Template talk:Cite ODNB/Archive 1

The leading bullet
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)

Update to documentation
Copied from Template talk:ODNBweb/doc when that page was made a redirect:
 * I have upgraded ODNBweb, and will update the documentation, but after I have sorted out the existing uses. Charles Matthews (talk) 10:06, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

-- PBS (talk) 22:56, 20 January 2013 (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The documentation on this appears to be out of date as using the example it does not work.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 Wikipedia talk:Citing sources. 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



Cite doi



ODNBweb/sandbox



---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 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)  talk 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)  talk 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 (I've just tried to do this, but the parameters confuse me so I stopped). FWIW, I agree with PBS (and said so somewhere above and here) that cite encyclopedia makes more sense. However, it depends on whether you want to cite the ODNB using a hybrid Wikipedia 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)

I am a bit confused. The sandbox version is using encyclopedia, it is just using it directly instead of using cite encyclopedia as an intermediate template. Perhaps this will help:
 * Current :ODNBweb → citation → citation/core
 * Sandbox :ODNBweb → citation/core
 * Discussed :ODNBweb → cite encyclopedia → citation/core

I can switch it to cite encyclopedia, but the output will be exactly the same. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 18:12, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I had a brief look at the code in Template:ODNBweb/sandbox, and it might be confusing matters that you have 'Title=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography' along with a title parameter being used for the article title. In contrast, those used to using Template:Cite encyclopedia will be familiar with using 'title' for the title of the article and 'encyclopedia' for the name of the encyclopedia. Is this a leftover from the way the template structures evolved separately and then merged later when citation/core was developed? (I do realise that as this is an ODNB-specific template, there is no real need to specify or have a named parameter for the name of the 'encyclopedia', other than for metadata purposes, but it might be causing some of the confusion here). Carcharoth (talk) 22:47, 16 October 2011 (UTC)

I am splitting this so we don't get too off track. When you examine the markup for a template like this one or cite encyclopedia, the parameters in upper case (for the most part) are from citation/core. Lets examine some parameters:

Here Title and title are separate parameters. Citation/code describes Title= Title, to be displayed in italics after IncludedWorkTitle. This is the title of the main work.
 * cite encyclopedia : |Title=
 * You can use either encyclopedia or title to feed into citation/code. (There is something odd about how cite encyclopedia uses this, but lets get past that for the moment).


 * ODNBweb/sandbox : | Title=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography
 * And here the title is fixed to the ODNB.

From citation/core: IncludedWorkTitle Specific title, to be displayed in quotation marks. This is the title of an included work, such as a chapter or encyclopedia entry.
 * cite encyclopedia : |IncludedWorkTitle =
 * ODNBweb/sandbox : | IncludedWorkTitle=
 * Both use title or article to pass the entry; ODNBweb will use the page name by default.

Now, lets compare three different templates:

Cite doi (which uses cite journal)

ODNBweb/sandbox

cite encyclopedia

Notice they all have the same outputs, except for the ODNBweb subscription notice. If you check the metadata, they will all be the same. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 23:20, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thank-you. That makes things a little bit clearer for me. I've also previewed the same thing using the ODNBweb template, to see the difference with what is currently available. I do still have questions about how current usage of the template would be updated and how future use would be handled, but I'll wait on that until we are all on the same page here and PBS and Charles have had a chance to reply. Carcharoth (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I can hand write an output line to look just like the output of any of those templates. The trouble with that is when someone changes the output look of the template, if my line is to remain looking the same as those that use the template, I have to redo the output line (and I will have to do that every time the template is altered). In my opinion this template should end up looking like cite encyclopedia (and tacking on the subscription bit at the end). All this template should be doing is filling in some of the fields for the person who would otherwise use cite encyclopedia. If it calls cite encyclopedia then maintenance is simplified. If it mimics/duplicates the internal workings of cite encyclopedia then one is doubling up the maintenance effort required because any change to cite encyclopedia has to be replicated here. Now in the short term that may be acceptable, but it is an unnecessary burden to place on future editors if we can design the interface in such a way that much of the maintenance is automatic. -- PBS (talk) 01:46, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Updated to cite encyclopedia with no change in visual or metadata output. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 07:53, 17 October 2011 (UTC)


