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.
Scott
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" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
months.
Trove url may not fit perfectly to letter of en.wp policy but
en.wp policy does also say /"If a rule
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines> prevents
you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
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.
Kerry
Sent from my iPad
On 20 Jan 2018, at 9:56 am, Leigh Blackall
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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" <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> 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=https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21676846
<https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21676846> |
accessdate=20 January 2018 }}
IMHO, the "url=https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21676846
<https://trove.nla.gov.au/work/21676846>" is
inappropriate
since
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Cite_book>
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.
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Trove_newspaper
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Trove_newspaper>
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://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/mdq0/~edisp/dd_044331.pdf
<http://www.sydneywater.com.au/web/groups/publicwebcontent/documents/document/zgrf/mdq0/%7Eedisp/dd_044331.pdf>
so I'd like to be have a that link and a trove
reference).
--
Peter Jeremy
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
--
GN.
Noongarpedia:
https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page
<https://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wp/nys/Main_Page>
WMAU: http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra
<http://www.wikimedia.org.au/wiki/User:Gnangarra>
Photo Gallery: http://gnangarra.redbubble.com
Out now: A.Gaynor, P. Newman and P. Jennings (eds.), /Never Again:
Reflections on Environmental Responsibility after Roe 8/, UWAP,
2017. Order here
<https://uwap.uwa.edu.au/products/never-again-reflections-on-environmental-responsibility-after-roe-8>.
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l>
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
_______________________________________________
Wikimediaau-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediaau-l
