Template talk:Cite book/Archive 10

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5 ← Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 Archive 11

Suggestion for a change to the online link format

As the template is currently configured, the titles can be linked to online copies which can vary in their nature depending on the url. For some books we also have articles in the Wikipedia. I suggest that we only link titles to Wikipedia articles, and move online links to a position similar to the ISBN at the end of the citation. For example, there are many old books (lacking an ISBN) for which there is an online copy (or copies) available. In these cases the ISBN would obviously be omitted, and in its place we could provide the online link. Here's an example of what I am suggesting:

  • Maitland, J. A. Fuller, ed. (1904). Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians, Vol. I. New York: Macmillan. View online at Google Books.

This has the advantage that we could link both the Wikipedia article and the online copy. If we were to implement something like this we would probably want to add a new parameter, e.g., "urlpublisher=Google Books", which gives the reader more information about the nature of the online link. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Is it a good idea or not? Or has this already been discussed and discarded. --Robert.Allen (talk) 19:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

Google Books, Scribd and the like are not publishers, they are hosts and no different from a lbirary or book store so I don't see the need to show that bit. If a book has an article, then the title should be wikilinked and no URL included; the URL should then be in the book article. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:57, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I think I understand why you object to that parameter name, since it could be confused with the book publisher. Whatever we call it, it's useful information, since there are many sites that have online books, such as Internet Archive, Gallica, etc. These are online libraries, and if we link to one of their copies we should say where it is, since different online copies are not always identical. (It's not equivalent to a bookstore, since the publisher does not usually provide the digital copy.) Also, linking the Wikipedia article on a book is not equivalent to linking the online version directly, as this case illustrates. The url's for the Grove Dictionary are many, and there are many volumes and editions. The user will find it difficult to find a url to the cited material in that article. Also, if the citation is to a particular entry, the url can point directly to it in many cases, and this saves the reader a lot of time. I still think we need both a link to the Wikipedia article on the book, and an external link to the cited material, and they can't both be linked through the title. --Robert.Allen (talk) 22:43, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I own a published technical manual for an obsolete product that I have never seen listed anywhere else and is probably quite rare. Should my cite include my personal library and address? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 02:53, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Hah, reminds me of another editor, now retied, who was insistent that citations should carry detail to that level even down to shelf number and box file the document was stored in. I'm with User:Gadget850 on this stick with the wikilink, if the book does have it's own article, then external link but both are not needed. NtheP (talk) 08:14, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm was only suggesting optional parameters, not required ones. But of course one doesn't have to use the template to add these things, so perhaps it is of no importance. Thanks for your thoughtful and courteous feedback. --Robert.Allen (talk) 08:54, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
Remember too that books are routinely assigned an OCLC number regardless of age or ISBN assignments, and that worldcat.org is searchable by OCLC number. In fact, adding the OCLC number in this templates links to the worldcat record for that ID number. Imzadi 1979 → 01:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)


Perhaps we should add a |titlelink= parameter that would override the URL. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:20, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

new parameter

This is a duplicate of a thread recently raised at Template talk:Citation#new parameter

