Template talk:Citation Style documentation/Archive 1
Latest comment: 12 years ago by Allen4names in topic ASINs
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
 | To help centralise discussions and keep related topics together, citation-related talk page discussion and archives can be found here |
ASINs
This edit looks ambiguous and may lead users to create bad references. ASINs refer to web pages at the Amazon.com web sites whereas ISBNs refers to books and other publications. An ASIN should be used in place of a URL that matches "//www.amazon." otherwise readers may become confused as to what reference is being cited when they click on the link. I will revert that edit and hope someone will come up with something better. – Allen4names 13:05, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Lets say I have an ISBN and an ASIN. Why would I even use the ASIN? The ASIN leads me only to Amazon, whereas the ISBN will link me to a multitude of sources.
- Amazon does sell unique products such as eBooks that are referenced by ASIN and don't have an ISBN or other identifiers. These should certainly use the ASIN.
- Can you provide an example where there is an ASIN and an ISBN and the ASIN is preferred identifier? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 15:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently this is such an instance. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the Amazon page is referenced, but I'm not getting sucked into another anime discussion. I am dropping this, but I bet it will come up again. If someone wants to push this, then RfC. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to replace a reference you should simply replace it. I consider the use of an ISBN or other non Amazon.com identifier in an Amazon.com citation to be in violation of WP:V. Also there is the fact that different sources show different dates of publication thus there is the need to show witch reference supports the date being used. If need be you can have more than one reference in the <ref> tags. I see no justification in corrupting a reference just so you can link "to a multitude of sources." – Allen4names 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand what an Amazon.com citation is, so I am out of here. I will probably participate when this comes up in a more public forum. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Ah, now I see the issue. The article edited was (weirdly) using the Amazon page to support an assertion of a specific first release date, in the apparent awareness that there are other conflicting sources claiming an earlier date. It is hardly a typical use of citation data. In this sense, the Amazon page is a primary source. Compare [1] to [2]. On close examination, one is said to be a 1998 collector's edition paperback, the other a 2004 mass market paperback edition. They also are said by Amazon to differ in pagecount, weight, and potentially other details. Whether Amazon is a wp:RS for this or not is beyond the purview of the bot to decide. Even though it certainly shouldn't be treated as a wp:V source (the data on Amazon can be pulled or changed at any time with no archived version) the bot should not obscure the fact that it is the Amazon data being relied upon in the article. If we compare OL 8755966W}} we see entries for both, evidently built starting with the Amazon records, but in a wp:V archive. I'd suggest that the bot could tag the citation for human edit with
<!--consider using |isbn= instead of this ASIN -->rather than delete the url. LeadSongDog come howl! 19:41, 27 January 2012 (UTC)- I will try to explain one more time. simply replacing 'asin' with 'isbn' would change "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon.com. ASIN 156931294X.
{{cite web}}: Check|asin=value (help); Missing or empty|url=(help) into "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon.com. ISBN 156931294X.{{cite web}}: Missing or empty|url=(help) the later is a bad reference because Amazon.com did not publish the book and the ISBN number does not refer to the cited web page. Unfortunately I have the second printing of the "Action" edition witch does not have the correct release date. The 'isbn' parameter should only be used with {{Cite book}} not {{Cite web}}. – Allen4names 21:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)- Either way that cite will confuse an unwary reader. To avoid this, try something like: "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon.com. ASIN 156931294X.
{{cite web}}:|format=requires|url=(help); Check|asin=value (help); Missing or empty|url=(help) or "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon (web catalog). Amazon.com. ASIN 156931294X.{{cite web}}: Check|asin=value (help); Missing or empty|url=(help)
- Either way that cite will confuse an unwary reader. To avoid this, try something like: "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon.com. ASIN 156931294X.
- I will try to explain one more time. simply replacing 'asin' with 'isbn' would change "Neon Genesis Evangelion, Vol. 1 [Paperback]". Amazon.com. ASIN 156931294X.
- Ah, now I see the issue. The article edited was (weirdly) using the Amazon page to support an assertion of a specific first release date, in the apparent awareness that there are other conflicting sources claiming an earlier date. It is hardly a typical use of citation data. In this sense, the Amazon page is a primary source. Compare [1] to [2]. On close examination, one is said to be a 1998 collector's edition paperback, the other a 2004 mass market paperback edition. They also are said by Amazon to differ in pagecount, weight, and potentially other details. Whether Amazon is a wp:RS for this or not is beyond the purview of the bot to decide. Even though it certainly shouldn't be treated as a wp:V source (the data on Amazon can be pulled or changed at any time with no archived version) the bot should not obscure the fact that it is the Amazon data being relied upon in the article. If we compare OL 8755966W}} we see entries for both, evidently built starting with the Amazon records, but in a wp:V archive. I'd suggest that the bot could tag the citation for human edit with
- I don't understand what an Amazon.com citation is, so I am out of here. I will probably participate when this comes up in a more public forum. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 18:45, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- If you want to replace a reference you should simply replace it. I consider the use of an ISBN or other non Amazon.com identifier in an Amazon.com citation to be in violation of WP:V. Also there is the fact that different sources show different dates of publication thus there is the need to show witch reference supports the date being used. If need be you can have more than one reference in the <ref> tags. I see no justification in corrupting a reference just so you can link "to a multitude of sources." – Allen4names 18:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- I don't understand why the Amazon page is referenced, but I'm not getting sucked into another anime discussion. I am dropping this, but I bet it will come up again. If someone wants to push this, then RfC. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 17:49, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
- Apparently this is such an instance. --Redrose64 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)
LeadSongDog come howl! 23:09, 27 January 2012 (UTC)