Template talk:RQ:Burton Melancholy

Length
This is absolutely ridiculous IMO. Ƿidsiþ 21:14, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, made the full title optional. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:50, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * That definitely helps, but I still think we should not be repeating all the information twice – it should just say "2nd edition 1624" without needing the title and publishing info in cases where they're exactly the same as the first edition. Ƿidsiþ 07:06, 24 February 2018 (UTC)
 * requires the presence of a parameter to highlight that a second book is also being referred to, and since there are many possible permutations (e.g., new edition, reprint, republication without new edition number, etc.) I decided that at a minimum the place of publication of the second work needs to be specified. Since the place of publication is not given alone without the publisher and year of publication, those will have to be given as well. — SGconlaw (talk) 03:03, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Returning to this discussion…citations should reference the specific edition being quoted. If this particular template is referencing the second edition, then it should not give a separate year, title and publisher for the first edition. It doesn't make any sense to show the same title twice and to show two different publishers…there is no professional citation protocol which does things this way. Ƿidsiþ 12:44, 22 August 2018 (UTC)