Many archived books, old public domain books etc., have only one copy or two of themselves in existence. They are often located in University or government libraries, in a specific location. I feel there should be another location parameter for this purpose, not just for the location of the publication, so if someone needs to look up the book to confirm the reference's content, they know where to look for it, in case an internet link goes haywire.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 01:17, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Add the OCLC number to the citation, and worldcat.org will tell you where the closest copy of the book is in relation to your location. If the book has an ISBN, the special search page for that record will also contain a link to that book in worldcat. Imzadi 1979 → 01:33, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Such a library/shelf/box parameter has been requested before, and has been turned down. The last time that it was mentioned was just two days ago, see #Suggestion for a change to the online link format above.
Locations of books or documents within libraries do change: as the stock is increased, some is moved around to make way. Any library worth its salt has a catalogue, so that if you have title, author etc., you can ask the librarian who will direct you to the appropriate shelf (which may well be a different shelf than it was last week). --Redrose64 (talk) 13:46, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
The idea that the only way to find the reference is to stuff the physical location into a cite is a fallacy. Any relatively modern library will have an electronic catalog. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 14:06, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I find this ambiguous. The proposal seems not intended for shelf location, but for items (such as old newspaper clippings) which may not be cataloged, possibly in some out-of-way location (like a small history museum). Even if an item is cataloged in WorldCat, if it is to be found in only one or two institutions it would seem useful to include that so that a user does not have to go to WorldCat. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 23:22, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
I think for any unusual item, book or otherwise, there may be a need to give special access instructions. One could imagine a library that requires a potential reader to apply for access to a rare item six months in advance, for example. Perhaps the special instructions should just be written after the template. Jc3s5h (talk) 23:37, 31 July 2011 (UTC)
Guys, I am talking about something very specific. for example, on google books, scroll down on the following link to the "Bibliographic information", and then do you see the "Original from" parameter? Next to it, it says "Columbia University", where this old public domain book is currently stored. No other copy of this book is in existence, its only located in one place, and thats Columbia University. It has no ISBN since its so old that is PD, and any sort of number at OCLC or whatever won't help.DÜNGÁNÈ (talk) 03:17, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
That book is also avaialable from Harvard and Universitätsbibliothek Johann Christian Senckenberg .[1] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 03:50, 1 August 2011 (UTC)
adding |oclc= 612113178 to the template will add the worldcat search that Gadget did linked to the number. Imzadi 1979 → 04:21, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

eBooks and page numbers

I'm not sure if this is the right page for this discussion but here goes anyway. With more and more books being available electronically through e-book readers how are these to be cited. The book itself is no chnage but most e-readers don't give you page numbers. Kindle for example gives you location numbers (paragraphs basically). Are those going to be acceptable in citations? NtheP (talk) 13:22, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

  • By chapter and if present section, then by paragraph starting with a quote in the textFifelfoo_m (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
That seems cumbersome and overly onerous compared to quoting a page number and leaving it to the reader to find on a page of paper text. NtheP (talk) 14:01, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Section numbers and similar may be placed in the |at= parameter. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:06, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Which is fine by how is it to be denoted? Paragraph number? Location number? I'm adverse to having to type out any text as a guiding quote when a Kindle location, for example, is no more or less specific than a page number to someone who has access to the same edition of the publication. NtheP (talk) 14:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)
Are the location numbers consistant between different Kindles? If not they won't be much use for citing?Nigel Ish (talk) 20:42, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I believe they are. Only way to prove it would be to find two people with the same book on Kindle and check some locations out. if they are I was going to suggest edition=Kindle, at=location XXXX as a way forward. NtheP (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
I think this is still a problem because Apple iPad users (iBooks) not running the Kindle app will not be able to use the Kindle reference! Farawayman (talk) 08:11, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Same problem already exists, what you describe is no different from two people refering to paper copies from different publishers e.g. the first edition hardback may have diferent numbers from the first edition paperback. If I create a reference using one and you only have the other edition then my page reference is of no use to you. NtheP (talk) 09:05, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
Isn't an ISBN supposed to identify an individual book edition and variation (even including e-book variations)? That should solve many of the problems, if ISBNs are supplied properly by editors (that is, if an editor looking at the paperback copy of, say, a kindle variation of the fifth edition of a particular book, doesn't cite a page number from that in an article citing another edition and/or variation) of that book. I'm guessing that is not unusual, though.
For books without ISBNs, it seems like the full citation might need to specify edition and variation (e.g., "sixth edition (paperback)", or "Readers' Digest Condensed version". A {{{variation}}} field might be added, or the docs might say that this info needs to be supplied in the {{{edition}}} field if an ISBN is not supplied, but my guess is that a high percentage of citations won't supply this info.
I'm doubtful that there is an effective solution. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 11:02, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
The issue is that many ebooks don't have page numbers. The Kindle has locations which are dependent on the selected font size and do not relate to page numbers in hard copy books. This has caused a number of complaints from the academic community. Kindle Software Update Version 3.1 adds page numbers but only to the Kindle 3 and only to books that Amazon has updated with page numbers. This discussion has run before and we have not documented this issue anywhere. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:18, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the first part of your second sentence. The location numbers are static regardless of the font size, what changes with font size is how many locations are on the screen at once. So the location numbers will correlate with page number but without the page number it's not possible to give the page number. This puts us back in the situation I outlined before - that the Kindle location is a specifiable location within a book but not verifiable to anyone without the same version of the ebook and as such is as valid as a page number from a specific paper version which other readers may or may not have access to. NtheP (talk) 15:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)

