Template talk:Cite book/Archive 4

message: Alright.  It's been weeks since I suggested this, and I added the ISBN and OCLC fields separately.  I think I've been cautious enough.  I'm going to add the COinS tag to the actual template now.  — Omegatron 23:56, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implementing 

message: I would like to search for all Wikipedia articles which use this template to reference a particular author. Is there a way to do that? PAR 17:55, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  It's hoped that it will be possible in the future with a real referencing system.  For now, do a Google search. — Omegatron 18:02, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How can I find all Wiki articles referencing a particular author? 

message: I'm currently editing a long page and adding references from 4-5 different books. Each book is referenced between 10-20 times for quotes and figures verification. As such I'm getting 'Cite error 3; Invalid <ref> tag; invalid names, e.g. too many'.
Is there anyway to work around this? Would splitting all instances of  <ref name=firstsource> into <ref name=first source1> and <ref name=first source2>  work?
Should I just enter the books into    manually? Foxhill 16:01, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to add quotes around the name of the reference (<ref name="first source2">) OR use reference names without spaces (<ref name=Sourcepagenumber> or <ref name=first_source_1>). It's exactly like you'd do with HTMl tags! Trick: ALWAYS use quotes ;-) Circeus 17:23, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That works, cheers Foxhill 00:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  How to work around Cite errors? 

message: Given the request at cite journal (at Template_talk:Cite_journal#Using_a_semi-colon_to_streamline_last.2C_first_format_with_multiple_authors) and the negative voices above at Template_talk:Cite_book#Edit_request:_Comma_instead_of_semicolon_before_coauthors I tend to change the comma before coauthors back to semicolon:
Which would mean to do again:
  #if: 
  | 
At least it would make sense to have it the same on both templates. Please consider also responding on on Template_talk:Cite_journal#Using_a_semi-colon_to_streamline_last.2C_first_format_with_multiple_authors. It might be best to discuss this over at cite journal so we can have the discussion in one place. --Ligulem 00:10, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It can't happen too soon as far as I'm concerned.  Whether other templates follow suit is somewhat irrelevent to me, since I don't use them, but I would argue that consistency of presentation is a good thing. -- Cain Mosni 23:57, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ligulem 15:50, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to semi-colon before coauthors? 

message: Shouldn’t there be a subtitle field?
-- 
Leandro GFC Dutra 17:02, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How are they normally formatted in book citations? — Omegatron 17:33, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Subtitles 

message: Here's an old issue I remember talking about with others a year or more ago. It's a minor stylistic point, to be sure, but perhaps it's worth a mention again. Forgive me if this has been discussed to death while I wasn't paying attention.
One reason that I never use the "cite book" template is because, for standard history writing like I do, the template puts the year of publication in the wrong place when using footnotes. For example, the template gives you something like this:
*Bloggs, Joe (1974). Book of Bloggs. London: Mega Publishing.
Putting the date right after the author's name is the favored approach when using an author-date parenthetical style. That is, if I'm writing some text and have a parenthetical note (Bloggs, 1974), in the reference list I'll want "Bloggs" and "1974" to be grouped together so that the reader can easily find the cited source. This template works fine with the author-date style.
With footnotes, on the other hand, one doesn't usually give the simple author and date information as in a parenthetical cite. Using the short form of the Chicago Manual of Style, for example, a footnote citing page 23 of the above book would be Bloggs, Book of Bloggs, 23, and the book would be listed in the references as:
*Bloggs, Joe. Book of Bloggs. London: Mega Publishing, 1974.
In this style, which is prevalent in academic history, it's more important to group the author's name with the title of the work (rather than the date of publication), since that's what is listed in the footnote.
Like I said, this is not a major issue. Back when I discussed this previously, footnotes were not yet ubiquitous on Wikipedia, and so a "cite book" template which used the author-date format was a reasonable choice, since it was not clear which citation style would emerge as the popular choice. Are parenthetical citations still widely used on Wikipedia? Now that footnotes are all the rage, if indeed they are, perhaps the "cite book" template should reflect that, and demote the year of publication to the end of the entry. Or is the template formatted in the author-date style as a sort of stylistic compromise between footnotes and parenthetical cites? —Kevin 17:07, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I second that. `'mikka 19:03, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I third it. Given that footnote references are now pretty much used throughout Wikipedia, I think the citation templates should all move to having the date at the end of the reference, with the obvious exception of the specific Harvard reference templates. Ideally, any articles that use Harvard-style citations with , , etc., should be migrated to , etc. The current style of the cite templates is completely unsuited to footnote referencing.--Srleffler 05:15, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

text: That would defeat the whole purpose of having a citation template with a uniform style. — Omegatron 14:58, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Placement of year 

message: Hi, may somebody pls add pms:Template:Cité un lìber to the interwiki links? Thanks pms:user:Bèrto 'd Sèra --212.42.75.247 20:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ligulem 21:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Done, but you don't need to request an edit-protected for that--interwiki links are in Template:Cite book/doc's includeonly section, which anyone can edit, as it doesn't affect the maintemplate (it's part of a noinclude block there). grendel|khan 16:49, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Interwiki 

message: Would it be possible to add something like "translationtitle" to give english translationsof foreign-language titles? That could be a prarenthesis in normal text after the italic title. Circeus 12:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I second this request, or somethign similar. Take a look at the [Russian] reference on Greater Argonaut. - UtherSRG (talk) 12:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title translation 

message: Why not add either fr:Modèle:Ouvrage (works in general) or fr:Modèle:Écrit (written works) to the interwiki links? They're the closest equivalents. — Kaustuv Chaudhuri 01:30, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added the latter (it seems more appropriate, since this template refers to books, more specifically than any works in general.  If the other one is more appropriate, let me know and I'll switch it. -- Natalya 14:56, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  French interwiki link 

message: I have a book that quotes several paragraphs from several older books.  I would like to use this information and do not have access to the original books (and thus do not know the page numbers), so how would I cite this exactly?  Wickethewok 07:59, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: One standard is to briefly cite the original book, then write "quoted in", followed by a cite of the book you're using. In the reference list, list only the book you're using. —Kevin 03:16, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

text: *Ah, much thanks!  Have a good one.  Wickethewok 07:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Booking quoting other books

message: absent a “volume” field, is there a another field to include a volume number? --emerson7 | Talk 20:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Since different volumes are essentially different physical items, I've been formatting as "Foo, volume II: Bar" or "Foo (Volume 2: Bar)". Circeus 17:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

text: See also , which has a "volume" field, and is appropriate for any book divided in a large number of independent parts.Circeus 17:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Volume 

message: Could we add a page URL to this template?  With Google books it has suddenly become very easy to provide links to the exact page(s) cited.  Thanks!  Grover cleveland 14:46, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just use url or chapterurl. It'll be fine ;-) Circeus 17:25, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Page URL

message: * East Cape to Cape Egmont Traverse
I will try an figure out what the problem is later, for the moment the template is protected, so all I can do is talk about the problem.  Can someone take a look? NevilleDNZ 03:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was that "authorlink" is intended to link to wikipedia articles, not external websites. I fixed it now.Circeus 21:57, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  example of problem with first/last/url field.