Template talk:Cite book/Archive 2

message: How can I add a reference such as this:
:*Altenmüller, Hartwig. 2001. “Die Mumienhülle des Chonsu-maacheru”. In Alt-Ägypten, edited by Wulf Köpke and Bernd Schmelz. Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Völkerkunde Hamburg 30 (new series). Bonn: Holos Verlag. 21–72.
The best I can get now (using the template) is:
*Altenmüller, Hartwig (2001). “Die Mumienhülle des Chonsu-maacheru”, Wulf Köpke and Bernd Schmelz Alt-Ägypten. Bonn: Holos Verlag, 21–72. .
I need the editors' names to be after the book title. There is no way to add the series and series volume number. Page numbers are in the middle of the reference for some very strange reason instead of at the end of the citation where they belong. And there is the issue with the periods (or lack thereof) in the reference. Klompje7 07:10, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You could create a proposal for a changed version of the template. Best under your user space. Maybe at User:Klompje7/cite book/1? Just copy the current version of the template to there first, so that your proposed changes can be diff'ed. You could then insert test inclusions at User talk:Klompje7/cite book/1. I have done this several times that way. Just use  instead of  when calling your test template. --Ligulem 09:40, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series names, volumes, editors 

message: I'd suggest three possible solutions for problem described in #Note:
# Instruct the users to not enter a dot if there is one
# Introduce new parameter, say dotinname which would be set to true if the name is an initial
# Test the name against "A.", "B."... "Z." which should solve most if not all cases
# Both 2 and 3.
Nikola 07:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: None of those are practical. 1 & 2 make the documentation even more complex - people have enough trouble following it as it is. 3 would hugely increase the server-load. ··gracefool |☺ 02:31, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible solutions for double-dot problem 

message: I fear that we are suffering instruction creep over the various author-related parameters.
The situation is quite simple:
* author is available for simply dropping a single author into:
** it performs no magic formatting
** it is suitable for those authors with names which cannot be shown as "last, first"
** it is also suitable for an editor if there is no explicit author in which case appending something like "(ed.)" is suitable
* first & last are available for a single author whose name can be shown as "last, first":
** they automatically arrange the name components in the correct order and insert the comma
** last overrides author
** first is optional
* authorlink allows the correct article link to be specified
** it is only activated if either author or last is present
** the brackets are provided ()
* coauthors allows specification of further authors after the first
** it is only activated if either author or last is present
There is no point in over-prescribing what should and should not be done with these parameters: it is perfectly simple for later editors to rearrange as necessary.
For example, it would be perfectly acceptable to drop a whole series of names into the author parameter: this could then be split up at a later date, and possibly linked.
(It might also be possible, at a later date, to provide more than one set of author parameters e.g. first_2+last_2+authorlink_2 and split coauthors but this is not considered necessary right now.)
For the time being, the most important thing is to record the information available and display it to best advantage.
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 15:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author parameters 

message: I'm having trouble with the following cite book reference:

produces this:
[Sivaya Subramuniyaswami] [1979] (11 2003). “Six Schools of Saivism”, Dancing with Śiva, Hinduism's Contemporary Catechism, Sixth Edition, Kapaa, HI: Himalayan Academy, 491-515. . Retrieved on 2006-03-06.
As you can see, the author's name is Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, and I have the attribute author=Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami in the tag, but it is only showing Sivaya Subramuniyaswami, missing Satguru and sticking it over on the end of the authorlink URL as http://www.himalayanacademy.com/satgurus/gurudeva/|Satguru. You have to hover over the author name and look at your browser's interpretation of the URL to see what I'm talking about. Help? --Japendranatha 00:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: authorlink is not meant for external links, so your use of this template is wrong. On authorlink, you can specify the name of a wikipedia article. Nothing else. The documentation above says "authorlink: Title of Wikipedia article about author." --Ligulem 08:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with author name 

