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 
previously mentioned this somewhere on Wikipedia and basically got told that 
there was never a need for the catalogue URL so I was stupid for even asking. 
However if you look at it from a library perspective, then there are multiple 
reasons for having a URL to the catalogue entry. Firstly catalogue entries 
often contain information not easily discerned from the actual book text (or 
not in the book text at all) and Book text rarely links you back to the 
catalogue entry. A concrete example of this that matters to Wikipedians is 
this: if I just get a link to the digitised work, how do I know if this work is 
still subject to copyright or not (eg author dead 70+ years). The Trove 
catalogue shows author death dates and has the check copyright button. Also, if 
a Library has gone to the effort of digitizing it and has decided to make it 
freely available online, then what’s in it for them? Not a lot, but at least if 
you come via the catalogue entry, you know (and hopefully appreciate) the 
Library for doing so. Also some libraries do not store rendered forms of the 
full text but generate them from some other representation on the request 
(saves on storage). If you see an expiry date in a URL parameter, that may be 
the reason as they will only hold it in the rendered form for a day/week/month 
in which case the URL is not persistent.

So in the pragmatic reality of writing a citation for Trove where there is 
online full text available, I do as follows.

If the online version is available via a link in the Trove catalogue entry, the 
I just use the Trove catalogue URL (as generated by Trove), as it gives you 
both the catalogue entry and for an extra click or two the full text. (Yeah, 
it’s not the intended use of the URL field but it works and if the template 
writers won’t give me 2 URL fields, then I see this as their problem not mine).

If the online version is not available via Trove, then sometimes I use the 
Trove citation and replace the URL field with the URL to the full text. I 
usually do this whenever there isn’t much interesting info in the Trove 
catalogue entry.

Otherwise I just use the Trove citation and follow it with — full text 
available [fulltexturl online]

Remember you can always put more that just a cite template inside a <ref> 
</ref> pair.

Another gripe about the cite template family is that you cannot include 
licensing information. I would love to be able to note that a source is PD or 
CC-whatever. But again I have asked and told that readers have no need for such 
information, which I think is batshit crazy. If we believe in free knowledge, 
surely we should want to draw attention to sources that are more open than 
plain old copyright.


Sent from my iPad

> On 20 Jan 2018, at 9:56 am, Leigh Blackall <> wrote:
> 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 
> seamlessly add a template that asks editors to add the catelogue number, and 
> url to available text, and maybe Wayback machine record of that url...
>> On 20 Jan 2018 10:35, "Liam Wyatt" <> wrote:
>> 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 get very high on the list unfortunately. Originally that system was 
>> also only enabled on the digitised newspapers but, eventually propagated out 
>> to other areas of the service too where it's less applicable. 
>>> On 19 January 2018 at 23:50, Peter Jeremy <> wrote:
>>> 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 | author3=New South 
>>> Wales. Metropolitan Water, Sewerage and Drainage Board | title=The water 
>>> supply, sewerage, and drainage of Sydney | publication-date=1961 | 
>>> publisher=[Metropolitan Water Sewerage and Drainage Board] | 
>>> url= | accessdate=20 January 2018 }}
>>> IMHO, the "url="; is inappropriate
>>> since says that url= is
>>> "URL of an online location where the text of the publication can be found"
>>> whereas the Trove link is a catalogue record.  I think a better Trove link
>>> would be something like id={{Trove|21676846}} but I am unable to find any
>>> suitable template.  (
>>> is specifically for newspapers).
>>> Would it be reasonable to create a Template:Trove that accepted a Trove
>>> identifier and created a work identifier?  (If that was done, ideally the
>>> Trave citation format would change to suit but that's a separate issue).
>>> (And, in this particular case, the actual text is online at
>>> ttps://
>>> so I'd like to be have a that link and a trove reference).
>>> --
>>> Peter Jeremy
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
>> _______________________________________________
>> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
> _______________________________________________
> Wikimediaau-l mailing list
Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to