As a quick test of this, Location 459 of the Kindle edition of Treasure Island gives "I thought perhaps Dr. Livesey" (p. 22) on the Kindle reader for PC - Can someone confirm that this corresponds to the same location on an actual physical Kindle or on another Kindle viewer (like on a Smartphone).Nigel Ish (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
I'd love to but there are more than one editions of Treasure Island available on Kindle store and I don't know which one the Kindle reader for PC is. NtheP (talk) 19:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
Following up: IMHO page numbers are more tied to editions than ever before, now that books can be (laser) printed/released on demand from easily reformatted electronic manuscripts. Where there are multiple editions with obvious repagination, it would help greatly to include chapter= name, and perhaps a brief quote= parameters in the cite book template. Nearly all nonfiction, and many, many nonfiction books have invariate chapter names. Including the quote makes verification easier, because presumably the text will not change much between editions, and most e-book readers seem to include search. --Lexein (talk) 13:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

books belonging to multiple volumes

sometimes books can belong to two volumes of something. can we have a |volume1= and a |volume2=? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DÜNGÁNÈ (talk • contribs) 02:26, 3 August 2011

Books with multiple volumes often have different publication years and may well have different authors. In most cases they will not have unique page numbering (i.e. there will be a page 12 in each volume). Therefore, they should be listed separately. For example:
Three volumes, three years, two different authors. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:30, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There is a |volume= parameter:
Per the documentation: "volume: For one book published in several volumes. However, this template displays the text in this parameter in bold type after the title and series parameters. An alternative is to include the volume information in the title parameter after the main title (see example below)."
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:04, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

Total pages

This template's documentation says of |pages=:

not the total number of pages in the book

Where this template is used for a list of works in a bibliography (rather than simply for a reference) it would be useful to have a parameter, say |pagecount=, which would render as:

123pp

Can we add that, please? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Why? What style guide uses the total page count in a cite? Would you count only the pages in the body of the book, or include the forward and afterward. If I have a manual that is numbered by chapters and chapter pages do I have to do math? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:40, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I agree with Gadget850 that I have never seen any external style guide that requires a page count. However, if I know that a passage of interest is on page 23 of 600 in edition X, and I have an online version with 18,000 lines, I could estimate the passage would be near line 690. So the information could be useful, but it would be a departure from the practice of all other style guides. If it were done, I think we would have to write out what we mean in the citation: "600 pages total". Since it would be an innovation, there is no widely understood abbreviation for this. Jc3s5h (talk) 13:13, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I've seen the page count given on book seller's sites, e.g. Amazon, perhaps because buyers think more pages=better book? It doesn't really seem a useful parameter for Wikipedia uses i.e. doesn't help user to understand the content of the book, how to find a copy of the book, or where to find some cited information. I'm not exactly against but fear another parameter would just lead to misuse. Rjwilmsi 16:53, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
And then we have the eternal problem that an additional parameter here means an additional parameter in {{citation/core}}, and so for the sake of consistency we also need an additional parameter in {{citation}}. All of these cause a very slight increase in transclusion time, calling down the wrath of those for whom citation templates are bad. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I also don't see this as useful. If the length of an author's works is a noteworthy fact per reliable sources (and there are some where this is the case, usually ones that write tremendous tomes), it can be discussed in prose. For a citation or bibliography list, it just isn't important information. --RL0919 (talk) 17:48, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
As I said: in a bibliography (rather than simply for a reference). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 17:58, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

Note also that {{Infobox Book}} has a |pages= parameter, used as I described above. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 20:51, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

