, and gives consistency with {{cite journal}} etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:43, 16 August 2010 (UTC)