Template talk:Cite map

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Edition field should not be a year

The "edition" field should not be a year, many map publishers use different schemes for the edition names e.g. 2nd Edition or Edition 3 or Centennial Edition. This template should have the same date fields as {{cite book}} i.e. date, year and month. If nobody objects I will make this change and update the articles using this template. -- Patleahy 06:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're suggesting exactly; I think you're wanting specific date fields for the edition? I don't know if that's really a good idea, simply because of the wide variation in map edition schemes. Indeed, some use edition numbers, like "2nd Edition". Many U.S. state departments of transportation publish maps biannually. (For example, the map I've cited most often was the ODOT 2005-2006 edition. No other dates are included on any of their maps. Kansas has a similar scheme, again with no specific publication dates given.) Rand McNally uses an annual edition number as well (e.g. The Road Atlas `07).
In lieu of having specific date fields, you can simply type the specific date in the edition year. Perhaps we just need to remove the hardcoded word "edition" from the template to make it more versatile. —Scott5114↗ 18:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Hm, reading over your changes to the template documentation page, it looks like you need a separate publication date parameter for when you want to include the year when it isn't included in the edition. I wouldn't be opposed to that, but I think that for maps that specify the year as the edition we should keep it that way in the template. —Scott5114↗ 18:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Certainly the easiest thing to do in this situation is what you mentioned before: just use the edition field to specify yearly or numerical edition. The term "edition" works for either use. Update the documentation, not the template itself. -- Huntster T • @ • C 19:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
I will update the documentation to say the edition as you describe. I will also add optional year parameter for cases where the edition is not the year. I am also adding the following fields scale, series and id. Id free text and can be used in the same way as id in {{cite book}}. This is useful for ISSN and EAN numbers on maps. -- Patleahy 22:37, 10 May 2007 (UTC)
Very nice job on implimentation, looks good. -- Huntster T • @ • C 08:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

The examples linked to in the Scale section below make a clear distinction between edition and year. I propose that the documentation should be updated to make it clear that where the year of publication is known it should go in the year section. If it is a range of years it can also be put in the year field. Edition should be used exclusively for the name of the edition.

Additionally I believe that the word "edition" be removed from the output to make this consistent with {{Cite book}} and {{Cite encyclopedia}}.

If there is consensus to do this I will personally update the existing uses of this template. -- Patleahy 19:41, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Regarding "edition", I somewhat disagree. It clarifies, what "3rd" or "2006/2007" means...excluding it could leave users in the dark, or worse, guessing. Also, remember that just because another article or template does one thing, doesn't mean they all have to. Use what works best with this template. -- Huntster T • @ • C 21:29, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
The writer of the article can put the word "edition" in the text herself. "Edition" is not always the correct word, many computer based maps and GIS refer to their edition as a "Version".
I agree that two different templates don't need to work the same way, however they should not differ without a compelling reason. Leaving out "edition" works for {{Cite book}}, I don't see why it would not work for this template. -- Patleahy 22:18, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
Eh, excellent point. Please feel free to ignore me in the future. ;) -- Huntster T • @ • C 04:09, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
No problem. It's good to make people explain their thinking. -- Patleahy 04:52, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cheers

Thanks for creating this Template. I only just discovered that it had been done after posting a request back at the start of March. Nice work guys, I will be using it for quite a few articles. Nomadtales 23:57, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Scale

