Welcome to fletrix.com on July 11 2009.
This is an internet experiment running to monitor browsing habbits of individuals through wikipedia contents.

Template talk:Cite book

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search
Template:Cite book is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template. Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.


Contents

[edit] Citing chapter written by authors in a book with editors

I found no convenient way to do this using this template or any other template available here. Is there a way? Typically "advanced" scientific monographs consist of chapters written by individual authors, and the title of the chapter is fairly relevant too. E.g. Author1, Author2, "Some specialized topic" in Editor1, Editor2 (ed.) "Book name", pp. xxx-yyy. Concrete example. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:29, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

To make the matter more complex these books usually belong to a series, which would be nice to mention. Xasodfuih (talk) 08:35, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
{{cite book|title=Book title|chapter=Chapter title |author=Author |editor=Editor |series=Series}}
Author. "Chapter title". in Editor. Book title. Series. 
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:38, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This looks bad because "in" is lower case after a period. The documentation says that the "editor" parameter automatically adds "ed." after the editor's name, but apparently it doesn't anymore. —Angr 20:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

{{editrequested}}

I have been lately adding sociology sources, which usually have a different author for every chapter and also an author for the whole book, so I share the pain of Xasodfuih. Guys, the whole point of using params is to unambiguosly put every discrete of data in a properly named parameter, not to reuse one field ("author") for two unrelated data (book author and chapter author). What happens when you want to put book the book author and the chapter author? Could you just add a properly named "chapterauthor=" param for us editors? Please? Pretty please? With cherry on top? --Enric Naval (talk) 14:15, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
If each chapter has a different author, the book as a whole will have an editor, not an author. —Angr 14:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)
Good point there. I had been using "editor" for the company publishing the book, I see that I should have been using "publisher", that's why I had that conflict. (in Spanish, "publisher" translates as "editor" and "publishing company" as "editorial", false friend words FTW) --Enric Naval (talk) 11:00, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I've disabled the edit request per Angr's point; the editor field should be used for the "author" of the entire book. I have, however, encountered one difficulty here when citing chapters of a book in a series, where there is a series editor, volume editor, and chapter author. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:32, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I've asked a very similar question at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(lists_of_works)#Articles_in_compilations.2C_editorships. Any help would be much appreciated. Sidefall (talk) 07:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I just figured it out using the current template. Its not that hard. See reference 8 at glucokinase regulatory protein. alteripse (talk) 23:16, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. I added an example to the documentation so hopefully people will see it in the future. I wasn't sure about putting "(ed.) after the editor's name, but I did as I felt it made their role clear. If there is a consensus that this is not the done thing, I'll apologise in advance. Sidefall (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Accessdate required

Unresolved. Not fixed yet.

I added the syntax 'accessdate=' to the "Most commonly used fields" because I noticed that it is required when the 'url=' syntax is employed. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

I notice the accessdate doesn't show up at least when only a "chapterurl" is supplied. Could someone with privileges fix it? Thanks! --Flex (talk/contribs) 14:07, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
I've noticed the same thing. I'm trying to cite both the print and online versions of a book, but the chapterurl doesn't produce an accessdate.[1]
  1. ^ Cornell, Paul; Day, Martin; Topping, Keith (1995). "Remembrance of the Daleks" (reprinted on BBC Doctor Who website). The Discontinuity Guide. London: Virgin Books. pp. 105–107. ISBN 0-426-20442-5. 
I'd think that if you're using "chapterurl" the accessdate should show up as well; unfortunately, my command of template syntax is inadequate to the task. —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 01:42, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
Then if a chapterurl and url are both specified, how will one know which the accessdate refers to? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 02:09, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't thought of that — but isn't there a way to make accessdate show up in cases in which chapterurl is specified but url is not? Alternatively, would it be useful to add a "chapterurlaccessdate" field? —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 03:24, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
I'll vote for a separate field, but would call it chapteraccessdate, which I think parallels accessdate better (it's not urlaccessdate, after all). I'd also suggest adding chapterformat as a field. If one uses format and chapterurl at the same time, the format parameter will be displayed, but out of place; and again, if both url and chapterurl fields need to be used where each url has a unique format, the format field alone leads to a conundrum. --papageno (talk) 18:48, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] The language field

Resolved.

