Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carcharoth (talk | contribs) at 17:36, 16 October 2011 (→ODNB citation style: typo). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

The leading bullet here seems non-standard, and a bit awkward for use in footnotes. I'd like to remove it before matters go further. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

yes, definitely agree. Dsp13 (talk) 09:39, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

agree that it should be done, anyway. If it is removed early will the 8K pages using it at present need to be repaired before doing anything else? Dsp13 (talk) 09:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

It's not on 8,000 pages! Currently fewer than 100 occurrences by what links to the template page. So it's manageable by hand right now. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

pleased to hear I'd got my wires crossed!Dsp13 (talk) 20:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Done, and I've made a pass through all the places where the template is used. Charles Matthews (talk) 08:24, 10 November 2010 (UTC)

Links broken?

When I use the template it creates the text perfectly fine, as well as links to the ODNB's WP article and the library subscription page on the external ODNB site. But the main link just points to http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/default which brings up a 404 page on the DOI website. No matter what is in the template it still seems to point to this URL. (see John Perry (engineer) for a recent example of usage).

Any idea what might be wrong? or have I made an error in usage? The link for the particlar article should point to http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/39459. Fattonyni (talk) 13:34, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

You can't omit the names of the fields; I have fixed that example. Charles Matthews (talk) 13:40, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Documentation

The documentation on this appears to be out of date as using the example it does not work. Keith D (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

I've partially fixed the documentation now. Charles Matthews (talk) 20:13, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I will look again at using it. Keith D (talk) 21:33, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

ODNB citation style

I've raised some issues with this template at Misplaced Pages talk:Citing sources#ODNB citation style. To briefly summarise what I said there, I'd like to see this template actually crediting the authors of the articles cited (that would be ethical) and to end up with a format like that seen here. Probably best discussed there, but if discussed here, please leave a note at the other discussion location as well. Carcharoth (talk) 23:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Now in sandbox:

ODNBweb

{{ODNBweb |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/34601 |last=Stocker |first=Mark |month=September |year=2004
|title=Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll (1848–1939) |publisher=] |edition=online, January 2008 |accessdate=23 January 2008 |id=34601 |ref={{sfnRef|Stocker 2004, Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll}}}}

Stocker, Mark (2004). "Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll (1848–1939)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online, January 2008 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/34601. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

Cite doi

{{Cite doi/10.1093.2Fref:odnb.2F34601}}

Template:Cite doi/10.1093.2Fref:odnb.2F34601

ODNBweb/sandbox

{{ODNBweb/sandbox |doi=10.1093/ref:odnb/34601 |last=Stocker |first=Mark |month=September |year=2004
|title=Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll (1848–1939) |publisher=] |edition=online, January 2008 |accessdate=23 January 2008 |id=34601 |ref={{sfnRef|Stocker 2004, Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll}}}}

Stocker, Mark (2004). "Louise, Princess, duchess of Argyll (1848–1939)". Oxford Dictionary of National Biography (online, January 2008 ed.). Oxford University Press. doi:10.1093/ref:odnb/34601. {{cite encyclopedia}}: |access-date= requires |url= (help); Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help) (Subscription or UK public library membership required.)

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  09:39, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for that. I'm not quite sure how the bots that fill in citations work, but I assume the above would have to be filled in by hand rather than bots doing it? Back at the other discussion (that I linked above) you said that 'cite doi' draws on 'cite journal', and I pointed out that 'cite encyclopedia' fits better. Does the above incorporate 'cite encyclopedia', or is it a template purely designed to replicate the ODNB-preferred citation style, with the 'subscription needed' details added? The other issues that sometimes come up with citing to the ODNB:

• People outside the UK sometimes access library volumes of the 2004 print edition, citing page numbers. Can that be incorporated somehow, along with a courtesy link to the current online version of the article, though that may be less desirable as it may be different from the initially published 2004 version of any particular article (see below). Also, as this template is named "ODNBweb" it makes less sense to incorporate page numbers from the print edition (future updates are, I think, intended to be entirely online).
• The online entries are updated periodically (around three times a year, I think). This is not all the entries, but a rolling program of updates. Also, new entries are also added that were written after the 2004 edition. The online versions are the most current ones (though sometimes with no actual changes made, presumably the update is to tell the reader that the article was checked even if not updated), but links are also provided to the previous versions of the articles (a typical example would be an initial version in 2004, a new version in 2008, and the latest version in 2011). The point here is that the version accessed online may vary from the one initially cited. What is the best way to handle this, and is there a way to make it easy for editors to update to the latest version if they verify that it still supports the material cited? Also, the author citation may change as extensive revisions bring in the new author and co-credits them and the initial author.

Thanks for doing this, and I hope the above isn't too complicated to consider. Carcharoth (talk) 07:04, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

• {{Cite doi}} uses {{cite journal}} which in turn uses {{citation/core}}. The current {{ODNBweb}} uses {{citation}} which uses {{citation/core}}. The sandbox version uses {{citation/core}} directly. The key is that they all give the same output. I did class it as 'encyclopedia' so that will show up in metadata.
• There is no guarantee that the print and online versions are the same. You need to cite the version that you actually read. We could have a variant for the print version but it needs to be a separate citation.
• If the online version is updated, you will have to manually update the citation. Since this site requires a subscription, a bot cannot do the updates.

---— Gadget850 (Ed)  11:39, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks for explaining all that. That also answers my question about the hundreds of uses of the template, which would have to be manually updated. Though I think some of the data can be accessed without a subscription? i.e. There is a public page for each entry that doesn't require a subscription (you can see this by following the links above). Maybe you are only referring to the edition date as needed a manual update, but I think that public page has that information anyway - the distinction will be between the most up-to-date page (which the doi link will presumably take you to anyway, and the access date). Anyway, I'm very happy with the sandbox version you have produced here. If it goes live, I presume it won't break any existing use, but will allow for addition of more citation information. I would like to get more input before any switch, though, so will leave notes with the three editors who have edited it most. Carcharoth (talk) 03:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for inviting me to this conversation. I have had a look quick at the template in the sandbox (Template:ODNBweb/sandbox) and I think you may be making a mistake. My initial thoughts are that it would be better to call {{cite encyclopedia}} from this template, otherwise AFAICT there is a large maintenance overhead. I am open persuasion that that is not so. -- PBS (talk) 06:15, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

So future editors would find it easier to edit a template based on {{cite encyclopedia}} (which calls {{citation/core}}) than to edit a template based on {{citation/core}} directly? ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  12:53, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

If we could just go back a bit: some of the features requested actually exist in the current {{ODNBweb}}, and have done so for some time? In particular authors, and access date. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:29, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

Hmm. Yes. The documentation never got updated. FWIW, I agree with PBS (and said so somewhere above) that cite encyclopedia makes more sense. However, it depends on whether you want to cite the ODNB using a hybrid Misplaced Pages style, or cite the ODNB using something closely approximating the style they suggest on their site. What are the main options here? Carcharoth (talk) 17:34, 16 October 2011 (UTC)