References and bibliography entries serve the same purpose— to provide a concise description of a source with enough detail for another editor to locate the source— I see no need for different formats. Please give an example of where a source cannot be located without knowing the number of pages. {{Infobox book}} is not a reference template. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 00:57, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
I dispute your assertion; this is an encyclopedia, which exists to present facts in an encyclopedic fashion. However, you are correct in saying that {{Infobox book}} is not a reference template; and, for the third time, I shall point our that I am talking about instances of {{Cite book}} which are used in a bibliography (rather than simply for a reference). Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 11:09, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Which assertion— that references and bibliography entries serve the same purpose? Or; that they provide a concise description of a source? How do they differ in purpose? Please provide an example of how references and bibliography entries should differ. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:48, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Gadget, please see the example I gave in my posting prior to yours - which is presently immediately below this one. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:30, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
i.e. the books which credit (insert name of article's subject here) as author, such as George Dow#Bibliography. In such cases I consider the number of pages unimportant, but if I were to wish this information to be shown, I would simply append it to the line after the close of the {{cite book}}, e.g. }} (hardback, 11 in x 8.5 in, 256 pages, 4 folding plates) --Redrose64 (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2011 (UTC)

RFC on identifiers

There is an RFC on the addition of identifier links to citations by bots. Please comment. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 16:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Page

Hello,

Look at these references in an article. The words Retrieved start with a capital letter. Fine. Even the word Vol. has a capital letter, although it does not follow a period. But p., following a period, so beginning a sentence — a rather short one —, is incorrect. Please correct that : put P. instead.

Thanks,

--Nnemo (talk) 21:05, 17 September 2011 (UTC)

The accepted English abbreviation for page is lowercase p regardless of whether it's starts a new sentence or not so what the template currently shows is correct. NtheP (talk) 21:42, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Also, in your example, the volume isn't generated by the template... it was input as part of the title. If it was generated by the template, whatever was input into |volume= would have been displayed in boldface text. Imzadi 1979 → 21:48, 17 September 2011 (UTC)
Really ? That would be weird. Do you have a source for that ?
When I begin a sentence, I write Page ; abbreviated : P.
Otherwise, I write page ; abbreviated : p.
--Nnemo (talk) 20:48, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Just check any of the major English-language style guides, and you'll see that the standard abbreviation for "page" is "p." and for "pages" it is "pp.". I wouldn't start a new sentence in running prose with a "P." anyway, but in a citation, these aren't really separate sentences so your analogy isn't appropriate. It's one block of text that uses periods, commas and semicolons in standardized ways to separate the discrete pieces of information that make up the larger citation. Imzadi 1979 → 20:53, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Also see Pearsall, Judy, ed. (1999). The Concise Oxford Dictionary (Tenth ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 1021. ISBN 0 19 860259 6. where we find that the entry for the abbreviation "p" (meaning "page") uses a lower case p; compare the entry immediately previous, for "P" (abbrev. for "played", "park", etc.), which is written with capital P. --Redrose64 (talk) 21:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

Citations are not sentences. The period in the citation does not end a sentence, it separates elements of the citation. See Purdue OWL for MLA and APA styles.---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Citing an e-book

Hello. I wanted to use this template to cite an e-book I am reading. But I am wondering how to cite a specific location in the book because there are no given page numbers. This is on a Kindle, and it only gives a "location" such as 4337-42. Should I cite this in the field "page" (such as "Kindle e-book location 4337-42) or some other place? Pigby (talk) 15:32, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Use |type=Kindle version and |at=Location 4337-42, where version is the Kindle version. As best I can tell, different versions of the Kindle render different locations; newer Kindles with updated e-books will show page numbers. The Kindle eBook should have its own ISBN or ASIN. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:44, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Pigby (talk) 16:33, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
APA also recommends using other location identifiers such as chapter, section and paragraph. [2] ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:55, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
Although I have not seen a printed style manual, when a text is likely to be available in several different forms with different location systems, I may quote it in the article; I think most readers are used to the idea of searching for text without being given specific advice to do so. If an quote is not appropriate in the article, I may give a specific search-for phrase in the footnote. Most printed style manuals will have an "escape clause" somewhere that lets you do whatever you have to so the reader can find the material. Jc3s5h (talk) 16:25, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
|quote= may be useful for this.


Propose to add:

Page numbers are not supported by all e-books. To pinpoint the source, you can use:

  • |type= to indicate the e-book device and version; example: |type=Kindle 3
  • |page= or |pages= if the e-book supports pages.

