Agreed, I would happily use the Trove catalogue URL if the full text was linked from it, but it is harder if (as this example) the full text is available somewhere else. A reason to still use the catalogue entry as the primary URL is that it will likely persist longer than a URL provided by a publisher or other party. e.g. Next time the NSW government restructures its departments and agencies, that URL is likely to break.

On the wider issue, another reason I have tried to insert two URLs in a cite template and failed was when I wanted to reference data from a spreadsheet - the downloaded spreadsheet has a date in the URL, I wanted to link to /exactly /where I got the information, but also to the parent page that contains the link that shows if there is a later edition. I ended up only using the latter link, I think.


On 20/01/2018 6:45 PM, Leigh Blackall wrote:
Nice workflow Kerry, I'll do that in future also.

On 20 Jan 2018 16:46, "Gnangarra" < <>> wrote:

    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 less than 20 we can expect
    large swaths of WA Government urls to break over the next 12-18

    Trove url may not fit perfectly to letter of en.wp policy but
    en.wp policy does also say /"If a rule
    <> prevents
    you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia
    <>, *ignore it*."/
    This is one of those occasions where WP:IAR is the perfect fit,


    On 20 January 2018 at 13:25, Kerry Raymond
    < <>> wrote:

        There’s 2 angles to this, the Trove angle and the WIkipedia

        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] |
                <> |
                accessdate=20 January 2018 }}

                IMHO, the "url=
                <>" is
                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
                so I'd like to be have a that link and a trove

                Peter Jeremy

                Wikimediaau-l mailing list

            Wikimediaau-l mailing list

        Wikimediaau-l mailing list

        Wikimediaau-l mailing list

-- GN.
    Photo Gallery:
    Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), /Never Again:
    Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8/, UWAP,
    2017.  Order here

    Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Wikimediaau-l mailing list

Reply via email to