Do we really need to include the scale in here? It doesn't help in locating the work being cited, and would be included in the map itself. The only reason to use it I could see would be if there's a map collection with maps of the same area to different scale. —Scott5114↗ 14:42, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, if you don't think the scale is needed you don’t have to use it.
You are correct, the scale does not help finding the map however the scale useful for assessing how relevant and authoritative the map is on the information being presented.
When I added the fields I looked for a definitive description the style to use. Neither the Wikipedia Manual of Style nor the The Chicago Manual of Style describe citing maps. The definitive work on the topic appears to be Clark, Suzanne M.; Larsgaard, Mary Lynette; Teague, Cynthia M. (1992). Cartographic citations : a style guide, MAGERT circular ; no. 1. Chicago: Map and Geography Round Table, American Library Association. ISBN 083897581X.  I have not got a copy of this yet. I found a number of online examples which refer to that publication. McMaster University Libraries, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, North Carolina, United States and University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, United States. These all include the scale.
These look slightly different from what we have here and include a number of fields we don’t have. In particular they have "format" field. Examples of format are "map", " orthophotomap", "computer map". The all make a clear distinction between the use of date and edition.
I suggest we work to make this template match those examples. -- Patleahy 19:27, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Author

Shouldn't this template contain an author= field to enter the name of the cartographer if they are known? Dhaluza (talk) 18:11, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