Or, if the e-book does not support pages, use one of these methods:

  • |at= to indicate the location; example: |at=Location 4337-42.
  • |at= to indicate the chapter, section and/or paragraph; example: |at=chapter 1, section 2, para. 3.
  • |quote= to include a short, relevant quote.
  • |isbn=, |asin= or other identifier should specifically indicate the e-book.

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:08, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry but why the need for a more specific pinpointing of information from a ebook than from a paper copy? A paper page can have over a thousand words on it but there is no insistence that we have chapter, section, paragraph and quote to identify the text. So why should it be any different from an ebook? Kindle locations are far more specific than page numbers as they relate to a much smaller section of text. I fully agree that the version of the ebook should be quoted but then the location number should be sufficient. NtheP (talk) 20:47, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I don't own an e-book reader, but my overall impression is that it could be a bit worse than with paper books. For a given edition of a book, usually there are only one or two versions (paperback or hardcover). So how many location identifiers are there for a given e-book? Are there different ones for different brands of viewers? Are there different location ids for different versions of the same brand of reader? If the same basic book is going to have 8 different locations for the same passage, something independent of the different e-reader brand and version needs to be provided. Jc3s5h (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
I revised that a bit to include ors. We would need other information only if the e-book does not support pages, like the older Kindles. See the APA blog ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:33, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

Republication info

It would be nice if there was some parameterized way to show republication info (as it's often a different publisher, location, etc). RIght now there seems to be no way to do this? There is origyear (I think that's the name of the argumnent) but no origloc, etc. Noel (talk) 16:12, 24 September 2011 (UTC)

If the book is a republication, give the publication details for the version which you actually consulted. |origyear= is the only parameter intended to specify information about the original publication. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:05, 24 September 2011 (UTC)
That works OK for citations (but maybe not even then - I may have a copy of the original printing, but someone who wants to verify/expand on that may only be able to easily locate a later edition), but not so fine for 'Further reading', if I (as I often do) have the original edition, but the later republication is much more common. Noel (talk) 15:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
Different editions may not use the same page or may not support the citation. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:28, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

Plans for a "Cite isbn" template?

Following from the {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} templates, I was wondering if it would be possible to create a {{cite isbn}} template. This could greatly improve the uniformity of book references if there were some source to pull this information off of. – VisionHolder « talk » 23:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it wouldn't. Catalogues of books indexed by ISBN lack central features of book citations, including editors, full author lists, publisher locations, often get dates wrong. ISBN lists are not authoritative. Fifelfoo (talk) 00:26, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Even if they are non-authoritative, the creation of standard template citations for books would be helpful. After all, with the other two templates, people are given the option to go in and edit the journal citations. (And to be honest, I have always had to make corrections.) At least the citation has a chance to be fixed in a central location. As it stands now, people can make errors in book citations across many of pages. It's more the central location aspect of {{cite doi}} and {{cite pmid}} that I appreciate, although the auto-generation is very nice. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:32, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
And another point: Book citation templates already do exist for very heavily used books, such as {{LoM1}}, {{LoM2}}, {{LoM3}}, and {{MSW3}} and its numerous related templates. (I'm sure there are others.) It does raise the important question of how to handle individual chapter citations, but I'm sure we can figure it out. – VisionHolder « talk » 00:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Books in Series, Books in Multiple Series, Books in Series in Series with volume numbers; books with book volumes; books with book volumes with individually titled volumes; the multiplicity of non-authorial requires acknowledgements (ed, trans, illus, intro, pref, series ed, series in series ed); multiple ISBNs; multiple editions Fifelfoo (talk) 00:59, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. But how is all that handled now with this template? – VisionHolder « talk » 01:08, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
  • Generally, as soon as citations move away from Author, Single (Simple Year). Simple title. Publisher. they become appalling. The quality of publisher locations presented at FAC / MILHIST A is very bad. Most authors do not understand the concept of a "Work" contained in Another Work, let alone Another Work Volume 1: Works of the Desert, Part II: Deserts of New Zealand. Works in unusual places [Series] Joan Bloggs (s. ed.) volume 44. I don't know a mechanistic solution is possible; it seems to be an educative problem. Fifelfoo (talk) 01:13, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
My point is that if this template is robust enough to handle all of those circumstances, then the citations can be cleaned up in time by various editors. (Or maybe I'm missing your point.) – VisionHolder « talk » 01:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
I haven't read the above thoroughly, but check this, and then this. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 02:18, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
In my opinion the issues against a {{cite isbn}} are a lesser evil compared to having to type the fields manually, plus in several conversations in the village pump it is reckoned that referencing is the biggest technical hurdle for new editors. I for one, hate the fact I have a paper book in front of me and have to search the british library or amazon for book details... --Squidonius (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
Why bother? I have hundreds of paper books - I fill in a {{cite book}} based purely on what's printed on the book's copyright and title pages (and, if necessary, from the front and back covers too). I don't go searching the web for DOIs and OCLCs and stuff, and nobody complains about my book citations. On the contrary: one book which I often cite is MacDermot's "History of the Great Western Railway" (first edition), published 1927 (vol. 1) and 1931 (vol. 2). Sometimes somebody tries to put an ISBN against it, but unfortunately, the ISBN applied is invariably that of the second edition, published in the 1960s with completely different pagination.
Tip: set up a document on your computer (it could be a spreadsheet, a database, or a plain text file) listing the books which you refer to most often, each with a ready-filled {{cite book}} (omitting those parameters which will vary for different facts, such as |page=). When editing articles, just copy&paste the relevant pre-filled {{cite book}} as necessary, and then add the missing |page=, etc. --Redrose64 (talk) 11:28, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
I have my bibliographies listed on a user page; User:Gadget850/Pershing bibliography for example. When I reference something, it is easy enough to edit, copy and paste. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 19:10, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