 * If that has been resolved, could we discuss how existing uses of this template could be updated with extra citation information? And what about other citations to this publication done by hand? I was reading Geoffrey (archbishop of York) today, and that is a good example of the citation filled out by hand in a way that is almost (but not quite) like the way you did above. Is that a different style, or the same style but with bits missing? Carcharoth (talk) 00:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What extra fields are required?
 * That article uses a mix of standard Help:Footnotes and Shortened footnotes with a mix of manual citations and Citation Style 1. For example:
 * So, it could use some cleanup there. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying extra fields are required, I was enquiring as to the best way to add (e.g. author information) to existing uses of this template. For example: Cyril Burt, Thomas Girtin, Henry Every. In practice, how would the extra citation information (where it is missing) be added to those uses of this template, if your sandbox was implemented? Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * So, it could use some cleanup there. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 01:30, 19 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I wasn't saying extra fields are required, I was enquiring as to the best way to add (e.g. author information) to existing uses of this template. For example: Cyril Burt, Thomas Girtin, Henry Every. In practice, how would the extra citation information (where it is missing) be added to those uses of this template, if your sandbox was implemented? Carcharoth (talk) 01:44, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * You would have to manually update these entries. You can look at getting a bot to do this, but that isn't one of my skills. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Looking at what is in the sandbox and I assume that is the code we are discussing. If so there are two settings for "|ref=". It seems to me that a lot of the code can be removed. I do not see the reason for the year complications or the date stuff. Why not just pass those complications on to encyclopedia to sort out?

On that note to protect this template from causing problems due to bugs in the encyclopedia template (it does not handle the difference between null and empty parameters very well) you might like to consider setting parameters like this fragment of code: |= |= --PBS (talk) 05:10, 19 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for catching that; markup now cleaned up. I don't understand the issue with null/empty; please provide an example. Is there someplace where your sample markup is used? Using a value like ensures that only a non-empty value is parsed. ---—  Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:00, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

This was one that bit me earlier in the year. I was (still am?) setting up pairs of templates for PD sources. One is typically called and the other. Usually is like this template and serves the same function see for example cite EB1911 they both add hidden categories for maintenance. The "cite" template of the two would work as expected but when called via another template would fail in what was for me at the time unexpected ways.

This can be demonstrated using which has this "feature" in its design. If you create a test template in a sandbox in your user area eg User: Gadget850/test and put in some code like this: Now for some some tests: First using the parameter "last": The code works as expected. Now for some tests using the parameter "author": The author parameter value "CSMITH" is missing from test output but DSMITH is present in encyclopedia output. Why? Because in test we are passing in "last=" as an empty string (thanks to the line in the "user/test" template " |last= "). The problem lies in the mal-formed line in cite encyclopedia that does not test the parameter "last" to see if it is empty it only tests to see if it exists. If it exists then it uses it (even though it is empty) and ignore the rest of the line so the output generated by test calling encycloped is that of last="" rather than author="CSMITH".

At the time (last March) I was baffled and had to ask a question at Help talk:Template where some patient people explained the error of my ways. Once I knew what to look for I came across this: Which explain it.
 * mw:Help:Parser functions in templates (it includes in "see also" mw:Help:Extension:ParserFunctions)

The point I was making is that it is probably not a good idea to pass in parameters from one template to another that are not set by application page, because even if the template that is called (in this case cite encyclopedia works as expected today when called from a wrapper template (this one), it may not work properly tomorrow. The reason I highlighted "year=" and "date=" is because they are used by harv and if date= is present, year= is not displayed, but if year= is present then harv uses its value even if date= is set. So to avoid possible unforeseen consequences, it is probably best not to set either to blank in this wrapper template if the application page using it does not explicitly set them. -- PBS (talk) 23:11, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I still don't see it. If this were an issue, it would be well known and documented. I have dealt with many templates and never seen where a null value is passed as you describe. See the samples in User:Gadget850/t8 using ODNBweb/sandbox. The first includes all parameters with no values, the second fills all values. Looking at the HTML output, the first does not include any of the undefined values in either the regular HTML nor the COinS metadata.
 * I suggest you try the code I placed above. -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The third uses date and year and produces the expected harv ref, as does the fourth using only the year. You are welcome to add an example illustrating the issues, especially if you can illustrate how ODNBweb/sandbox fails in either manner. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 00:45, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * citation/core uses Year else Date else nothing, so if you provide both only year is parsed for the ref id. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 03:51, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I suggested that you created the template and try the above because it would become self evident.