message: I've just made a tweak to the first book reference on Die Ärzte, which is the band's official biography (Ein überdimensionales Meerschwein frisst die Erde auf). It included a translation of the title, which I moved from the title param (in italics it looked like it was part of the title) to the language param. It now says "in German: A Colossal Guinea Pig Devours the Earth", which also looks odd, as the translation isn't German. It would look better without the "in".
Would it be possible to either
* remove the "in"; or
* change the template to add a translation param, so it inserts the translation after the language and omits the "in"?
Hairy Dude 06:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about doing the guinea pig like this?  --Ligulem 08:29, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems very awkward to me, having to refer explicitly to "the title". I'd prefer it to be part of the reference. Hairy Dude 09:02, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: How about not using this template for this case? We cannot cover all possible uses with this template anyway. There is no need to use this template everywhere. Stuffing each and every gimmick into this template here is not a good idea. --Ligulem 09:15, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation of a foreign-language title 

message: I would like to propose to eliminate the accessmonth and accessyear params and instead require to specify the accessdate exclusively in ISO YYYY-MM-DD format. I think we can risk removing these without doing a thorough walk through the more than 5,000 articles using this template. These two params were added recently. The likelihood that they have been used is rather small. So I think that try would be worth the risk. --Ligulem 08:36, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems reasonable to me. —Serein 12:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've talked with Phil on IRC about this. Seems like he's not such a big fan of removing accessmonth and accessyear. If I recall his speech correctly he thought about possibly using that info for links to internet archive services. So my proposal to remove accessmonth and accessyear would then be somewhat in the wrong direction regarding Phil's line of thinking. Also gracefool added them. So we have at least two brains that seem to like accessmonth and accessyear in one or other another way. My own reasoning was that I have seen that editors fill in date info in such great varieties in params like year, month and date that I fear we will not be able to find that much of worthy info in the triple accessdate, accessmonth and accessyear that could be useful for automatic processing. I also fear that presenting too much options to editors complicates this template. In the case of the accessdate I think this date should be known fully (all date components: year, month and day), as this is the date when the editor accessed the URL's in that cite book call. Well, I'm a bit in doubt now what to do. So in situations like this here it is probably best to leave it as it is for now. --Ligulem 09:22, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  accessmonth and accessyear 

message: The usage description above currently displays the following line:
 | title = REQUIRED
It's not clear to me whether this is meant to say that the title should be bold (by just replacing REQUIRED with the title) or that we should really be sure to include the title, and the person trying to bold this text didn't realize that wiki bolding markup doesn't work within a PRE prefomatted-text element. If the latter, we should remove the surrounding triple apostrophes because it's misleading. If titles should be bolded in citations, we should include the markup in the template, not require each and every instance to include that markup. Assuming that the apparent bolding is a mistake, I plan to remove the apostrophes in 1 week unless someone provides a reasonable counterargument (or someone beats me to it). ~ Jeff Q (talk) 02:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only the usage instructions. I think you could go ahread ahead and remove in the next 1 hour. -Splashtalk 02:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I for one was misled. I thought it was directing me to bold the title. Dpbsmith (talk) 10:47, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've already removed that misleading REQUIRED from the doc. Thanks for reporting this. --Ligulem 10:50, 10 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bolding of title? 

message: It appears that I can't use the coauthors field without an authors field as well, right?  I have a book that has five coauthors, none of which are credited in any way over the others.  Is there a way around this?  Or am I supposed to do something else? Tuf-Kat 05:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd suggest putting the first named author in the author field, and the rest in coauthors. It doesn't matter that they're equally credited for the book: one of them is still named first. (In the library world, we'd not usually name the other four authors at all here!) —Serein 07:49, 12 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Coauthors 

message: The article on AIDS has been nominated for FA status, yet the first comment in place is about the wikitext. It is called a perfect example of what best practice isn't. AIDS extensively uses this template along with the cite journal and cite web templates within the text. This makes for better reading and better referencing. Just thought people should know. --Bob 00:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not the templates' fault. It is the fault of the <ref> system (see m:Cite/Cite.php) which requires that references be inline in the text rather than collected together at the end of the article. -Splashtalk 01:07, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/AIDS/archive1]]

message: I am having trouble converting the following citation into the new format, any help would be greatly appreciated. 
Harel, Idit & Papert, Seymour (1991). Software design as a learning environment. In Idit Harel & Seymour Papert (Ed.), Constructionism, pp. 51-52. Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation. .
Cheers.  youngamerican (talk) 16:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think I got it.  youngamerican (talk) 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  citing an article/chapter in an edited/compiled book. 