The language field seems to be out of place, or just has messed up spacing. Example:

  1. (in Japanese)Metal Gear. Konami Gamebook Series. ISBN 4876550131.
  2. (in English)Metal Gear Solid. Del Rey. 2008. pp. 336. ISBN 0345503287.
  3. (in Japanese)Metal Gear Solid - Guns of the Patriots. ISBN 9784047072442.

No space between the "(in <language>)" and the title. TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 00:01, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Can't replicate the problem. Please give examples of how you are producing the above output. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
From List of Metal Gear media#Printed:
{{cite book|title=Metal Gear|series=Konami Gamebook Series|language=Japanese|date=1988-03-31|isbn=4876550131}}
produces:
(in Japanese) Metal Gear. Konami Gamebook Series. 1988-03-31. ISBN 4876550131. 
TH1RT3EN talk ♦ contribs 00:08, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
Fixed at Template:Citation/core. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:33, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic detection of citation format

I have proposed that Citation bot amends pages using a mixture of 'Cite xxx' and 'Citation' templates so that only one family of templates is used. I would welcome comments on this suggestion here. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:03, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Purpose of "url" field

Is the "url" field intended solely for links to online editions of a book, or is it also acceptable to use it as a link to, for example, a page about the book on its publisher's website? (Obviously this would be appropriate only in cases in which there is only one publisher.) —Josiah Rowe (talk • contribs) 00:49, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I've certainly used it the second way, and no one's objected yet! —Angr 05:06, 21 April 2009 (UTC)
In my view a link to a publisher's website amounts to a commercial advertisement and therefore qualifies as spam. The only exception to this is if there is an extract from the book on the site which is directly relevant to the specific citation. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:14, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that's spam any more than linking to http://www.toyota.com from the article Toyota is. —Angr 10:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
If the Toyota site had only model # and price and how to buy then it too would be spam. But the Toyota website has detailed specs of its cars which is added value - as would the publisher's website be if it had relevant excerpts. Otherwise it's just a puff to buy the book which = spam. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 16:56, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] editor= vs. editors=

Both |editor= and |editors= place ed. Can we get editors (plural) to output eds. instead? If someone can tell me what code to change I can do it.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 13:29, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] origyear not working with editor field(?)

Resolved.

I've come across a potential bug in the template. The origyear field seems to be ignored if there's an editor without an author:

  • {{cite book | editor-last = Smith | editor-first = Robert | year = 2009 | origyear = 1999 | title = A sample title }}

produces:

  • Smith, Robert, ed (2009) [1999]. A sample title. 
    • subst'd version for archival purposes: Smith, Robert, ed (2009) [1999]. A sample title. 

The same citation with last and first (instead of editor-last and editor-first):

  • {{cite book | last = Smith | first = Robert | year = 2009 | origyear = 1999 | title = A sample title }}

gives this:

  • Smith, Robert (2009) [1999]. A sample title. 
    • subst'd version: Smith, Robert (2009) [1999]. A sample title. 

I've worked around this by placing "ed" in the (author) first field, but it would be nice to have the template work as expected in the future. :)

Also, should the ed have a period after it as an abbreviation for editor? Or is it standard in citations to not have the period? — Bellhalla (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

Actually, looking at the {{Citation/core}} call generated by {{cite book}}, this template is properly passing on the parameter, so the fault must lie with the former. Have taken question to Template talk:Citation/core. — Bellhalla (talk) 13:14, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Feature request: internal link to bibliography

Some articles cite the same book umpteen times, but citing different pages / sections chapters. IMO all current methods of dealing with this are bad:

  • Using the citation templates repeats the bibliographic details ad nauseam in the "references" section of the article.
  • Harvard referencing looks horrible because it occupies a lot of space in the main text, especially if the work was written by a team, e.g. "Ruppert, Fox and Barnes (2004)" - which is not an extreme example. In addition Harvard referencing provides no help in formatting chapter titles, etc., and most uses of it provide only page numbers. This is of little use if a differnet edition or publication in a differnet format changes pagination, and is of no use to readers of other languages, as translations are likely to have different page numbers.
  • Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods#Shortened_notes_with_wikilinks avoids repeating the bibliographic details ad nauseam and avoids occupying a lot of space in the main text. However it provides no help in formatting chapter titles, etc., and most uses of it provide only page numbers.

