Seems reasonable to me, but if it's proving difficult to get Trove to
update their citation formatting, then best to at least demonstrate it on
the Wikipedia et al side of things. Is it possible to create a bot that
goes back through all Trove references, check the URL and add the
catelogue? Or to
I've been looking at fixing up some citations I wrote many years ago since
I've found that the text of the book I referenced is now available online as
well as having a Trove reference. Trove provides a Wikipedia citation of
the form:
{{Citation | author1=Aird, W. V | author2=Aird, W V |
There's quite a long list of improvements that could be made to the
Wikipedia footnote format that Trove produces automatically. Many of them
are already logged in their internal code-review system at the National
Library but, due to internal prioritisation of the bug/feature queue this
doesn't
I will be running late to the Canberra meetup due to the train running at least
two hours late.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Meetup/Canberra/January_2018
Sent from my iPhone___
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l@lists.wikimedia.org
There’s 2 angles to this, the Trove angle and the WIkipedia angle.
On the Wikipedia side, part of the problem is that it would be nice to be able
to have a cite book/journal way to cite both the full text *and* the
catalogue/metadata entry (that is, two fields for different purposes. I have
agree with Kerry here the Trove link is more significant and proves more
information. The Trove URL does take a person to the text, its a
maintained link where as many third party sites change their urls all to
frequently, as is currently the case in WA with 40 odd departments being
merged into