You all are sliding off the question here. Despite Fifelfoo's disparagement of ISBNs as imperfect, the fact remains that (when available) they are helpful in identifying specific editions, and in providing publication details. And it would be very helpful to be able access those details without having to chase them through World Cat or such. It would also provide a check that the ISBN supplied is valid, and on the consistency of the data. - J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:51, 3 August 2011 (UTC)


Modified idea for isbn template

The original idea contemplated "some place to pull" the information from, with an implication that it might be an external place (catalog), in the manner of {{cite doi}}; the initial response was that there is no satisfactory external place. It has since occurred to me that in many cases we already have the relevant information (or much of it) right here, internally. So why not have a template that links to a list of existing occurences of an isbn? Sure, it is not the same as filling in a template, but just pointing an editor to prior usage could save a lot of time searching for details. It could also be the basis for identifying inconsistencies (possible errors). _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 18:46, 22 October 2011 (UTC)

Draft at {{User:Gadget850/Template/cite isbn}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:19, 23 October 2011 (UTC)

Punctuation

I noticed that this template generates notes that use a period after the author's name. In my experience this is entirely non-standard. An author's name is always followed by a comma, as in "H. G. Smith, Interesting Stuff".

Peter Isotalo 07:17, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Not at all. Whether you use a period or a comma depends on your citation format. A quick look suggests that APA and MLA (see here and here, respectively), probably the two most common citation formats, also require periods after the author's name. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:22, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
See also, MediaWiki:Cite text for examples of citations in different formats. --Philosopher Let us reason together. 09:28, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
And User:Gadget850/Cite comparisons, which compares various styles to Citation Style 1. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:20, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
"Entirely non-standard" only in regard of some specific journal. Or class. Note that "entirely" and "always" are very powerful words, but capable of being falsified with only a single instance. Generally more trouble than they are worth. _ J. Johnson (JJ) (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
You example of "H. G. Smith" uses first last format. What style is this? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:27, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Citing footnotes

Do you think it would be possible to add a footnote field into this template? I've just come across a book where the information I want is in the footnote of a page and there is no way to direct readers to the specific footnote. A parameter in this template would allow for this. A similar thing could be done with endnotes, too. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:01, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

How about |at=p. 123, footnote 4 --Redrose64 (talk) 19:09, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
Oh of course - that'd work. Thanks. ItsZippy (talk • contributions) 19:46, 16 November 2011 (UTC)
I think you'll find |page=123 (footnote 4) also works fine. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 15:13, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Translator

What is a good way to identify the translator of a work? I wonder why there is no corresponding parameter? Lfstevens (talk) 15:37, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Page range error