I think a better approach would be to combine the advantages of the citation template and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods#Shortened_notes_with_wikilinks methods:

  • The full biblio details are given by a variant of {{cite book}} that provides a link target, as in Harvard referencing and Wikipedia:Citing_sources/Example_edits_for_different_methods#Shortened_notes_with_wikilinks.
  • Individual refs use a variant of {{cite book}} that links to the full biblio details and explicitly supports a short name, e.g. "game manual" or "Ruppert, Fox and Barnes (2004)".
  • Both variants support the "chapter" parameter, as chapter title is sometimes part of the basic biblio details (I'm thinking of a typical book on invertebrate zoology, with a chapter per phylum).
  • Both variants support the various author-related parameters, as they may form part of the full biblio details or may identify contributions (chapters) in a compilation.
  • I'm not sure what to do about dictionary entries (e.g. for etymology or history of usage). Possibly treat them as pseudo-chapters? --Philcha (talk) 08:19, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you familiar with the {{rp}} template, which produces the following output?[1]:26
Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
Now where have I seen that before ?-)
I'm not keen on it because: it makes the blue pox more obtrusive, although not as bad as Harvard referencing; it doesn't handle the other issues I raised, e.g. chapter. --Philcha (talk) 23:01, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
If you have a page number, does it really add value to have the chapter title as well? Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:54, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
Are you suggesing that the chapter title of {{cite book}} is redundant since WP requires page nums?
Situations where I think chapter title is important for normal books: new edition where page numbers change; translations.
BTW I think compilations are a different matter, as the authors vary and I'd repeat the biblio info for each chapter / contribution. --Philcha (talk) 09:15, 14 May 2009 (UTC)


I think you can achieve the desired result using the Harvard reference template. If you insert an inline citation using the {{Harvnb}} template e.g. <ref>{{Harvnb|Smith|2000|p=25}}</ref> it yields Smith 2000, p. 25 under the {{Reflist}} (typically under the Notes heading) and creates a link to a location on the same page called #CITEREFSmith2000. All you need to do then is anchor this link to the full reference of Smith's book in the book list (typically under the References heading) by including the parameter ref=#CITEREFSmith2000 in the {{cite book}} template used for Smith's book thus:
{{cite book|last=Smith| first=John| title=An Authoratitive Reference Book|location=London| publisher=Bookworm| year=2000| isbn=1234567891|ref=CITEREFSmith2000}} which yields:
Smith, John (2000). An Authoratitive Reference Book. London: Bookworm. ISBN 1234567891. 
If you click on the "Smith 2000, p.25" blue link in the second sentence above you will find it redirects to the full book details immediately above this sentence which includes the appropriate ref parameter.
If the inline citation is to multiple pages you replace the p= parameter with pp= or if the reference is to something other than a page (say a chapter) you can insert appropriate text by replacing p= or pp= with loc=ch. 10 or other suitable free text after loc=. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:46, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Alternatively, if you don't want to us the {{Harvnb}} format you can follow the variation given in the Template:Cite book Examples section under the heading "Wikilinks to full references" which allows you to format the inline citation in your own style. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:59, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Using chapter and editor parameters

The template doesn't format correctly when both the chapter and editor parameters are being used. After the chapter title, there is a period, followed by "in" and the editor's name.

{{cite book |last=Flood |authorlink=Flood (producer) |editor=Anthony Savona |title=Console Confessions: The Great Music Producers in Their Own Words |origyear=1993 |year=2005 |publisher=Backbeat Books |location=[[San Francisco]] |isbn=0879308605 |oclc=60393511 |page=130 |chapter=The Zooropa Story}}

Flood (2005) [1993]. "The Zooropa Story". in Anthony Savona. Console Confessions: The Great Music Producers in Their Own Words. San Francisco: Backbeat Books. p. 130. ISBN 0879308605. OCLC 60393511. 

