| Revision as of 15:59, 21 June 2011 editAlarics (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers22,554 edits →date format← Previous edit | Revision as of 13:12, 18 March 2012 edit undoCarcharoth (talk | contribs)Administrators73,576 edits →The Times Digital Archive: tweakNext edit → | ||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
| :I'd argue strongly in favour of keeping this template. You may not see the need for the section and column, but it is those that that ''Times'' archives are indexed by. Usefulness to our readers outweighs the obsession with standardized appearances for citation templates, and unless and until the standard templates can handle the ''Times'' indexing style, this ought to remain. A page number alone is not a great deal of use when it comes to the ''Times''; early issues were printed on huge format sheets, and 18th-century issues can easily have 30-40 items to a page. – ] 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | :I'd argue strongly in favour of keeping this template. You may not see the need for the section and column, but it is those that that ''Times'' archives are indexed by. Usefulness to our readers outweighs the obsession with standardized appearances for citation templates, and unless and until the standard templates can handle the ''Times'' indexing style, this ought to remain. A page number alone is not a great deal of use when it comes to the ''Times''; early issues were printed on huge format sheets, and 18th-century issues can easily have 30-40 items to a page. – ] 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| ::Well, keep the template if you want, but the date must be written correctly. I have changed the documentation accordingly. -- ] (]) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | ::Well, keep the template if you want, but the date must be written correctly. I have changed the documentation accordingly. -- ] (]) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC) | ||
| == The Times Digital Archive == | |||
| The citation format suggested by The Times Digital Archive has changed. Using the example I have in front of me at the moment: | |||
| *(1) Citation at the top of the page: Mr. F. M. O'donoghue. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 11, 1929; pg. 19; Issue 45383. | |||
| *(2) Suggested citation at the bottom of the page: "Mr. F. M. O'donoghue." Times 11 Dec. 1929: 19. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 18 Mar. 2012. | |||
| A couple of comments on this: (i) The capital 'D' in O'Donoghue has been dropped, though it seems all auto-generated citations are now dropping capital letters everywhere. (ii) The column letter ('B' in this case) is missing, but can be obtained by looking at the full page scane. Previously, the column letter was provided. (iii) The suggested citation at the bottom of the page is accompanied by a suggested URL to use, but looking at the parameters, it includes information on the user ID such as '&prodId=' and '&userGroupName='. And other stuff as well - it may be possible to derive a cleaner URL, but I'm not sure it is worth the effort. I do think people using 'The Times Digital Archive' should say that, as opposed to someone looking up an original print edition in a library. I'm going to ask whether and how this template should be modified to reflect these changes. ] (]) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 13:12, 18 March 2012
Rational
The Times index stretches back to 1785 and has a particular way of citing exactly where in the newspaper an article, a photo, an advertisement etc. is. I feel this is not represented adequately by the existing newspaper templates so have created this one.
This is my first attempt at this type of template so please feel free to improve it or comment. Mehmet Karatay 21:18, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Why does this template exist? What does it do that cite journal can't do? I fixed the inconsistency in the page field. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
- The template is a useful one, having a few Times specific fields not in cite journal (which is for magazines, not newspapers). Having existed this long, I doubt there is any argument against its retention. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Universal Daily Register
It occurs to me that as The Times was originally The Universal Daily Register, we should also have a separate template to allow citation from that paper. I realise that it only covers 1785-88 and thus may not be highly used, but I feel that it would be a template worth having. Mjroots (talk) 09:40, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Link
The link to The Times article was recently removed from the template. Would it be possible to add a |link= parameter to allow a single link per article from a reference? The default would be no link, with the insertion of "on" or "yes" allowing a link. Mjroots (talk) 07:53, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- That seems like a reasonable compromise. --Ohconfucius 10:01, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
- Sounds like a good idea to me. Jenks24 (talk) 03:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
location
The Times (UK) was indeed wrong, but The Times without any location is even worse. There are many newspapers all over the world called The Times. The correct form for this one, since newspapers are always identified by the city of publication, not by country, is The Times (London). -- Alarics (talk) 09:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
date format
The date format given in the example (Feb 08 1932) is completely unacceptable, for three separate reasons:
- We do not abbreviate months, as repeatedly discussed in MOSNUM.
- If mdy is to be used, there must be a comma before the year.
- We do not use leading zeroes in any date format except YYYY-MM-DD, which in any case is deprecated for use in any dates other than access dates.
Also, the inclusion of the day of the week seems perverse. I have never seen it in any other references. Just because The Times own archive cites this does not seem to me a good reason for incorporating it in Misplaced Pages references to The Times when we do not put it in references to any other kind of source.
I would make the same point about column number. Just the page number is good enough for all other sources, so it should be good enough for The Times.
With all due respect to its creator, who has obviously put this forward in good faith, I do question the need for this template at all. -- Alarics (talk) 09:44, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
- I'd argue strongly in favour of keeping this template. You may not see the need for the section and column, but it is those that that Times archives are indexed by. Usefulness to our readers outweighs the obsession with standardized appearances for citation templates, and unless and until the standard templates can handle the Times indexing style, this ought to remain. A page number alone is not a great deal of use when it comes to the Times; early issues were printed on huge format sheets, and 18th-century issues can easily have 30-40 items to a page. – iridescent 14:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
- Well, keep the template if you want, but the date must be written correctly. I have changed the documentation accordingly. -- Alarics (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2011 (UTC)
The Times Digital Archive
The citation format suggested by The Times Digital Archive has changed. Using the example I have in front of me at the moment:
- (1) Citation at the top of the page: Mr. F. M. O'donoghue. The Times (London, England), Wednesday, Dec 11, 1929; pg. 19; Issue 45383.
- (2) Suggested citation at the bottom of the page: "Mr. F. M. O'donoghue." Times 11 Dec. 1929: 19. The Times Digital Archive. Web. 18 Mar. 2012.
A couple of comments on this: (i) The capital 'D' in O'Donoghue has been dropped, though it seems all auto-generated citations are now dropping capital letters everywhere. (ii) The column letter ('B' in this case) is missing, but can be obtained by looking at the full page scane. Previously, the column letter was provided. (iii) The suggested citation at the bottom of the page is accompanied by a suggested URL to use, but looking at the parameters, it includes information on the user ID such as '&prodId=' and '&userGroupName='. And other stuff as well - it may be possible to derive a cleaner URL, but I'm not sure it is worth the effort. I do think people using 'The Times Digital Archive' should say that, as opposed to someone looking up an original print edition in a library. I'm going to ask whether and how this template should be modified to reflect these changes. Carcharoth (talk) 13:11, 18 March 2012 (UTC)