Template talk:Citation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Citation:

There are no active tasks for this page

Some books have more than one ISBN[edit]

Some publishers produce their books in a hardcover edition for libraries, and in a paperback edition for the general public and bookstores. But besides the binding, the book is the same. The markup in price of the hardcover compared to the paperback provides extra revenue for the publisher, and is less than an individual hardcover binding commissioned by the library. The two editions have different ISBNs as the book trade needs to be able to distinquish both editions because of their different price. On the other hand, the same ISBN may be used for subsequent printings labelled as new edition even if the only change is the printing number and year in one of the first, identifying pages. I would like to add both ISBNs to a CITE BOOK or generic CITATION. Is this possible, if not could it please be made possible? --L.Willms (talk) 12:25, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

No. The cs1|2 templates are not intended, nor designed, to document multiple sources. WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT requires you to cite the source of information that you add to a Wikipedia article. If you got it from the paperback edition, cite that and only that. You can always add {{isbn}} outside of the cs1|2 template and still inside the <ref>...</ref> tags.
Trappist the monk (talk) 12:48, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
For citation purposes it is not relevant, if the cover of the book is hard or flexible. The source is the printed text which is page by page and line by line identical in every respect between hard and soft cover versions. The information in the REF is to help the user find the book either in the bookshop or in libraries. When only one of the two ISBNs is given, the user misses out half or more of the possibilities to find the source of the quote. On the other hand, you complained that identical reprints of a book have the same ISBN. Wrong. If the book is identical between the covers it is the smae source of the content. ISBN has been created as a tool for the book trade. For the book trade a different price is important, not the identical content. Identical content should be offered as one and the same soure, not as different ones. I don't know if you only program this "citation" macro or if you actually work with ISBN and other tools of the book trade one of referring Wikipedia readers to sources. I do, and I therefore care. Cheers, L.Willms (talk) 23:41, 4 December 2017 (UTC)
I agree, cover construction is irrelevant for a citation. Editors here and at Help talk:Citation Style 1 have reported that pagination and other content is ofttimes different between different covers (search the archives of these talk pages). It is for this reason that cs1|2 do not support multiple isbns.
You wrote: "On the other hand, you complained that identical reprints of a book have the same ISBN." I have made no such claim nor complaint, please do not put words into my mouth that I have not spoken.
Trappist the monk (talk) 01:13, 5 December 2017 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── On a related point, some books have multiple ISBNs for the exact same physical printed volume. Springer-Verlag is known for assigning a 0-387-prefix (English) and 3-540-prefix (German) ISBN to the same book. (These prefixes also have the same modulo-11 checksums so the ISBNs have the same check digits.) For example, Proceedings of the European Conference on Computer Algebra (EUROCal '85) has ISBN 3-540-15983-5 and ISBN 0-387-15983-5. (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

The practical solution for including multiple ISBNs, until the template handles them, is to use the ISBN template directly for the additional ISBNs, placing it after the main citation, and using the punctuation control in the citation template to handle the final punctuation as desired. Of course many ISBNs are added after the original reference, so there is usually no way to tell which version was originally consulted. On the other hand, if a single book has 8 or 10 different ISBNs for different printings and countries, including all of them may seem strange - in practice it is not a big problem to just choose one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 14:19, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Book citations can (and most often should) indicate relevant page numbers. I've seen instances where the hardback and paperback editions of the same edition of a book had and different page numberingss, making them different variations of that book edition. Individual ISBNs are assigned to each edition and variation (except reprintings) of a book. Audiobook and E-book issuances of that same book edition would also have individual ISBNs. A citation should indicate the particular variation of the book edition where the information being cited was found (and most often should indicate where the information was found therein). It is outside the purpose of a citation to identify other variations of the cited book edition variation. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 22:36, 24 December 2017 (UTC)

It may however be within the scope of web citations, where space is not an issue but dead links and lack of physical libraries certainly are, to include alternate links should the editor wish. Currently I just include it in commented code for an editor to replace in case a link goes dead, but another convention might be briefly linking the alternate sources following the Harvard-style citation, using a common phrase like "Alternative locations". The difference would be that one could include it within the template itself, instead of having editors adding the phrase manually after the template. The markup might look like:

|alt1={{isbn|1234}} |alt2=[http://test test] |alt3=Your local library

Alternative locations: ISBN 1234, test[→], Your local library.

