Template talk:Cite-progress

From Cvillepedia
Jump to: navigation, search

applicability

So I hope this proves useful, esp. with respect to making sourcing the progress even easier. I think I'll do the same for other common outlets. Note that this doesn't help so much with stuff from the loper archives, or pre-MG ownership, but that could be accounted for eventually if desired. -- B.S. Lawrence 20:16, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

cite template vs. easybib

Here's where I see the advantages of this template vs. easybib. Compare these two examples:

Easybib: McKenzie, Bryan. "Real Estate Firms Deal with National Company to Focus on Technology, Social Media to Sell Houses | Charlottesville Daily Progress." Charlottesville News, Sports, Business, Events and Jobs | Charlottesville Daily Progress. 8 Apr. 2010. Web. 09 Apr. 2010. <http://www2.dailyprogress.com/cdp/news/local/article/real_estate_firms_deal_with_national_company_to_focus_on_technology_social_/54632/>.

Template: Web. Real Estate Firms Deal with National Company to Focus on Technology, Social Media to Sell Houses, McKenzie, Bryan, Daily Progress, World Media Enterprises, 8 Apr. 2010, retrieved 09 Apr. 2010..

  1. Attractiveness. Easybib includes a bunch of the Progress' marketing: the " Charlottesville News, Sports, Business, Events and Jobs " is pure flack and irrelevant to the citation. The braces on the url are gnarly. The url and the title are divorced, rather than cleanly integrated. Template output is smaller and conveys no less information.
  2. Missing information. Easybib leaves out the publisher.
  3. Print citations. The progress has already deleted its online archive once. Print citations are permanent. This template at least makes you think about including those.
  4. It's a template. Need to tweak something? Fix the template. Need to easily find all the progress citations? Search for the template. Want to encourage people to explore the more esoteric parts of a wiki? This can't hurt.

Nothing above should be taken as an indictment of easybib, nor does it intend a rigid style for citations. It's opinion. But I figure it's worth making the case so that future users can decide for themselves. -- B.S. Lawrence 00:18, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

publisher change

Recent change makes it appear all DP articles published by World Media, factually very very wrong. Everything prior to recent sale was published by Media General. (Or Worrell, I suppose). Not sure if you can use date functions to test publishdate to get the publisher correct. Fallback would be to copy this with right publisher to {{cite-progress-mg}} and apply to old pages with bot. In any case this recent change makes all the prior citations bad. -- B.S. Lawrence 13:37, 10 September 2012 (EDT)

Most of the C-Ville citations are broken, too, but we're hoping that they'll eventually get them all working. I've not used a bot before. This is above my pay-grade, but I agree we need to delineate between the old Media General cite and a new one for World Media. But that's time I can't spare on this. --Seantubbs 13:35, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
Agreed this makes them less than perfect citations, not really "bad." When someone has the time and resources to create a "bot" to fix it, I will applaud. Good news is we know the exact date of the ownership change so it's easy to put the citations into two containers. Oh and guess what, there was an owner before MG, so things were already less than perfect. -- Bwheeler 14:04, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
OK well I've created the two new templates ({{cite-progress-mg}} and {{cite-progress-worrell}}). Help pages updated. Correction can proceed from there. For info on bots (they would help you a great deal here and in other areas) see WP:BOT. -- B.S. Lawrence 14:51, 11 September 2012 (EDT)
What should we do about the early 20th century now that UVA Library has digitized those works?--Seantubbs 12:23, 15 January 2013 (CST)