It looks like that's what "cartography=" is for. RossPatterson (talk) 18:25, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Not really. Author should come first. It should also be consistent with the other {tl|cite}} templates. Dhaluza (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, adding an author field (with last/first fields probably) could probably be done. Usually, though, the only information available is who published the map, and the firm that they contracted the cartography out to, if any. (For example, the free maps that gas stations handed out in the 1960s would often have the gas station's branding prominently displayed all over the map, while H.M. Gousha or Rand McNally or some other company actually drew up the map.) —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:00, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Here are some (large) examples of maps with authors identified: [1] & [2]. The second one has a suggested cite format on page 3. Dhaluza (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
This template still needs the author fields, the same as all other cite templates. I am using it to reference a geological map where the geologists are named. The cartography is by the USGS, so that is not a suitable place to put this info. Dhaluza (talk) 10:38, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
I'll work on this later today. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 10:59, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
All right, I've fully renovated the template, moving some things around to better comply with standard citation formats while preserving some formats normally seen on wiki. I've implemented the "author" field and some other suggestions above. Any problems, let me know. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 08:44, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, but a author for a map is the exception. I would say that the overwhelming majority of maps don't have an author, meaning that most times this template now outputs the year first. The publisher for a map is more akin to the author or editor of a book. The cartography attribute is more akin to the illustrator of a book. I submit that while the output is now consistent with other templates, this is applying consistency to an inconsistent world and should be reverted or modified. Imzadi1979 (talk) 01:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As I mentioned, I have no problem relocating Year; I did that simply because the majority of other citation templates format it in that fashion, and while I still believe this is the best method, I'll gladly change it if others here believe it incorrect. However, as to Publisher, I much more strongly believe this should not be placed at the beginning. I cannot find any other style guides which use this format...check any of the links on this page (the McMaster.ca link, from what I can tell based on what I've found, being the most respected), all seem to use pretty much the same format, placing Author first, which would default to Title first if author is unknown, something that existing wiki citation templates already do. I rather disagree with your assessment...why should publisher be considered as the author here, when a publisher is simply that: the one who publishes the material? It is no different from any other citation in that regard. Also, isn't one of the main reasons these templates exist so that some sort of consistency can be derived? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 01:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The Michigan Department of Transportation produces and publishes their free map. Under your line of thinking they should be listed twice as author and publisher? Imzadi1979 (talk) 02:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
It would certainly not be the first time for such an event to happen. However, there is still a person or persons in the department that made the map, and the author field would apply to them, not the department itself. But yes, dual author and publisher coverage is not incorrect. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:15, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
But if the map doesn't list an author (and I will say that 99% of them don't) then you can't attribute it to an author. Consistency is still great, until you try to apply it to an inconsistent world. If there weren't a need for maps to be cited differently, we wouldn't have a separate template for this purpose. I submit that there isn't a consensus in this case and until there is, the template should be reverted for now. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I don't understand that logic at all. Why does it matter if you can't attribute it to an author? Lots of news citations don't have authors attributable, because the work does not provide them. This template exists because maps do need to be cited differently, because there are many fields (scale, section, cartographer, series and inset, for example) that should be represented. What do you mean by "inconsistent world"...how does that possibly apply here? I mean, why should we throw up our hands and say "Oh, the rest of the world isn't consistent, so we shouldn't be either." We aren't beholden to anything in our designs. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:29, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
As an addendum, I've used MDOT's maps as an example, but the Rand McNally atlases don't list a cartographer. Neither to the US Geological Survey maps nor Google Maps. In the last example, NAVTEQ supplies the cartography information, which is why there's the cartography= parameter. Dhaluza's second example notwithstanding, that's only a suggested citation format given. We are free in making our own MOS to create our own formats, and actually the MOS doesn't require the usage of a specific template series. The MOS only requires formatting consistency in the sense that all maps are cited the same way, all books are cited the same way, etc. There's been no objection at FAC to the previous template usage for maps, so if it wasn't broken, why did we fix it? Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:23, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
If the parameter is optional, what's the problem? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:34, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that previous to this "fix" the publisher information was the lead info. Now it is the optional author parameter, which doesn't exist 99% of the time. So because of that, the lead information is the publication year in parenthesis most of the time, which makes the output less than useful. The publisher of the map is now relegated to the middle of the citation when the publisher is usually the paramount piece of information. Individual cartographers don't carry a reputation where the publisher carries a reputation, and in fact most maps published are collaborations of whole departments. (MDOT has a whole office that does the state map, not one person.) As such, I submit that the publisher of a map is the more important information for the beginning of a citation much as the author of a book. In fact the Library of Michigan archives its collection of maps of Michigan by publisher, not author! Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:41, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) The problem isn't with the new parameter. It's with the way the other parameters were reordered, and how the template appears when "author" is left out. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
That sounds like a legit concern, to me; if an author is provided, it seems to me that it should go first, but the order when an author is not provided (the more common case by far) is also important and shouldn't get second billing. Sounds like you three are in the process of working this out, below, though. :) – Luna Santin (talk) 04:30, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with everything Imzadi has said above. I have no problem with the author field being added for the rare cases where it will be used, but in my eyes, reordering the parameters has broken the template. I'm pretty sure that every time I've used {{cite map}}, I've used a year and no author – which means every time I've used it, the year appears first, which is just wrong. Perhaps the solution is to create a second template – {{cite map with author}} – which would put the author first, and leave this one to put the publisher first. (Or perhaps some complicated coding could combine those two templates.) Regardless, the template needs to be fixed so that the year doesn't appear first in the vast majority of cases. -- Kéiryn (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Only one citation to a map have I ever had a specific person to cite. Christpher J. Bessert drew the map of Mackinac Island cited in the M-185 (Michigan highway) article. For that 1 time out of the hundreds of usages of this template, I used cartography=Bessert, Christopher J. but the map will still be found in libraries cataloged under the publisher, not his name. Imzadi1979 (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I've already said that I'd happily move Year to the back if desired, and am in fact doing so now. I'm simply confused why Publisher is such a major concern...no other template places it in such promenance. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 03:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Why don't you just change it back to the way it was before? There is no consensus to be making these changes, which as Keiryn has said, have broken the template. In fact your changes have wreaked enough havoc that when I have an afternoon free, I quite literally will be replacing 16 references in the M-35 article to restore the output of the template before the template was changed and eliminating the template from the page completely. If someone were looking for these maps in a library, they won't find them cataloged under an author (that information just plain doesn't exist 99% of the time.) They will be filed by the publisher: the USGS, Rand McNally, the Michigan Department of Transportation, the Michigan State Highway Deparment, the Wisconsin Department of Transportation, the Mackinac Island Convention and Visitor's Bureau, etc. That is why the original output of the template put the publisher information first. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:00, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Didn't moving the year back where it goes fix it though? -- Kéiryn (talk) 04:03, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
I still don't understand what you are getting at, Imzadi, and I mean that with no disrespect intended. Okay, year is returned to normal, but the Author field is not required...if it isn't used, then it won't show up, same as virtually all other citation templates. Where is the problem? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:06, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
In plain English again, the publisher of a map is the datum used to catalog the map in a library. In the course of my research on the historical routings of highways in the state of Michigan, I've searched for maps with the Library of Michigan, Wayne State University, the Traverse City Area District Library, and so far they all catalog and file maps under the publisher of the map or atlas. It's all fine and dandy to add an extremely rarely used Author (should be Cartographer) parameter to the template, but that parameter is not going to be used in 99% of the cases where a map is cited. In fact the publisher holds the copyright on these maps, not the cartopher, unlike books whose copyrights are held by the authors not the publishing houses. As such, the publisher information for a map is more like the author information for a book and the citation should reflect that fact and put the publisher first. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:17, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, I suppose publisher can be moved to the front (though that isn't very consistant, which is my personal preference). Author wasspecifically requested...where would you suggest it be located, and what should be done with the additional data that is currently prepended to Publisher (along with publisher location)? — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:22, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion is to revert the template back to the previous state. Any cartographer that could be cited as the creator of a map best falls under the cartography= parameter. Yes, this parameter is more commonly used to state that Rand McNally or Gousha drew the maps printed and published by various oil companies, but it also works to state that Bessert drew the map published by the Mackinac Island Convention and Visitor's Bureau. A simple instruction in the documentation could have accomplished that without modifying the template code itself. Yes, I know that this means that in the extremely rare cases where the actual cartographer is known they don't get "top billing", but honestly it's a different situation here. In the general populace, authors of books carry a reputation for their writing, its content and accuracy. This same reputation in regards to maps is attached to the publisher of the maps, not the cartographer of a map who is so rarely known. Phone directories are similar in that I don't think I've even heard of a person lay claim to actually writing the directory. Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:33, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

