![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 14 September 2021. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Hi. The inline citation is a good idea. I've tweaked the language a bit for subject/verb agreement. I'm not sure that the icon is necessary and am worried that it might be a bit obtrusive for the reflist. Perhaps we could just use it plain? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put in a test so that if the template is used anywhere but article space it will not put the page it is use on into the hidden category. -- PBS ( talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Citation attribution
The {{ citation-attribution}} templates can be wrapped around the citation templates. eg using the current example from template:citation-attribution/doc:
produces:
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help), a publication now in the
public domain.-- PBS ( talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
@Primefac with this
Revision as of 07:28, 30 September 2022 you commented "Restore original, no need for a wrapper" clearly I disagree as I created both {{
citation-attribution}}
and {{
source-attribution}}
more than a decade ago the former for use in inline references and the latter for placing at the bottom of a bullet pointed list of references. The reason are. For people not used to templates or adverse to them having two different templates that do not take any arguments are simpler to understand and there are less likely to be mistakes made when adding them to am article. This is even more so when one considers the issues of
WP:CITEVAR and the objections some people have to using templates in citations. Please explain you reasons for the revert. --
PBS (
talk)
14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 14 September 2021. The result of the discussion was "no consensus". |
Hi. The inline citation is a good idea. I've tweaked the language a bit for subject/verb agreement. I'm not sure that the icon is necessary and am worried that it might be a bit obtrusive for the reflist. Perhaps we could just use it plain? -- Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
I've put in a test so that if the template is used anywhere but article space it will not put the page it is use on into the hidden category. -- PBS ( talk) 03:50, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
Copied from Wikipedia talk:Plagiarism#Citation attribution
The {{ citation-attribution}} templates can be wrapped around the citation templates. eg using the current example from template:citation-attribution/doc:
produces:
{{
cite book}}
: |volume=
has extra text (
help), a publication now in the
public domain.-- PBS ( talk) 01:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
@Primefac with this
Revision as of 07:28, 30 September 2022 you commented "Restore original, no need for a wrapper" clearly I disagree as I created both {{
citation-attribution}}
and {{
source-attribution}}
more than a decade ago the former for use in inline references and the latter for placing at the bottom of a bullet pointed list of references. The reason are. For people not used to templates or adverse to them having two different templates that do not take any arguments are simpler to understand and there are less likely to be mistakes made when adding them to am article. This is even more so when one considers the issues of
WP:CITEVAR and the objections some people have to using templates in citations. Please explain you reasons for the revert. --
PBS (
talk)
14:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)