Recently (last 2 days) when doing a page range in cite book I have been getting this rubbish appearing instead of hyphen: "–" which on my browser is an "a" with ^ on it and unrenderable unicode 0080 0093 in little boxes. Does anyone know where this came from and can fix it? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 08:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Example please. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 09:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Perhaps I should be apologizing, it may not be in cite book, but in the citation tool that I am using that generated the cite template. see example: author, first. the title. pp. 1–2. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help); C1 control character in |pages= at position 3 (help)
Graeme Bartlett (talk) 09:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Not a template issue, as those characters are actually there. What tool are you using? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:00, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
When I edit there s a row of buttons above the edit box starting with B for bold and ending with cite which appears after ref. When I click "cite" it inserts a row of buttons web, news, book, journal .... cancel. When one of these is clicked a form opens that inserts a template into the textarea. I have edit toolbar enabled, but enhanced editing toolbar disabled, and use Monobook skin. A relevant gadget may be "Enable dialogs for inserting links, tables and more" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
You are using RefToolbar 1.0. A simple test seems OK with FF8/Win7: author, first. the title. pp. 1–2. {{cite book}}: |last= has generic name (help)
How are you entering the page range? How do you type the dash? What if you copy this and paste it into the Page number(s) field: 1–2
What browser and OS are you using?
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:23, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
The button is probably from this gadget: Wikipedia:RefToolbar, I think you are right. I just type "-" hyphen character as that is what is on my keyboard. I am using Windows 7, Firefox 8 same as you!. Testing the different page range here: . pp. 1–2. {{cite book}}: Missing or empty |title= (help) (that seems to look OK.) cf . pp. 1–2. {{cite book}}: C1 control character in |pages= at position 3 (help); Missing or empty |title= (help) with the hyphen. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:30, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
OK! The standard hyphen is the problem. You should be using an ndash using Alt+0150, but the hyphen should not bork like that. See MOS:NDASH. This only occurs in the Cite book dialog, the other tempates are OK. Reporting at Wikipedia talk:RefToolbar 1.0. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:39, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Thankyou! Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:04, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
Tracked the problem and proposed a fix. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 16:17, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Boldfacing of volume is inappropriate

 – Pointer to relevant discussion on another talk page.

It just doesn't make sense for books (or other non-periodicals) and needs to be fixed in {{Citation/core}}. I've raised the issue at Template talk:Citation/core#Boldfacing of volume is inappropriate for non-periodicals, with suggested code. — SMcCandlish Talk⇒ ʕ(Õلō)ˀ Contribs. 20:27, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Laysource

This template supports laysummary and laydate; any issues with adding laysource? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is that intended to be recursive—i.e. with a place for another citation template? After all, presumably the lay summary is also citable somehow. (Similar in principle to when you want to indicate that you are quoting from X, who is quoting Y—but you don't have Y available to verify directly.) No objections—just wondering. TheFeds 05:56, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:46, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

deadurl parameter

Hi! Could we please add the |deadurl= field to this citation template per Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dead url parameter for citations.

The edit needs to be like this: [3].

You can see all the testcases at User:H3llkn0wz/Sandbox3. This basically does this:

{{cite book | last=Bloggs | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Bloggs | year=1974 | title=Book of Bloggs | edition=1st | url=http://en.wikipedia.org/ | accessdate=2006-02-17 | archiveurl=http://wikiarchive.com/en.wikipedia.org | archivedate=May 2011 }}
Bloggs, Joe (1974). Book of Bloggs (1st ed.). Archived from the original on May 2011. Retrieved 2006-02-17. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help)
to
{{cite book | last=Bloggs | first=Joe | authorlink=Joe Bloggs | year=1974 | title=Book of Bloggs | edition=1st | url=http://en.wikipedia.org/ | accessdate=2006-02-17 | archiveurl=http://wikiarchive.com/en.wikipedia.org | archivedate=May 2011 | deadurl=no }}
Bloggs, Joe (1974). Book of Bloggs (1st ed.). Archived from the original on May 2011. Retrieved 2006-02-17. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |archivedate= (help); Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)

—  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 10:48, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