 * The reason why the template ODNBweb/sandbox works as expected is because you have lifted some of the logic out of cite encyclopedia for example you have to near replicate the the line
 * | last=
 * |Surname1 =
 * But to do that you have to go and look into the workings of encyclopedia and duplicate the logic found there, and if someone writes a template that calls ODNBweb/sandbox if they use the same method they will have to duplicate the same logic or it will fail. So one is then left with the problem that when the logic is changed low down chain, all the calling templates in the stack also have to be changed to remain compatible. If someone does not look at the logic of the underlying template and replicate it (or "fix" it in another way) and implements as simple template to call another (which is the reasonable thing to do) then it fails because with no knowledge of the inner workings of ODNBweb/sandbox it can not work:


 * I have placed it in user:PBS/test3 struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC) . I am calling it twice once with  last=LAST and then again with author=AUTHOR. The second time around it fails to work as expected because although no value is passed into last=, last is initiated in test3, so the logic in ODNBweb/sandbox passes on an empty setting of last="" to cite encyclopedia and never gets to test if author has a value.
 * struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * If the line in the test template

|last=
 * is replaced with (see user:PBS/test25 struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC) )

|=
 * etc. The the template work like one would expect:
 * struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * struck out as I may alter the content of the template PBS (talk) 08:50, 24 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Simples! -- PBS (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I am sure that there is something to this, but it is not an issue with these templates. I feel my work is done here, and I see no further issues. If you have fixes you wish to apply, then go ahead. Simply copy the sandbox to the current template when done. ---— Gadget850 (Ed)  talk 12:09, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Alternative sandbox implementation and changes
I reverted this change to the sandbox made on 26 October 2011. This revert changed underlying template back to cite encyclopedia from citation/core.

I then added a new parameter "origyear=" because in many instances the original 2004 version has been updated since and the editors at the ODNB promise a rolling update of their articles.

Having done that I put in a simple test into testcases. Everything seemed to work as expected. But a lot more test cases are needed.

Then I implemented a large change to the sandbox. As discussed in the previous section, I changed the way parameters were handled only passing on to cite encyclopedia those parameters that are set by editors who places this template into an article. This means that there is no need to handle any interrelation between the parameters in this template unless they are none standard. This should reduce maintenance on this template. Two parameters are handled in a none standard way:
 * encyclopedia=Oxford Dictionary of National Biography unless an override is set.
 * publisher=Oxford University Press uless an override is set.

There are two none standard parameters "id" and "urlname" if either or both are set they set a value for Charles it was you who originally created this logic, with What was the idea behind the "default" part because as it was implemented in the sandbox before my change it defaulted to an error page, as does the page generated by the current production version http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/default. If however it is left out then the string would be http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/article/ and that url automatically redirects to the home page. So whichever version is implemented the "default" needs to be removed. In my most recent version I have not implemented the logic for always supplying a string to "chapter-url=". The reason for this, is that if one uses the "doi=" parameter then I see no reason to set the other. However if it is wanted it is not difficult to do particularly if we remove "urlname". As the "urlname" parameter as it is not documented I suggest we remove it.
 * chapter-url=http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ref:odnb/id or urlname value

In the sandbox version I replaced there were three parameters not used by "cite encyclopedia": "author1link=" "author2link=" "author2link=" so IMO which ever version is implemented these can be removed.

Both the sandbox version I have just overwritten and my current implementation does not include the string "on the website of the" is that a feature that is wanted?

-- PBS (talk) 00:32, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * So what I did is mentioned on WT:WP DNB right at the end: I just copied in from what is now Template:SpringerEOM some relevant bits. I'm not really competent to enter these template discussions at a technical level. Charles Matthews (talk) 22:24, 13 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not so much the technical level but the look of it. Do we drop the "on the website of the"
 * I now know what the default is used for, in other templates. If it is set then it hides the real name behind a façade of whatever default=name is. ---PBS (talk)


 * Judging by how the ODNB self-describes, it would be more accurate to say "in the online edition of the". Charles Matthews (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that "in the online edition of the" would be more accurate. And a brief aside to PBS: it is 'non-standard', not 'none-standard'. I was intending to use this template in an article, but as the year and publisher parameters don't seem to be working (I used them both but no output was produced), I'm going to use 'cite encyclopedia' directly as in one of the examples above (done here). Hopefully someone can get this template to produce what is needed. Is it all in a sandbox at the moment? Carcharoth (talk) 21:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

OK I have done some more messing, the version now will do most of what people want using the example in the current documention:

Produces from the current template: Sandbox: The major visual changes are: On the visual side the sandbox version can be implemented link this, or it can be made to mimic the current output. The sandbox version also includes most of the common "cite encyclopedia" bells and whistles such as two authors with authorlinks parameters (As many articles have the original author and a reviewer). Instead (or with id=) url= can be used in the usual way as can doi=. The parameters date=, year= and origyear= all work as standard.
 * edition now handled via the edition= parameter (standard)
 * id now displays the doi
 * publisher Oxford University now included

I'll implement it. We can always roll back or modify the parameters. -- PBS (talk) 16:13, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

