Template talk:Book reference

message: I just started User:Adrian Buehlmann/Book reference regression tests (talk) in the hope that might be useful. Please feel free to contribute there (edits on the page and its talk are welcome). It's intended as an "open house" user page. Maybe we could move that out of user space someday (if the community consents so). – Adrian | Talk 10:51, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Started a new regression test page under user space 

message: See the discussion on Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_using_meta-templates#Logic_templates. – Adrian | Talk 15:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Logic templates on WP:AUM 

message: Can I use this template for press releases? Is it good practice to use a template for a purpose other than it was orginally intended? I don't see a template specifically for press releases. See the press release example. If I set ID = Press release and Publisher = file format (if not HTML), then this template is in the correct format. --Tiger MarcROAR! 19:55, 22 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for the delay. Hope you've noticed  by now. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 11:25, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I use this template for press releases? 

message: Currently, location only shows up if publisher is defined also. For a lot of older works, one often finds the location cited, but not the actual publisher. It would be nice if location showed up even if publisher isn't defined. For example, see Arsène Roux, where I had to add "Publisher=?" because all that is known is that some of his works were published in Rabat. — mark ✎ 08:37, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: May I ask you to wait on this (some days at least). At the moment the further existence of this template here is in danger, because this here has been said to violate WP:AUM, which has recently been elevated to a policy. The exact effects from this has not yet been decided by the lead on this (David Gerard), though the killing of template:qif (which breaks book reference) has been announced with an escape chance that the functionality of qif can be moved into MediaWiki code (the software that delivers this text to you, see proposal). – Adrian | Talk 18:12, 23 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Location / publisher 

message: I have started a detailed documentation of Netoholic's CSS trick under my user space at User:Adrian Buehlmann/work/Conditional expressions with CSS. --Adrian Buehlmann 16:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Documentation for Netoholic's CSS trick 

message: I just learned about the CSS hack being added to a number of templates, to compensate for a changed policy on template transclusion.  I understand that there is an alternative, but this is being implemented because its easier.  
This hack injects junk code into the body of the page, then hides it from most visual browsers using CSS.  This makes Wikipedia less accessible for users of assistive technologies, like web page readers for the handicapped, and text readers.  This is sloppy programming and bad practice from the point of view of usability and accessibility.  Wikipedia is an open encyclopedia; please lets not start treating the minority who has the most difficult time reading like second-class citizens.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-16 17:50 Z
EVERYONE - in order to quash this ForestFire, please follow-up discussion at MediaWiki talk:Common.css#CSS hack reduces accessibility. -- Netoholic @ 19:13, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CSS hack reduces accessibility 

message: Why is this page locked? Please add sk:Šablóna:Knižná_referencia into the  section. I don't know if that is common practice but sounds reasonable to me and it's practical. ~~helix84 21:02, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and thank you. —Phil | Talk 11:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locked 

message: Since the CSS hack has been added, I've replaced  and  with literal text in the references section of "T-34".  The change was pretty easy, although to approximate the template's previous output I added something like  . . .  to each item on the page.  
Removing the template actually allowed me to improve the format slightly, adding quotation marks around article titles, avoiding double punctuation after an article title ending with a question mark, and avoiding an undesirable space between the issue and page numbers.
This could be made even easier by using a simple template that wrapped the citation tag around the literal content and added a backlink, but it's not necessary.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-23 21:19 Z
: I've created  and  to make this easier.  Example of use: T-34#References.  —Michael Z. 2006-01-24 04:19 Z
::No, please don't remove the template. Changing to use the CSS hack is a temporary measure to stave off the deletionist hordes: there is every possibility that we can revert to some version of the conditional syntax at some future stage, and we need to have the template in place to take advantage of the change. —Phil | Talk 12:19, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing this template is easy 

message: Phil Boswell wrote above:
:"FWIW I haven't seen anyone commenting on my thing yet: I was wondering if anyone had any better ideas? HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:49, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Added, following successful testing. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 12:32, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New parameter ChapterURL 

message: It would be nice if there were an option for generating an unparenthesized date at the  end, which is one standard reference style. This is not urgent; I'm keaving the year out and adding it by hand; but the template would be a more useful information store the other way. Septentrionalis 04:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Optional feature

message: The only template I can see is Citepaper, which is most unsatisfactory. Is it okay to use this template instead? ··gracefool |☺ 10:41, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not? It's up to you. It's good not to fork a template if it isn't needed. BTW, there was once an attempt to merge the citation templates into one big thing (template:citation). But this has lost some momentum due to the recent WP:AUM hell. At the moment, there seems to be a little ceasefire though. But confusion and disagreement about WP:AUM is still eminent. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:11, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's lacking a few attributes, however - eg. the Parent Publication & its details. ··gracefool |☺ 04:48, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

text: You may also want to look at . Mike Dillon 05:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mike. ··gracefool |☺ 04:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can I use this for papers & essays? 

message: Someone please add the  tag to this template. The new version is , which is easier to maintain because it only allows lowercase fields. It also adds a few necessary fields.  ··gracefool |☺ 23:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Gracefool. Let's deprecate Book reference in favor of cite book. I will begin to convert calls of Book reference to cite book. This will take some time though (I suppose a few weeks). --Adrian Buehlmann 09:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you want to put the AWB settings somewhere convenient for when we've finished the → process? —Phil | Talk 11:00, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Shure yes. I will put a pointer here (or you? Feel free to edit my user space!). You are welcome to help improve as done on the settings for cite journal. I intend to use what we have developed on User:Adrian Buehlmann/AWB/migrate to cite journal as a starting point. I think this is quite strong now. --Adrian Buehlmann 11:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

text: There are currently some clitches about moving to  that need to be resolved first. See template talk:cite book. There is also some opposition from the TfD of Journal reference regarding the name "cite journal". So I do not intend to start moving to cite book right now. Put it on hold. --Adrian Buehlmann 09:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oops. We are a bit too lame here. After looking at the whatlinkshere of  I must say that it already spreads into articles (it's used by editors!). So there is not much left for discussing then about breaking changes. I think I will launch my AWB now and start converting book references to the new cite book. --Adrian Buehlmann 12:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a shame the real problems I mention below are not worthy of your attention either. Pcb21 Pete 13:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen them, but I do not understand them. That's why I haven't answered. The cite book template does the same as book reference. It's only a new name for the template and all parameters are in lowercase. Gracefool added some new stuff, which I partially reverted, because it is not compatible to the old book reference. While I was talking with him about these new proposed things, I noticed that the new cite book already spreads into articles. So what's that bad about cite book then that isn't already bad in book reference? Is it the name "cite book" you have problems with? We already have a bunch of cite xxx templates (see :category:Citation templates). --Adrian Buehlmann 13:58, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Isn't there a difference between a specific citation of a book and listed a book as a reference? For example when citing, I habitually include (a) page number(s), but when referencing I generally don't. Won't the final scheme leaving us having to use the "wrong" template? Pcb21 Pete 14:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further perusing the talk page, I see that the template has a complicated set of instructions for usage. I don't mind implementations being relatively complex (qif etc), as only a small subset of editors will be dabbling there. However almost every editor can be expected to give references, so the client templates need to simple - even if that meets we have to provide a suite of templates rather than one uber-template. Pcb21 Pete 14:09, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've simplified the documentation. ··gracefool |☺ 03:43, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deprecated 

message: Please tag this redirect with . Thanks! Steel1943 (talk) 23:57, 3 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — JJMC89 (T·C) 02:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Protected edit request on 3 February 2019