Here is what (I believe) it should look like:
Flood (2005) [1993]. "The Zooropa Story". Anthony Savona. ed. Console Confessions: The Great Music Producers in Their Own Words. San Francisco: Backbeat Books. p. 130. ISBN 0879308605. OCLC 60393511.
–Dream out loud (talk) 01:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't see how this is "incorrect". It formats as described in the template's documentation. This formatting implies the book is a compilation with each chapter written by a different author and the whole thing edited by an editor. In the formatting you suggest the implication is that the author wrote the whole book (with the assistance of an editor). So: if the editor is responsible for the whole book but the cited author only responsible for the portion cited, then the "in" format is appropriate; if the author cited and the editor are responsible for the whole book then it isn't and the editor field should not be used if the chapter field is being used. In this case the editor should be included as an author but possibly with an extra "ed." after the surname. The documentation is a bit obscure, I'll admit, saying: "The "editor" field and its alternates should only be used when the cited author(s) and the book editor(s) are different. If the whole book is cited, instead of a specific part, use the "author" fields (possibly with extra "(ed.)" instead)". In fact, this is wrong and I'll give some thought to changing it. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I've had a go at the documentation to reflect the true effect and intentions of the template....I think! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 11:28, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that most of your changes are right, but your text at |url= is too expansive. We need something that the editor will understand as "Do not put a books.google.com link here if it (1) has an ISBN and (2) is available from all kinds of places." Books.google is not preferable to a link to the Gutenberg project, or the full text at the publisher's website, etc., but it is very commonly used to the exclusion of all other sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Hmm. Not sure I agree. Nothing wrong with Books.google provided the book being referenced has an on-line preview available on the site to which the link points. The sense of the url comment is that the link should not be to somewhere like Amazon which serves only to sell the book, not provide access to referenced text. I've made a small adjustment to reinforce this idea. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 08:42, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
So you think that it's better to send readers off to "my" preferred online source, instead of letting them pick their own preferred sources? Because that's what we're doing when we encourage links to books.google (or Gutenberg Press, or anything else). Google is not, after all, the only online source for the text of many books, but it is one that requires moderately high bandwidth (and one that supports an absolutely enormous international corporation). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:50, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
No. I think it's it's appropriate to send readers to any site that has the text published online (ie the whole book or a preview of the relevant part) so that the citation can be verified. As long as the text is a true reproduction of the book, it doesn't matter what site it's on. In the circumstance we are considering, the reader doesn't need or want a choice: just a one step link to the text which supports the citation so it can be quickly checked. The choice is therefore made by the editor who did the work and found the source and until the Wikipedia community arrives at a consensus regarding preferred sources etc., this is how it should remain. The point of the url link is verification, not "How do I get hold of a copy of this book?" The best way for that is to follow the isbn link to, say, WorldCat which will provide alternative sources where the book can be bought. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 20:36, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
The ISBN magic word also offers online sources, including books.google. If we rely on the ISBN (when it exists), then we maximize reader choice, while simultaneously providing every desirable feature of a direct URL. On the other hand, if we link to "my personal favorite online copy", then we force the reader into my choice, regardless of whether "my" URL even works in that reader's country. Do you see the problem with this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
All very principled. However, if I am given a "choice", the ISBN look up (first click) gives me a list of possible on-line editions, although It may be that there isn't an on-line edition but the text in question forms part of the partial preview in books.google which won't appear in the ISBN search, anyway if there is I choose one (second click), then find the page cited (another click or two) then I give up the will to live. That's why when I want to verify a citation I prefer someone to put in "their" choice of site so that the link takes me direct to the relevant text (one click). If I want a choice I can still click on the ISBN number. Do you see where I'm coming from? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 23:14, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'd rather be able to make one click and end up at the text I want (whereever that is). Having to select a source is an extra click and another layer of faff. If I felt strongly that I always wanted to avoid Google, or use Worldcat, etc., I would be happy to make the extra click on the ISBN to fulfil my personal preference. With journals, the guideline seems to be to link the title to a freely available source if one is available; doing the same with books seems like a good idea! Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:47, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

In my cack-handed way that's exactly what I was trying to say but Smith609 does it so much better! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 21:13, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Ampersand for editor list

I notice that when there is a list with multiple editors rather than multiple authors, the "lastauthoramp" property does not produce an ampersand before the last editor. There is no equivalent "lasteditoramp" property. So when creating a list that includes both multiple-author works and multiple-editor works, it looks inconsistent. Not a big deal, but perhaps this could be added in the future. --RL0919 (talk) 14:33, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Fixed in Template:Citation/core. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:42, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Dead Links

MLA, APA and Harvard style links were tested and found dead Davidbeare (talk) 19:22, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] links in title confuse url placement

