Template talk:Book reference/Archive 1

message: This is a good start! I've had in mind a scheme to make Bib:xyz entries recorded in a separate table in the database, so the bibliography could be searchable and shareable a la images, but that's a lot of hacking... a set of templates like this is a good bridge. Stan 20:53, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Other initial feedback

message: Why do we need this template (or similar ones for news sources and even web references)? What purpose does it serve? It's more time-consuming to create and much harder to read (in edit view) and edit. This would be OK if I could see an advantage over just doing the formatting manually in whatever way seems best (following various developing wiki conventions unless there's reason not to). I can't. From where I'm standing, this looks like an enormous waste of time! Am I missing something? Rd232 2 July 2005 15:22 (UTC)
: The citations which use the template have a consistent appearance, reducing variations between articles.  (SEWilco 14:28, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why?

message: Please keep this in sync with Template:Book reference link, Template:Chapter reference and Template:Chapter reference link. (Probably we should use some sub-templates to automatically keep some parts in sync. Benwing 07:57, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep in Sync 

message: I'd like to extract some parts of these as subparts.  For example, if we ever were to change the Year, as I tried before, I'd want the change automatically propagated to the other similar templates.  Similarly for the "publisher ID", which could be a subpart.  This is even more important in the new things I created: Chapter Reference, Book Reference Link, and Chapter Reference Link. There is a large amount of code duplicated among these three, and I really want to subpart it.
Is there a standard for creating subtemplates (i.e. subparts)?  Do we just go ahead and create a Template and use it, and pick some reasonable name?  At the very least we need to pick a standard for naming subpart templates.
Benwing 08:39, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  extraction out into subparts 

message: Using the new default value syntax, I converted the template so the only mandatory parameter is Title.
 
*  Wikipedia, the book.
* Everyone. Wikipedia, the book.
* Everyone (2100). Wikipedia, the book, 1–5, Miami: Wikiprint. .
— (SEWilco 19:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Optional parameters 

message: It looks like a few more fields are needed:
* First: First name of author (ignored if Author field is used).
* Last: Surname of author (ignored if Author field is used).
* Chapter: Produces: Author (Year). "Chapter". In …rest of book info starting with Title.
* Editor: inserted before Title.  No text added so label such as "(ed.)" has to be supplied by user.
* Others: inserted after Title with a preceding comma.  For uses such as "illustrated by Smith" or "trans. Smith".
If I add these then several other templates will become obsolete.  Comments? — (SEWilco 05:42, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If you can make it more versatile, you are encouraged to do so! Please update the "What to type to use this template" section, above. --StanZegel   (talk) 10:12, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Updated documentation and renamed to the standard "Usage".  (SEWilco 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: New fields added.  (SEWilco 18:35, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter, Editor, Others 

message: Some existing templates allow linking to an author's Wikipedia article.  I can add an optional field for the name of an author's article.  Does AuthorWiki seem like a good name for that field?  I'm concerned if using "Wiki" is too WP-oriented, but AuthorArticle can have several meanings.  (SEWilco 06:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Authorlink might do as well: looks less "technical", and probably best not to get into too much CamelCasing. BTW this parameter is definitely needed for those interesting situations where you need some sort of disambiguation. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 18:07, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  That looks like a good label.  There is a possible different meaning of "URL link to author's site", but such a thing belongs in an author's Wikipedia article.  If a separate URL link is needed a separate citation can be created for the web reference.  (SEWilco 19:26, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If such a thing were desirable, AuthorURL would be more appropriate, but I agree that this kind of thing should be relegated to an article on the author themselves. AFAICT the only sensible thing for the URL parameter to point to is the actual book if a definitive version exists on-line: you might want to consider what happens if a link to a particular Chapter is required :-) HTH HAND Phil | Talk 13:44, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Having problems with Authorlink.  Template isn't letting me have two left brackets, and when I split them up they're not recognized as marking a Wikilink.  Not sure yet if the pipe symbol will be a problem.  Any suggestions?  (SEWilco 15:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Figured out a way around a couple of template quirks and got it working.  (SEWilco 07:39, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Author wikilink 

message: The nice new system seems to break if a URL is used which contains a "=".
I have tried encoding the "=" as "%2D" but this doesn't seem to work: it doesn't get converted back into a "=" so the target system doesn't get to act upon it properly.
Is this something to do with how the  template is implemented?
Here's an example:
* 
* Frederick J. Newmeyer (2005). The History of Linguistics, Linguistic Society of America.
This should link to http://www.lsadc.org/fields/index.php?aaa=history_of_ling.htm but obviously doesn't.
HTH HAND
—Phil | Talk 13:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed it.  An unnamed parameter with an equal sign requires a specific assignment.  I had to add some named numbered parameters to both "book reference" and "if".  (SEWilco 16:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Kewl: I've fixed the article where that blew up on me. Now to go out and hunt down  and obviate it :-) —Phil | Talk 14:04, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, I'm trying to think: would it hurt if for the time being I simply changed  into a REDIRECT to ? —Phil | Talk 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, so the only places now linking to  are talking about it, rather than actually using it. If no-one beats me to it over the weekend, I'll nominate it for deletion next week. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh?  Yes, TfD it.  I will point out that I'm avoiding REDIRECT of the other templates.  It's easier to find&convert existing usage before a REDIRECT, so I'll be converting the other variations before dealing with obsoleting them.  (SEWilco 05:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Problem with some URLs 