New Who's Who template
People who thought about this template might be interested in Template:Who's Who. Dsp13 (talk) 02:14, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

Update to documentation 2013
I have updated the documentation to include a list of new parameters that are now available. see Template:ODNBweb/doc -- PBS (talk) 23:02, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

Cite ODNB
I have moved this template from template:ODNBweb to template:Cite ODNB because with the new parameters it can be used to expand a none web ONDB entry, and most other similar templates such as cite DNB have similar styled names which are all taken from the standard styles such as "cite book" "cite web" etc. The redirect ensures that previous entries still work, as will any new one that continue to use the older name. -- PBS (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2013 (UTC)

2004 edition
Does it support the likes of http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=14428&back=&version=2004-09, which read: "W. W. Wroth, ‘Innes, Cosmo Nelson (1798–1874)’, rev. H. C. G. Matthew, Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, Oxford University Press, 2004 accessed 28 Feb 2013 as archived article (no longer current version)"? trespassers william (talk) 00:48, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

You would have to add it as a standard link not an id like this (with additional parameters for authors etc): -- PBS (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2013 (UTC)
 * THank you. trespassers william (talk) 17:58, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Error being displayed
An error: Unknown parameter  ignored error is being displayed on all cites. Please fix this.-- Auric    talk  22:05, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
 * yes it is to do with a change in the way the underlying templates handle unknown parameters. I will discuss it with the developers of the lower level and see whether this code is changed of if the underlying code is modified to take HIDE_PARAMETER. Either way the warning message will go away in the next few days.-- PBS (talk) 10:10, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Simply that subscription may be required and without spam
The displayed statement "(subscription or UK public library membership required)" should be replaced by "(subscription may be required)", for the reasons stated at Template talk:ODNBsub. Since a discussion is there, please consider joining in. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:02, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Subscription
It seems that every ODNB article can be accessed by anybody just by linking to the URL http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/printable/ODNBid (knowing the five digit ODNBid is the tricky part), instead of linking to the DOI, which points to the Subscription required page. Ping and, what am I missing? Solomon7968 17:12, 12 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know. If this is an unintended security weakness, there is also the question of what we do about it. Charles Matthews (talk) 17:17, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Try also http://www.oxforddnb.com/templates/article.jsp?articleid=ODNBid, since they aren't hosted by any external website as Copyvio, I think we should modify this template to reflect the fact, that ODNB articles can be accessed without any subscription. Thoughts? Solomon7968 11:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)


 * In my view, not a good idea. There is a project afoot to collect up the ODNB ids in a tool hosted on Labs. That is a good idea, though there is a mild concern (not mine) about database copyright.


 * In combination with what you are saying, it might appear that we are happy to facilitate free access to a scholarly subscription site, depriving it of resources that go into the work of providing better online resources. I really wouldn't want anything to do with that, without an assurance that this route for reading the DNB is there intentionally.


 * I'll bring this thread to the attention of someone who I know has contacts at the ODNB. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:17, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree. For the more scrupulous, all OUP online reference stuff is free all this National Libraries Week (till the 19th) for all North America anyway - see here. Johnbod (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * I've never asked, but I've heard it mentioned before and seen them crop up in links once or twice. I always assumed this was something of an undocumented bug! I will make enquiries, though...
 * Speaking of the ODNB ID database, I think this is probably OK - the ODNB ID maps directly to the "OBIN", which is also used for a few other things, and OUP seem to encourage using it: "We would encourage anyone compiling a database of people to include the OBIN in each database record.". Andrew Gray (talk) 21:02, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Like AG I have to date assumed it was an undocumented bug. Finding the ODNB ID is easy as it is also the postfix of the doi. So finding it is not a problem. I think the best thing to do is for one of us to email the address given at the bottom of http://global.oup.com/oxforddnb/info/index/ and ask them if the access to the free printed page is acceptable (I would be very surprised if it is). If it is OK then it is easy to add in an alteration to the template to provide access to the print page with the information that is currently already supplied. -- PBS (talk) 22:38, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I've a contact there (and owe them an email...). I can ask if you would like, but suspect the answer will be something along the lines of "er, we should fix that" ;-) Andrew Gray (talk) 22:57, 14 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The new ODNB editor will be Sir David Cannadine. This is pretty interesting to us DNB folk, as he is so high-powered a historian; and actually to me personally since we crossed paths about 30 years ago in Cambridge. I would say we definitely want to be very helpful in these matters.


 * The tool I mentioned is at http://tools.wmflabs.org/mix-n-match/ (not restricted to ODNB, though that was what I had in mind). The theory is that matching ODNB ids direct to Wikidata items will open up a new front. If I had more time I would be doing more with it, but the old DNB is pretty demanding still. Magnus Manske who wrote it will be reassured by what you are saying about their attitude.


