![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2017 July 8. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
This template is broken a little bit. It keeps giving red links in the reference section. Can someone help, please? Number 118 on Acupuncture is a good example. Basket of Puppies 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe centralized discussions of this, as well as the {{ cite doi}} and {{ cite pmc}} are occurring at template talk:Cite doi. Editors will probably get more discussion there than they would here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Due to the hardcoding of " http://en.wikipedia.org" in the template the "edit" link at the end of the reference leads to a non-existent page. Example here: "Aspirine", ref 10. Is it going to be fixed somehow? BartłomiejB ( talk) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see much point to the edit links (how often do these templates need to be edited?) and they really make our ref lists look awful. We already have enough interface clutter as it is without hundreds of tiny "edits" links floating at the end of every reference. What would people think about making no-edit-link the default and added a parameter to turn it on if people really want it? Kaldari ( talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
These templates are horrible. They do not work across language versions of Wikipedia. They make finding the details of the reference difficult for editors. I say we delete this one and replace it with cite journal which is much more widely used. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
s within articles is already in citation bot, it isn't exactly an addition. The processing of articles to eliminate {{
cite pmid}} templates by whatever approach is chosen is not necessarily tied to any particular bot, or for that matter to a bot at all. A gadget something like reftools would seem a likely candidate, or perhaps even AWB. We should try not to conflate what to do with who or how to do it. Piling more and more functionality onto one program isn't necessarily the best possible idea, even if some folks in Redmond might disagree.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{Deprecated template|Cite pmid|Cite journal|date=May 2015}} LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Please request that the related discussions are closed (I see some seem to have consensus and others don't at first glance) and consensus is reached before reopening this request. Thank you. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Can this be updated to handle NIHMSID and PMCID ? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{subst:tfd}} to the top of the template. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 03:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although the documentation was changed here, I think we should have a proper discussion on whether to deprecate this template or not. Based on prior discussions at Template:Cite doi and Template:cite isbn, and with a parallel new discussion about Template:Cite wdl, I believe that this template operates by in part searching the PMID string and checking for the full citation details at Category:Cite pmid templates so it's a wrapper for cite journal citations. I believe this template otherwise operates as a regular cite journal wrapper in the article itself if a subpage does not exist. How should the use of template:cite pmid continue in the future?
I've been working on getting Citation Bot up again (still looking for longer-term maintainers as well) and am blocked on dealing with anything that touches cite doi, cite pmid, etc. until there is some consensus. It looks like this discussion has been quiet for a month or so, and that there is a clear consensus to deprecate. Is it time to close it? -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{tl|Db-g6|rationale=unused and deprecated}} or just change to {{ Historical template}}, since it has really gone beyond deprecation to having instances of it deleted. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This template has been deleted, but there are still 40,000 subpages that need to be deleted (and possibly substed before that happens, if it hasn't happened for all of them yet). Was there consensus to delete this template? I see the deprecation consensus above, but no consensus to delete it yet. We may want to redirect this template to {{ cite journal}} or leave the "historical" note and remove the documentation. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As per this discussion, we're ok to delete all subpages of {{ Cite pmid}} at this point. Subpages can all be found in Category:Cite pmid templates, I believe. Anomie, could AnomieBOT III take this on? ~ Rob Talk 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a request. I've just finished importing a small archive of content from http://topicpageswiki.plos.org/ over to v:PLOS. However much of it uses the old cite_pmid template so the reflists are broken ( example). Would it be possible to get whatever code is necessary to get v:template:cite_pmid to work there? Even if it's temporary, it'd allow me to substitute all the templates to at least have readable plaintext references (ping possibly interested users @ Quantum7, @ Daniel Mietchen, @ Headbomb, @ Jonesey95, @ Frietjes, @ Randykitty @ JFW @ Martin). Thanks in advance for any help! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|12345678}}
to {{cite journal|pmid=12345678}}
and then run another bot to retrieve and fill in the missing details of those citations. On the English Wikipedia,
User:Citation bot can do the latter task. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC){{
cite pmid}}
-> {{
Cite journal|pmid=}}
, then run Citation bot on that page and copy the result back to Wikiversity.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 15:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
![]() | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
|
![]() | This template was considered for deletion on 2017 July 8. The result of the discussion was "keep". |
![]() | This orphaned
talk page,
subpage,
image page, or similar is not eligible for speedy deletion under
CSD G8 as it has been asserted to be useful to Wikipedia. If you believe it should be deleted, please nominate it on Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion. |
This template is broken a little bit. It keeps giving red links in the reference section. Can someone help, please? Number 118 on Acupuncture is a good example. Basket of Puppies 22:03, 21 May 2010 (UTC)
I believe centralized discussions of this, as well as the {{ cite doi}} and {{ cite pmc}} are occurring at template talk:Cite doi. Editors will probably get more discussion there than they would here. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 17:49, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Due to the hardcoding of " http://en.wikipedia.org" in the template the "edit" link at the end of the reference leads to a non-existent page. Example here: "Aspirine", ref 10. Is it going to be fixed somehow? BartłomiejB ( talk) 19:02, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't see much point to the edit links (how often do these templates need to be edited?) and they really make our ref lists look awful. We already have enough interface clutter as it is without hundreds of tiny "edits" links floating at the end of every reference. What would people think about making no-edit-link the default and added a parameter to turn it on if people really want it? Kaldari ( talk) 02:33, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
These templates are horrible. They do not work across language versions of Wikipedia. They make finding the details of the reference difficult for editors. I say we delete this one and replace it with cite journal which is much more widely used. Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 06:38, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
{{
cite xxx}}
s within articles is already in citation bot, it isn't exactly an addition. The processing of articles to eliminate {{
cite pmid}} templates by whatever approach is chosen is not necessarily tied to any particular bot, or for that matter to a bot at all. A gadget something like reftools would seem a likely candidate, or perhaps even AWB. We should try not to conflate what to do with who or how to do it. Piling more and more functionality onto one program isn't necessarily the best possible idea, even if some folks in Redmond might disagree.