message: ::Actually, I'm trying to think: would it hurt if for the time being I simply changed  into a REDIRECT to ? —Phil | Talk 15:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, so the only places now linking to  are talking about it, rather than actually using it. If no-one beats me to it over the weekend, I'll nominate it for deletion next week. HTH HAND Phil | Talk 16:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Oh?  Yes, TfD it.  I will point out that I'm avoiding REDIRECT of the other templates.  It's easier to find&convert existing usage before a REDIRECT, so I'll be converting the other variations before dealing with obsoleting them.  (SEWilco 05:52, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Book_reference_URL removal

message: I have added a prominent warning notice to the template.
Through the magic of mediawiki and the judicious use of the <noinclude> tag, this does not appear on client articles.
Ay thenk yew.
—Phil | Talk 15:58, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Warning notice 

message: I think we ought to rethink the advice given above, where it is suggested that Authorlink should only be used if there is already an article.
See, I think it would actually be a good thing if we linked more aggressively:
if we're adding lots of references for the same author, and that author doesn't have an article,
maybe they should, so it would be a good thing if the name appeared on Special:Wanted Articles.
IMNSHO we should have an article on every author who is cited commonly:
what better clue for notability could we think of than this?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 09:09, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Proposal: change wording from "Article must already exist" to "Avoid excessive production of redlinks". — Adrian | Talk 13:03, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Or maybe "use your own judgement whether to link an author.." Pcb21 Pete 14:07, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the sentiment in general; should be up to the editors whether the author should be redlinked. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 16:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on Authorlink: red-links good? 

message: Something I just noticed on editing Arnobius — URL always puts the link on Title, i.e., on the book itself, in this case Catholic Encyclopedia.  IMHO, while this is good as a default, since Title is mandatory and Chapter is not (I use Chapter for Article, as appropriate and necessary), I think it would be A Good Thing to have some option for putting a URL on the Chapter instead or in addition.  Best thing I could think of would be (yet another) optional argument, such as ChapterURL — this would allow a link to the chapter in question in books where the online version gives each chapter its own page, while also allowing the URL field to provide a link to the top-level of the book itself, which is what I, as a reader, would expect to get from clicking on a linked Title.  I would just Be Bold and do it if this template weren't already complex beyond my ability to edit confidently; I don't want to break it while people are using it.  That said, I think the change required would be from:

 }}{{if
   |{{{Chapter|}}}
   | "{{{Chapter}}}" in
 }}

to something like:

 }}{{if
   |1={{{Chapter|}}}{{if
     |1={{{ChapterURL|}}}
     |2=[{{{ChapterURL}}}
     |3=
   }}
   |2= "{{{Chapter}}}"{{if
     |1={{{ChapterURL|}}}
     |2=]
     |3=
   }}
   |3=
 }}

I'm not at all sure that this is legal syntax; I leave its analysis to SEWilco and the experts who have done such a good job so far.  (BTW, who added "in"?  What citation style standard includes, or even allows, for that?  It certainly isn't MLA; I've never seen that anywhere.  I've removed it for now, confident that I can successfully make that small a change.  If someone knows which style that's implementing and disagrees with me, they can always revert; and I'd appreciate a comment if that happens, here or on my talk page, so I can (re)learn the referenced style.) --KGF0 ( T | C ) 17:18, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been looking at this. With the new updated version using , I think the change should now be:

}}{{qif
  |test={{{Chapter|}}}
  |then= "{{{Chapter}}}"
}}{{qif

to something like:

}}{{qif
  |test={{{Chapter|}}}
  |then= "{{qif
   |test={{{ChapterURL|}}}
   |then=[{{{ChapterURL}}} {{{Chapter}}}]
   |else={{{Chapter}}}
}}"}}{{qif

Can anybody see anything syntactically wrong with this?
HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:39, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

text: I would suggest you do first a test under your user space with examples. At the moment im not that motivated to do this myself (re qif shooting). But I'm willing to assist. Maybe you could also run the regression tests (Template talk:Book reference/regression tests) under your user space before submitting here. It might also be useful to create a non-protected development branch of this template and work exclusively there, and then let an admin (you?) copy stable versions (i.e. releases) into template:book reference to minimize changes. Changes in high traffic templates means work to the servers (database can lock for seconds), so it might be good to minimize changes. – Adrian | Talk 17:47, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chapter URL required 