Thoughts? SamuelRiv (talk) 17:09, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Archival Resource Key parameter[edit]

Has anyone considered implementing an Archival Resource Key parameter? It's just another kind of ID comparable to the existing doi or jstor parameters, and would presumably be abbreviated ark. Daask (talk) 16:35, 24 January 2018 (UTC)

New identifier requests[edit]

The DOI foundation recognizes several international libraries with their own identifiers. There are tens of thousands articles in en.wp that cite Chinese and Japanese papers, so support for CNKI, JaLC, etc. would be useful. Code might be available already on zh.wp.

Also supporting the above poster in adding ark identifier from historical collections scanned at the Internet Archive (1921 example 13960/t12n61m3f). SamuelRiv (talk) 16:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Additionally requesting Uniform Resource Name urn support, which among other things is used for several universities' classics catalogs. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:56, 1 April 2018 (UTC)
I think this request (and the similar one above it) is premature. The pathway to getting these supported is to start using them in the |id= parameter. Once we get a large body of citations using certain types of ids, it will become clearer that there is a need to support them directly. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:38, 1 April 2018 (UTC)

Unexpected citation check message[edit]

As can be seen below (as of the post date), the following reference:

Correia, Alexandre C. M.; Boué, Gwenaël; Laskar, Jacques (January 2012), "Pumping the Eccentricity of Exoplanets by Tidal Effect", The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 744 (2): 5, doi:10.1088/2041-8205/744/2/L23 bibcode=2012ApJ...744L..23C Check |doi= value (help), L23. 

gives a 'check' message for the doi value. However, the doi link works properly. Praemonitus (talk) 15:14, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

|bibcode= is missing its pipe (|). There is also a missing pipe maintenance message that links to Category:CS1_maint:_Missing_pipe – instructions on how to see those kinds of messages are on the category page.
Trappist the monk (talk) 15:18, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Ah, okay. Sorry for the bother then. Praemonitus (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Regarding social media posts.[edit]

At current I am using as an example |publisher=Certain Football Club with |website=Twitter.com , quite often I am working out what the |title should be for the citation, I was wondering if we need a new element for social media posts that might help cover the title, Govvy (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Hasn't this all been worked out with {{cite twitter}}?
Trappist the monk (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
Okay, then maybe you can mention it in the main template article, because I read through the whole thing and there was no mention of cite twitter. Cheers. Govvy (talk) 20:08, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Controlling whether "eds." or "ed." is added to editors parameter[edit]

In the specific-source citation template {{eFloras}}, which cites the Flora of North America among other resources from eFloras.org, I added |editors=Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+ when the FNA has been selected. But (eds.) is added, redundantly, when there are no authors.

I am also running into this problem in {{PLANTS/sandbox}}, where I am considering using |editors=National Plant Data Team (NPDT), eds. to avoid the typographical error of two consecutive parentheses: National Plant Data Team (NPDT) (eds.). Currently, (eds.) ends up being appended. But another solution is to remove the abbreviation (NPDT).

Could a way be provided to remove (eds.) when it is not needed?

One idea is to make it so that (eds.) or (ed.) is only added if the pattern "%f[%a]eds?%." is not found in the |editors= parameter. That would match "ed.", "eds." after non-letters (not a-z, A-Z, if the basic string functions are used). Or the frontier sets could be changed to "%f[^%s%p]", to match after spaces or punctuation. But maybe it would be a bad idea to automate it.Eru·tuon 18:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The obvious solution is to get rid of the redundant "(NPDT)". Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
@Headbomb: Yes, as I said. But what about the first case I mentioned, |editors=Flora of North America Editorial Committee, eds. 1993+ in {{eFloras}}? (Here I'm trying to follow the recommendation at http://floranorthamerica.org/cite.) — Eru·tuon 19:13, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Again, get rid of "eds." (and likely 1993+ as well). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I suppose that is the only option if the proposed feature is not added. Still, it is somewhat frustrating that the citation templates cannot accommodate the recommended way of citing the editors. — Eru·tuon 19:36, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Each publication sets its own citation style (in the case of Wikipedia, the editors of each article, by consensus, set the citation style). Sources do not set the citation style. A few sources give suggestions on how to cite them, and those are somewhat useful if they give you a few different suggestions for different styles (Chicago, APA, etc.). But those are nothing more than mild suggestions which you should feel free to ignore. Jc3s5h (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
If the editors are in the |editors= parameter, the text "eds." in the parameter's value is redundant. Omit it. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:43, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
I'm thinking 1993+ is the number of editors. In that case, I'm not sure it would make sense without eds. before it. — Eru·tuon 19:54, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
1993+ refers to the years of publication of the 20 volumes of the series.Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:58, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
Oh, I guess so. Somehow I got the idea that wasn't the case. — Eru·tuon 20:02, 14 July 2018 (UTC)
In that case, I withdraw this request. — Eru·tuon 20:10, 14 July 2018 (UTC)