LeadSongDog
come howl! 22:16, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add {{Deprecated template|Cite pmid|Cite journal|date=May 2015}} LeadSongDog come howl! 15:06, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
template. Please request that the related discussions are closed (I see some seem to have consensus and others don't at first glance) and consensus is reached before reopening this request. Thank you. — {{U|
Technical 13}} (
e •
t •
c)
15:23, 15 May 2015 (UTC)Can this be updated to handle NIHMSID and PMCID ? -- 65.94.171.126 ( talk) 13:16, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{subst:tfd}} to the top of the template. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 03:38, 5 September 2015 (UTC)
Please take part in the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#RfC closure challenge: Template talk:Cite doi#RfC: Should Template:cite doi cease creating a separate subpage for each DOI? Curly Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:12, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Although the documentation was changed here, I think we should have a proper discussion on whether to deprecate this template or not. Based on prior discussions at Template:Cite doi and Template:cite isbn, and with a parallel new discussion about Template:Cite wdl, I believe that this template operates by in part searching the PMID string and checking for the full citation details at Category:Cite pmid templates so it's a wrapper for cite journal citations. I believe this template otherwise operates as a regular cite journal wrapper in the article itself if a subpage does not exist. How should the use of template:cite pmid continue in the future?
I've been working on getting Citation Bot up again (still looking for longer-term maintainers as well) and am blocked on dealing with anything that touches cite doi, cite pmid, etc. until there is some consensus. It looks like this discussion has been quiet for a month or so, and that there is a clear consensus to deprecate. Is it time to close it? -- Fhocutt (WMF) ( talk) 22:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Add {{tl|Db-g6|rationale=unused and deprecated}} or just change to {{ Historical template}}, since it has really gone beyond deprecation to having instances of it deleted. AManWithNoPlan ( talk) 19:04, 5 December 2015 (UTC)
This template has been deleted, but there are still 40,000 subpages that need to be deleted (and possibly substed before that happens, if it hasn't happened for all of them yet). Was there consensus to delete this template? I see the deprecation consensus above, but no consensus to delete it yet. We may want to redirect this template to {{ cite journal}} or leave the "historical" note and remove the documentation. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 19:48, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
As per this discussion, we're ok to delete all subpages of {{ Cite pmid}} at this point. Subpages can all be found in Category:Cite pmid templates, I believe. Anomie, could AnomieBOT III take this on? ~ Rob Talk 15:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
I have a request. I've just finished importing a small archive of content from http://topicpageswiki.plos.org/ over to v:PLOS. However much of it uses the old cite_pmid template so the reflists are broken ( example). Would it be possible to get whatever code is necessary to get v:template:cite_pmid to work there? Even if it's temporary, it'd allow me to substitute all the templates to at least have readable plaintext references (ping possibly interested users @ Quantum7, @ Daniel Mietchen, @ Headbomb, @ Jonesey95, @ Frietjes, @ Randykitty @ JFW @ Martin). Thanks in advance for any help! T.Shafee(Evo&Evo) talk 04:54, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
{{cite pmid|12345678}}
to {{cite journal|pmid=12345678}}
and then run another bot to retrieve and fill in the missing details of those citations. On the English Wikipedia,
User:Citation bot can do the latter task. –
Jonesey95 (
talk) 05:52, 30 November 2021 (UTC){{
cite pmid}}
-> {{
Cite journal|pmid=}}
, then run Citation bot on that page and copy the result back to Wikiversity.
* Pppery *
it has begun... 15:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)