message: I've just been so bold to create a new very simple template  (talk) and would like to use that in the examples section here. I would copy the muli-author example from the book author talk page. Shall I do this? Is book author book coauthor useful? Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 17:42, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not so sure it's that useful, since most citation styles I know of only prescribe Last, First format for the first author; subsequent names in the Coauthors param should be First Last, or First Last, First Last, or et. al. in my experience.  Also IIRC nested templates don't work, unless this has been updated in recent wikisoftware changes of which I am unaware.  I suppose this could have applications elsewhere, though I can't think of an example.  --KGF0 ( T | C ) 18:24, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "subsequent names in the Coauthors param should be First Last, or First Last, First Last": I guess it would be easy to change  to adapt to that (if this is the consensus). – Adrian | Talk 10:30, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Regarding "nested templates don't work": hmm. I think they do work. Have you looked at Template talk:book authorTemplate talk:book coauthor? Have I overlooked something? Can you give me a pointer ("cite your sources" :-). Or even much better: Do you have an example that does *not* work (if yes, could you please add that on Template talk:book authorTemplate talk:book coauthor under a new discussion thread section)? Thanks! – Adrian | Talk 10:38, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I've just created  (please note the "s" char at the end). See talk page. – Adrian | Talk 10:20, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've decided to limit the use to coauthors and renamed the new templates to  (talk) and  (talk) – Adrian | Talk 13:01, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Template:book coauthors (includes Template:book coauthor, Template:book authors and Template:book author) has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Book coauthors. Thank you. – Adrian | Talk 10:47, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I have moved them to my user space. See User:Adrian Buehlmann/book coauthors. I'm very pleased to see that the templates still work. I always thought they had to reside in Template namespace to work. Good by template sandbox! – Adrian | Talk 00:41, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  New related template "book author" 

message: Wikipedia:Cite sources/example style says, "please use the citation style of your choice" (original emphasis), and Wikipedia:Cite sources says, "If available and unquestioned, follow the established practice for the appropriate profession or discipline" (original emphasis).  There are a number of standards of equal merit in varying disciplines, many of which are covered in various topic area of Wikipedia.  I'm wondering about the viability of expanding the template to allow for any of them, or at least any of the common ones.
It seems that the recent effort to consolidate on a single template for all books is worthwhile, meritorious, and largely successful, if still a work in progress.  It would be a shame to have things forking again in the future as disputer arise under the above-referenced policies as one group writing in psychology insists on APA style, while the sciences insist on Chicago, and the academics pine for .  With the addition of one more optional argument (and, yes, a mountain of code) I think this template could serve everyone equally, since every citation style is including essentially the same information and simply formatting it differently for display.
For example, with the addition of an argument style, which takes values such as MLA APA Chicago Harvard, the template could provide a top-level if-nest based on the existence and value of that parameter, and format the reference in accord with the related organization's dictates.  This would also simplify the matter if, say, a reference was originally created with APA style, and the community consensus in that subject area is that Chicago should be used instead: just change that one param, and bingo, there's your change.
I think I'm beginning to understand how this template functions now, so if there's any interest in seeing this, I could do a mock-up in my user space within the next week or so.  Thank you in advance for your input, pro and con. --KGF0 ( T | C ) 23:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find this idea quite nice. A proposal: one template (let's assume that's Book reference) that contains the implementation logic and has a new style paramater (as you wrote). But then don't let users instantiate Book reference everywhere in articles. Instead, create new front-end templates like "Book reference MLA", "Book reference APA", "Book reference Chicago" and "Book reference Harvard" (or other names whatever) that just delegate to "Book reference" and set the new style paramater of Book reference accordingly and just forward all other parameters to Book reference. That way it, it would be easy to find the different variants in articles. – Adrian | Talk 01:24, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Addendum: Use for the name of the implementation template "Book reference implementation" (or similar): intentionally long to write so that users won't take it by accident. And, that name should be different from "Book reference". Edit 01:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Why not start the mockup at "Template:Book reference implementation" right away (instead of in your user space)? We (you) could copy the contents of Book reference to there and we would have an own decoupled playground for the start (with the luxory of an own discussion space). And if it should fail, we do not hurt gurus nor users here (just TfD as needed). Book reference is used in more than 3'500 articles. So, we should know what we are doing... – 02:34, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Changed my mind (and removed redlink above): I didn't know that we can use templates that reside in user namespace. So you can perfectly start that under your user space (Example: User talk:Adrian Buehlmann/book coauthors, look at the code). I'm just wondering what's the template sandbox good for. – Adrian | Talk 00:53, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

text: This seems related to Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikicite and related projects.  Store the information in a standard format and then display the information.  At the moment  is serving as the formatting and storage method, but making this template more complex will increase article display overhead.  (SEWilco 05:05, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please comment: usefulness and viability of multiple output formats? 

message: I recall that you want to use different citation styles depending on value.
I have made a template  that you can use if you want to check if a value equals a string, see :Category: If Templates for usage and more templates. --AzaToth talk 12:17, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Technical comment on how to add a new talk thread: may I propose to use the + tab on the top of this page to add a new discussion thread or if you just hit edit of the previous section but go adding a new section title to fix the title in the edit summary. The edit summary of your edit that added this new thread just shows the title of the previous section. That confuses me. However, thanks for your pointer to ! – Adrian | Talk 15:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you, have missed that button, will use it next time :) --AzaToth talk 15:10, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style option