message: I've been dealing with some academic books, and those are often in a series of related books or monographs.  I've been trying to learn how to use this template, and I'm holding Volume 10 of the "IAS/Park City Mathematics Series".  Could entries for the place in a series of books be added to this template?  I don't know much about template editing.  The book is a standalone (hardback) book that has its own title, authors, etc., it just also has the additional information that it's Volume such-and-such in such-and-such a series.  Thanks!  -- Creidieki 23:45, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Books in series 

message: I have reverted the addition of an optional ID param. We use only lower case params here. There is already an id param. The reason for this is, that maintenance of inclusions is more complex if we have all params in lower and upper case variants (especially a migration to using another template). This is one of the reasons why we created this new template as a replacement for the old  and migrated in hard work more than 5,000 inclusions. Also the template code is more complex when having upper and lower case params. Please don't add upper case variants for existing lower case params. Thanks. --Ligulem 21:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: btw, do you lot know about , which uses upper-case, apparently? Septentrionalis 21:28, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I know. So, what do you want to say with that? Some explanation: We had a request for lower case parameters on the old , which had only upper case params. Instead of having a hydra with upper and lower case params I proposed to do  here with only lower case and deprecating . In a joint effort we then migrated all inclusions from book reference to cite book. --Ligulem 21:43, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you want to deprecate  (or, alternatively, direct users who prefer caps to it? Septentrionalis 21:50, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know.  was made by COGDEN. He seems not to be so active any more on the citation templates. Book reference comes from SEWilco. And I don't know how many fans of Harward reference exist. This might be a bee's nest. The philosophy of Harward reference is a bit different than cite book. It's not just the upper/lowercase thing. I wouldn't say that fans of uppercase params should go using Harward reference instead of cite book. Please also note that all these more complex citation templates depend on that heavilly debated . In light of this, there are some damn good reasons to have the citation templates as simple as possible. Harward reference looks quite complicated. At least it cannot be converted to Weeble method (a possible stop gap measure method if qif should break). Although this pressure has been further lifted recently (see talk on qif, introduction of native conditional function}. --Ligulem 22:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverted adding of ID param 

message: User:Tob added a new parameter "doi" and used it on Scheme (mathematics). I have manually substed the template call to  to avoid Meta-template complaints. --Ligulem 16:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameter doi 

message: Hi, 
Can someone fix this template so that it shows firstname lastname, instead of lastname, firstname? The lastname, firstname style is rather old-fashioned and non-standard. (And personally, I was glad when the style manuals banished it; I thought it was rather akwardly ugly all along).  linas 04:04, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi. To my knowledge, current consensus on the en Wikipedia is to have it as it is. So it will stay as it is until there is evidence of consensus to change that. So if you want to change this, the right thing would be to try to gather consensus first. "old-fashioned and non-standard" is not very convincing. Which style manuals are you referring to?  Wikipedia:Citing sources hints otherwise. --Ligulem 09:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The main reason for this is to facilitate sorting a list of entries into alphabetical order, which is overwhelming done by "lastname, firstname". BTW, if you really don't like it, there is always the "author" parameter which is also useful for names which do not fit the "lastname, firstname" paradigm, but don't be surprised if your choice is overruled by subsequent editors. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 14:28, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  First name last name 

message: Some punctuation marks end a sentence, like ! and ?, so if a title ends with such a mark, there is a full stop too many!. Intangible 17:01, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, but then don't use this template for that book. I know of no way to detect if the book title ends in ! or ? and then suppressing the emitted period in this special case. --Ligulem 17:54, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We could add an optional parameter "titlepunct", so that if "titlepunct" is specified, then the period / full stop isn't added. – Minh Nguyễn (talk, contribs) 06:01, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, that would be possible. I would recommend to name the parameter "no-title-punct", though. --Ligulem 07:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  title of book