Template talk:Cite book/Archive 1

message: I've set up settings for WP:AWB to do the migration from book reference to cite book at User:Adrian Buehlmann/AWB/migrate to cite book. Use at your own risk. You might want to wait a bit using these settings until they have been used a bit. This is very fresh meat. --Ligulem 14:19, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Migrating book reference to cite book 

message: Would it be greatly disturbing if I were to investigate the possibility of hiding the author's name when on their article?
I'm thinking of something like if authorlink =  then hide author.
Thoughts? —Phil | Talk 16:25, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you do this in a sandbox: no :-). BTW, do we get an equivalent for  when having built-in conditionals? I assume you need an equality function for this. Please note that as soon as Brion breaks qif (don't ask me why he would), there is an incredible chance that booleq breaks. Please also note that I have no clue how to mimick booleq by using weeble code or hiddenStructure hack. So if shit should happen (qif breaks before we have built in conditionals), we will be lost on cite book if you use booleq. --Ligulem 16:50, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can't qif do that? As for qif breaking, when it breaks it shouldn't be hard to port templates to the new conditional. ··gracefool |☺ 09:11, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think no. Key point is the string equality test (which depends on the default paramater function and a level of meta template, see ).  can't do that (and this holds true until you prove me wrong. Burdon of proof on your side :-). Besides, there is a paranoid chance that qif breaks before we have built-in conditionals (but I cannot see why anyone would be so mean to do that). And some aspects of qif (conditional inclusion) will break near certainly (but we do not need conditional inclusion as we have seen here, provided cite book is kept sufficiently simple). The chance is very high that we get at least a built in conditional that provides the equivalent of Wikipedia:hiddenStructure (suppressing of text, dependant on the existence of a parameter, but without the accessability drawback)--Ligulem 10:30, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hiding author on own page 

message: If this template replaces , someone should update WP:CITET. Alan Pascoe 13:46, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --Ligulem 17:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Related pages need updating 

message: User:JonRoma asked in the edit summary of this edit: "shouldn't Usage section be more useful in template itself within 'noinclude block?"
:I would propose to not do this because this here is intended as a rather high use template. The old book reference has more than 5'000 entries on the what links here. Adding the usage on the template page itself leads to more edits on the template. Edits should be done one the template only when really needed. At the moment it's not that bad, but once we have converted all inclusions of book reference to cite book, this will be more important. --Ligulem 22:23, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage section be more useful in template itself within noinclude block? 

message: Copied from Wikipedia_talk:Template_messages/Sources_of_articles/Generic_citations:
:The format for citing books that had an original publication date different than the edition cited isn't supported. Wikipedia:Cite sources#Complete citations in a .22References.22 section suggests this:
::Marx, Karl [1867] (1967) Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. Edited by Frederick Engels. New York: International Publishers.
:If you plugged this into the template it'd look like this:
::Marx, Karl ([1867] 1967). Frederick Engels Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. New York: International Publishers.
:or this.
::Marx, Karl, [1867] ([1867] 1967). Frederick Engels Capital: A Critique of Political Economy Vol. I. New York: International Publishers.
:Neither is particularly appealing, especially with "authorlinks".
The reason I, and the other editor bring this up is that for Baha'i literature and other Baha'i articles, the original dates of the books are much older than the current publication of the books, and we would like to show when the book was originally authored. So is there a possibility of incorporating an original publication date in the template? -- Jeff3000 23:03, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds reasonable to look into this further. Oh well, smells like (yet) another parameter (origdate? origyear?). Any volunteer to hack up a proposal template code under her or his user space? Best with inclusion examples (I'm currently not enough bored for doing things like this ;-). --Ligulem 23:59, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for looking into this and adding the new feature. -- Jeff3000 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is it actually useful to have the dates linked? Seems unnecessary to me. —Serein 17:49, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Original publication date

message: Some actual usage examples:
#year=2003: . Very common.
#date=May 18, 2004: ,  . Manual wikilinking, prefs enabled.
#year=1849, 1973: , . Two years. Could be manually converted to origyear.
#year=1929-1991: . Year range?
#year=1997 | month=December: , , . month is used!
#year=2001 | month=August 9:  , . month and year used, with day of month and month stuffed into month parameter.
#year=1985 originally 1966: . Another two year variant. Could be manually converted to origyear.
#year=November, 1991: , , . Stuffing month and year into year parameter.
#year=1982: . Manually linked year.
#year=2 edition (December 18, 2003): . Stuffing edition and date with formatting into year. Rare abuse case.
--Ligulem 16:13, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Usage examples 

message: Isn't it normal to have no comma but an "and" before the name of the final author?  I notice this is missing at present. -- Jheald 15:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The template doesn't add "and", you have to write it yourself. Makes sense really, because it depends on how many authors you add. —Serein 16:01, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple authors 

message: I'm busy migrating  to  and I'm finding it difficult sometimes to distinguish author names when multiple authors have so many commas.
I've been chopping out second and subsequent authors into coauthors and converting the first author to first and last, but this often results in silly-looking lists with commas and semi-colons scattered over the shop.
This was not helped when the primary author of one particular book seems to be referred to by just his last name, which rendered the list out-of-step.
I would like to propose that we move towards separating the (co-)authors with semi-colons, making the commas which separate first and last more easily distinguishable.
As a first move, I would like to alter this, and related templates, so that coauthors is preceded by a semi-colon rather than a comma.
Thoughts?
—Phil | Talk 14:05, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or abandon co-authors. I never use them when I use either this template or cite journal/journal reference. Does the use of them follow some scheme or somethgin? -Splashtalk 01:14, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. We need coauthors. Param author is deprecated. If we then have only first and last, where should we add additional authors? The first author is special on books as his last name and the year together form an index to the book. --Ligulem 06:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, what? Author is deprecated? That's just madness. -Splashtalk 13:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You might want to talk with gracefool. He deprecated that. I don't care. --Ligulem 13:40, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: For primary author, author was deprecated in favour of first and last. For coauthors, coauthors should be used instead (not deprecated author or author2, author3 etc.). Yes, coauthors do follow some style, but which one you use, if you use one at all, is complicated. —Serein 13:46, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

text: Support. --Ligulem 06:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A semicolon before coauthors doesn't adhere to Chicago or Harvard citation styles. (The comma currently in place already breaks MLA or APA, as far as I'm aware.) Given we're not recommending a particular style, should we be mandating a new, otherwise unsupported citation style? —Serein 13:35, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I went to look at the originals of the various citation styles listed there, and discovered that the guy who hosts three of the five descriptions has created his own style which…guess what?…uses semi-colons to delimit co-authors . So far as I can tell, the overriding necessity is for the information to be presented clearly and unambiguously, and all those stupid commas get in each other's way. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:58, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demarcate co-authors with semi-colon 

message: It is perfectly possible to make an Output style for the EndNote reference management program (and no doubt other, similar products) to handle all (or almost all) of this automatically on a editor's own computer, which can then be pasted right into Wiki as needed. There is one major hang up however, and that is the author's name. EndNote (and similar) does not have separate fields for first and last name, nor does it put multiple authors in separate fields. In this regard the old param author was superior. Any suggestions on how to deal with this or is it just a matter of editing the output? Klompje7 10:06, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just drop the information into the author field and one of our janitors will be along to clean it up later. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use with EndNote