I added "XXX" as the first word of title to make the confusion clear; the pdf indication is placed before the first linked word, Lisp in this case, instead of at the end of the title. tooold (talk) 04:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm amazed it works at all. You'll see in the documentation "url: URL of an online location where text of the book can be found. Cannot be used if you wikilinked title."....which you did! Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 12:09, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
and I'm amazed that it's restricted when it's not difficult to do. The template probably tries to nest the title, something like [url title] and probably Wikipedia doesn't handle nested links. The template should generate something like the example below -- insert the link at end of title without nesting. &nbsp may not be the best choice, but it works (in this one example!) with the current template. ":" deleted from &nbsp to make it visible.
title = [[Lisp (programming language)|Lisp 1]] Programmer's Manual[http://www.bitsavers.org/pdf/mit/rle_lisp/LISP_I_Programmers_Manual_Mar60.pdf &nbsp]
btw, the world is changing. While the restriction may have been ok some years ago, now more and more historical books are becoming available online. Thus the need for urls together with linked titles.
Any chance of someone fixing the template, or do I have to recode as in this example? Thanks tooold (talk) 15:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
The template contains the two lines:
 |Title=
 |URL=
I don't know the syntax of the language being used here; the syntax below is my attempt to communicate what needs to be done, not the syntax that would actually do it. In words, it is: if url is present then title = title| concat with '[' concat with url| concat with ' &nbsp' concat with ';]' else |title = title|.
  If url is present
     then |title = title| '[' url| ' &nbsp' ';]'
     else |title = title|
Thanks, tooold (talk) 03:28, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't quite understand what your desired behaviour is. Are you saying that if a URL is present, the title should not be linked, but rather a linked space should be added to the end? Quite aside from users for whom the little 'this is a link' icon does not render (I know that there are some), who will then be unaware that the title is linked, I simply don't think that making the link invisible is a good idea. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 16:36, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Look above at the two cite book examples, both beginning "Fox". The 1st is current behavior, where the linked text in the title causes a problem. The second is with the link appended to the title - quite visible, the pdf token is very visible. tooold (talk) 00:25, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
Ah, the little light went on. I'm focused on the link in the title, while the current case is the entire title being highlighted for a link. So I won't make a sale with this proposal, thanks for helping. tooold (talk) 00:45, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Format of title

Does anyone know why {{Cite book}} (and a couple of other Cite xxxx templates) formats the title= field in italics while {{cite journal}}, {{cite conference}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite web}}, {{cite episode}} and {{cite mailing list}} format it in normal text but enclosed in double inverted commas? Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 17:19, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't say for all of those templates, but for {{cite journal}} the "title" field is the title of a specific article, which would not normally be italicized. Italics are used for the "journal" field, which is the name of the journal. For {{cite web}}, the "title" field is for the title of a specific page, which is assumed to be an article or other short item (which would go in quotes instead of italics), and there is a "work" field that can be used to name the overall site. I'm guessing the other templates would be similar situations (e.g., name of a specific mailing list post in quotes, name of the mailing list itself in italics). --RL0919 (talk) 17:27, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Translated book and chapter titles

I have added support for translated book and chapter titles, using the trans_title and trans_chapter parameters, respectively. Please see the documentation for details. Let me know if you encounter any difficulties. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:28, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Group authorship

How do I cite a book with group authorship ("Dabaotai Han Tomb Excavation Group" in the book I want to cite)? Having a simple "author" field as alternative to "last" and "first" might be a good idea. BabelStone (talk) 08:17, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh dear. You need to read the instructions for this template a bit more carefully! If you click on the "template" tab above and go to "2.2 Description of fields" you'll see there is an author parameter. It doesn't appear in the examples because last/first are preferred (author= is "deprecated") but the circumstance you describe seems an obvious occasion to use author=. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:12, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I don't know how I missed that. BabelStone (talk) 09:23, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Archiveurl requested

Can someone add the archiveurl= and archivedate= parameters from {{cite web}} to this template? --Philosopher Let us reason together. 10:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

[edit] Page numbering in {cite journal} and {cite book}

I suggested a change to this template, please see this discussion; any input would be appreciated. Thanks, rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 04:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I have responded to this at this discussion. Stephen Kirrage talk - contribs 09:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)


Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template_talk:Cite_book"
Personal tools
Visit joltnews for the latest headlines
Visit bloit.com for company information
Geed Media does computer consulting on long island.
This page viewed times. See Logs