 * In effect there are now two paths ahead that will help drive traffic to the ODNB site from Wikimedia sites: rationalising the template situation so that there is just one "cite" over all editions; and now making it easy to map from data items to ODNB ids. This ought to be enough for "strategic alliance" to look meaningful. We have also take a strong line with ODNB copyvio, of course, which is a continuing problem. Charles Matthews (talk) 14:57, 15 April 2014 (UTC)


 * On this topic, I have to say that the ODNB are falling down by not providing filled-in references. If you look at say http://www.british-history.ac.uk/report.aspx?compid=33800, there is a drop-down menu that gives a reference in a number of styles, including Wikipedia's. That is on the website of the Institute of Historical Research, which Cannadine used to head. Charles Matthews (talk) 18:39, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia has a reference style??? Of course we give refs for our stuff too at Special:Cite, which I find not everydody knows, but no doubt those here do. Johnbod (talk) 01:05, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The URL http://www.oxforddnb.com/view/references/ODNBid lists all the references (and Archival material which we can't cite directly here) cited by ODNB. Having an option there for converting the refs to Wikipedia's citation style would be really beneficial, for both ODNB & WP. Solomon7968 11:20, 21 April 2014 (UTC)

Bad news
Hi folks, the backdoor route to access the ODNB seems to have been blocked. Now it shows "No valid credentials were found". Solomon7968 07:52, 5 December 2014 (UTC)

Free access
Not all ODNB articles are restricted, eg Virginia Woolf, so a parameter to suppress subscription required, would be useful --Michael Goodyear (talk) 22:04, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * . — howcheng  {chat} 19:39, 7 March 2018 (UTC)

Access date
I don't agree with the comment on the page, that it is superfluous. For automated maintenance, isn't that clearly wrong? Charles Matthews (talk) 11:09, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

use Module:template wrapper
I have rewritten to use Module:template wrapper. This allows editors to use any of the available parameters without the need for special code in this template.

I have also tweaked the sandbox a bit so that freearticle makes the template rendering more like the native underlying rendering: Keep? Discard?
 * free article using url:
 * free article using doi:
 * free article using id:
 * restricted article using url
 * restricted article using doi
 * restricted article using id
 * free article using id:
 * restricted article using url
 * restricted article using doi
 * restricted article using id
 * restricted article using doi
 * restricted article using id
 * restricted article using doi
 * restricted article using id
 * restricted article using id
 * restricted article using id

—Trappist the monk (talk) 16:34, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
 * There having been no comment, sandbox version made live.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:34, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

@User:Trappist the monk I did not have time to discuss it yesterday and as nothing was broken I decided to wait until today today, but in the meantime I see you have done so at Talk:Eastbourne manslaughter (thanks for the ping),—ping user:Nikkimaria. I think that the padlock while nice eye candy is not as useful as the post script: So I would like it restored. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I left it out because gets its style from cs1|2.  In cs1|2, registration and subscription have been deprecated.  Following the deprecation period, cs1|2 will no longer render the imprecise subscription and registration messages.  The text message form of subscription notification provided by  is inconsistent with the rendered form of adjacent cs1|2 citations.  Editors are, of course, free to write .
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 11:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be preferable to restore a visible marker of the subscription requirement. Nikkimaria (talk) 17:11, 9 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Is the access-date parameter not required? I don't care either way, just asking as it is a url based source? Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * I would say that it's not required; might be useful if ever the ODNB website changes its structure such that url in a url-only ODNB citation can't link to the ODNB article. Then, access-date would be handy in possibly locating a copy of the article on an archive service – and this is really only useful if the article is free-to-read.  Except for the case of free-to-read articles where the url links to a section in the article, I see little reason for using url at all.  Better, I think to convert all of those kinds of ODNB citations to use id or doi and remove url when url points into the ODNB website.
 * —Trappist the monk (talk) 12:07, 12 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Fair enough; thanks for the quick response. Regards. The joy of all things (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)

Template-protected edit request on 18 April 2020
Remove  from this template as it is now redundant and presents a CS1 error. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC) Eddie891 Talk Work 20:33, 18 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone has passed a custom value for ref, removing that section of code will break the short references that use that custom value. Can you please link to a page that shows a CS1 error (red text, not a maintenance message)? I will try to troubleshoot. Thanks. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:20, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, it won't. —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ —&thinsp;JJMC89&thinsp; (T·C) 02:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * My mistake. I didn't see that it was using the wrapper module. Thanks, . – Jonesey95 (talk) 05:03, 19 April 2020 (UTC)