 Done ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 12:21, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:BOOKLINKS

Would it be possible to add the guide link for "books links" to the url parameter line. Moxy (talk) 07:56, 16 January 2012 (UTC) url: URL of an online location where the text of the publication can be found. Cannot be used if title is wikilinked. If applicable, the link may point to the specific page(s) referenced. Do not link to any commercial booksellers (such as Amazon.com) (See WP:BOOKLINKS)

Documentation pages are not protected. The URL section uses a subtemplate from {{csdoc}}. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Parameter asin=: URL fails to default to amazon.com

In Richmond Park Academy I have cited some books published during the 1940's and 1950's. The only reference to these I can find is on Amazon so I included an 'asin=' element as referred to under 'Several other parameters' in the documentation for this template. The URL generated by this, however, lacks a 'com' top level domain and therefore fails to work. Thus asin=B0019X06I8 generates the URL http://www.amazon/dp/B0019X06I8 rather than the desired http://www.amazon.com/dp/B0019X06I8 - I have worked around this by using id={{ASIN|B0019X06I8}} which works as documented. -- KenBailey (talk) 15:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

There was a recent change in core. Let me look at this. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:27, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 Fixed ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:41, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
Thanks :) -- KenBailey (talk) 22:17, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Using cite book when you don't have the book

Should cite book be used if there is a web page which says its reference is a book, but which is not reproducing the book directly on that page. See example at [4]. Or should this type of reference go in as a cite web? Eldumpo (talk) 08:38, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Look at it this way: Is that web page something you could pick up at a library or bookstore? I think not, therefore it is not a book. That page uses another encyclopedia as a reference, but you can't directly reference that encyclopedia without having read it yourself. So yes, use cite web, if it is a reliable source. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 10:28, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
As above, what you are citing is essentially a tertiary source, which is the website. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 11:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
Or you can cite the book saying where you saw it cited e.g. "encyclopedia of JEWS in sports, by Bernard Postal, Jesse Silver, and Roy Silver (New York: Bloch Publishing Co., 1965) as cited by jewsinsport.org" as per WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT NtheP (talk) 11:18, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

If you yourself haven't read it, you shouldn't cite it. Fifelfoo (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for quick responses. I have added some text in the opening paragraph of the template description indicating that cite web would be appropriate in this instance. See if you have any comments on it. Eldumpo (talk) 14:45, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Nowiki the "{{book reference}}" in template doc

The template documentation has a wikilink for "{{book reference}}". This link is circular and refer to a redirect to the same page. Also, the text called the "book reference" tag deprecated but it appears that the tag is now obsolete, not deprecated. I would change the word to "obsolete" and nowiki the tag. Jason Quinn (talk) 02:14, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I moved it to a hatnote. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:20, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Having it in such a prominent position (first thing mentioned) may encourage people to start using it again, which, if it was deprecated, is not desirable. Perhaps, mentioning the current status of each redirect in the hatnote is better. Jason Quinn (talk) 13:34, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
More better? You can edit the document page as needed. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 13:48, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
Better but I might tweak it some more. I was thinking that the protection would apply to the documentation. Didn't think to even check. Brainfart. Sorry. Jason Quinn (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
The green doc page is unprotected so anyone can updated. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:22, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Language location

The location of ("in <language>") after the author name but before the title, rather than after the title, seems odd to me. Is there a good reason for this decision? JoshuSasori (talk) 09:51, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

The order of display is determined by {{citation/core}}, not by {{cite book}}. --Redrose64 (talk) 14:12, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for the pointer. I notice that cite website puts the (in <language>) after the name of the article. JoshuSasori (talk) 09:10, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Title is the main work and is formatted in italics:

  • Surname1 (in language). Title. 

IncludedWorkTitle is a sub-work (i.e. chapter) and formatted in quotes:

  • Surname1. "IncludedWorkTitle" (in language). 

And together:

  • Surname1. "IncludedWorkTitle" (in language). Title. 

{{Cite web}} puts the website in Title and the particular page in IncludedWorkTitle.

And if you add an editor:

  • Surname1. "IncludedWorkTitle". In EditorSurname1 (in language). Title. 

---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 11:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Cite_book/Archive_10&oldid=1138530068"