My alternate suggestion is to leave the author= parameter in place as an optional leading parameter, but otherwise restore the template to the previous condition. Or we can use Keiryn's idea and have two templates with and without a parameter for the name(s) of the cartographers and direct editors between {{cite map}} and {{cite map2}} in the documentation Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:39, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec) If you want to revert, please go ahead and do so, I won't challenge. I still confess that this makes no sense to me, but I care more about consistency and ease of reading than giving entities 'proper billing'. — Huntster (t • @ • c) 04:40, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the issue is how you define consistency. IMHO, putting the publisher first is consistent with the other citation templates. The author of a map is not the same thing as the author of a book or a newspaper article or what have you. Nor do the publishers mean the same thing. When I think Harry Potter, I think J. K. Rowling; it's only in the back of my mind that I realize that it was published by Scholastic or Blooomsbury. But when I look at the atlases on my desk, I think Rand McNally or DeLorme. Barnesandnoble.com uses the same logic – when I go to by an atlas there, it lists the publisher as the author: "Arizona Atlas & Gazetteer by Delorme". So I think in that sense – that publisher here is equivalent to author in most other cases – it is being consistent to put publisher first. -- Kéiryn (talk) 15:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I reverted to the March 30th revision by Hersfold. Unfortunately I don't really understand ParserFunctions too well. Though I originally created this template, it's grown too much for me to understand, so I couldn't pick out the specific diff that rearranged the title and publisher. That means that the unrelated edits in between need to be remade. Sorry. —Scott5114↗ [EXACT CHANGE ONLY] 20:10, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hide the access date

We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

I've read the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, and it seems to me that for this template the accessdate parameter should remain. When the map being cited is from Google or Yahoo or some other online mapping site (fairly common), I think the date the map is retrieved is extremely important. However, when the map being cited is a print map scanned in and available online somewhere (fairly rare), then the accessdate parameter should be manually removed from those specific transclusions. -- Kéiryn (talk) 14:39, 5 June 2008 (UTC)