This template is too verbose, and consequently takes too much space on the page. I've done some work to reduce it to a more sensible length, but about half of what I removed has been reinstated. All we really need to do is to say that such notations are unacceptable, and to link to an explanation of how they should be done. If the template is too large, there will be opposition to using it, at all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
this template is a joke. Let people either change the abbreviations they object to (e.g. use find-replace), or comment no talk. Disfiguring an article with a warning box to the effect "readers please note, somebody at some point objected to some abbreviation used somewhere in this article" isn't good practice. If we absolutely need this template, make it a talkpage template. -- dab (𒁳) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK the template wording isn't clear then. It's not that ibid shoud be ibidendum or whatever, but that there is a fundamental problem with using construct such as ibid in footnotes in a dynamic environment; that is that removing the first reference to the work, or in some inserting a new ref between the first and the ibid will leave all those ibids ans op. cit.s either dangling or more likely referring to the wrong work, and no one will know - this goes to the core of having well referenced articles. This may indeed have already happened, which is one reason why automated removal of ibid is not an option.
Further the articles are all placed in the clean-up queue by the addition of this template, so that they should all be addressed in time, whereas using "search" will not have that benefit.
As far as putting clean-up templates at end of the article for on the talk page, I am in agreement with these ideas, but that is not consensus: Only {{ uncategorized}} goes at the end, and some of the templates are added to talk pages (such as {{ locateme}}) however it would be possible to move the template to the references section. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44 22 January 2009 (UTC).
Who asked for, or authorised bot addition of this template???? Arnoutf ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it OK to remove op. cit. as an abbreviation listed in the template because WP:MOS says it is less of a problem than Ibid.? PleaseStand ( talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just scoured WP:MOS and WP:CS to no avail: there is no mention whatsoever of a policy regarding repeated citations (i.e op. cit. and ibid.). So what's this template about, then ? Urhixidur ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, here it is, in WP:FOOT. Urhixidur ( talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In June of 2009, I made this edit to WP:FOOT softening the discouragement of op. cit., and explaining why. Nobody has objected. I suggest that mention of op. cit. be removed from this template, or at least that it not be grouped with ibid. and loc. cit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
There is a link in the Ibid template that is incorrect.
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once|named references]]
needs to be changed to:
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once)|named references]]
Alternatively, an anchor (e.g., "Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once", or something shorter but appropriately suggestive -- perhaps just "named references") -- could be defined within Wikipedia:Footnotes to protect the Ibid template against further edits in Wikipedia:Footnotes.
Explanation: Currently, if someone sees the "Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes..." note on a page, and tries to follow the link associated with the words "named references", they are simply taken to the top of the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)" article, and would have to navigate within the article on their own. The conventions/guidelines/rules regarding footnotes in Wikipedia are confusing enough without giving people ineffective links to the current documentation.
I do not believe this suggested change would be controversial, because it appears that at one time the link was correct, but someone later changed the heading of the pertinent section of Wikipedia:Footnotes and failed to edit the Ibid template to match, thus breaking the link in the Ibid template.
N.B.: There is another link in the Ibid template associated with the phrase "quick guide", but I cannot tell if it is going to the correct place or not because the text it takes us to (Template:Refref) doesn't seem to relate to the subject matter (footnotes, abbreviations, manual of style, etc.) I would say that this second link is probably pointing to the wrong place, but I don't know what was intended so I can't suggest a better destination for this "quick guide" link.
NameIsRon ( talk) 04:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion there are far too many templates that allow an editor, often using a bot or AWB, to identify a "problem" but do nothing to fix it. If a reference should be fixed, an editor should not be able to tag the reference and leave it for someone else to fix. No one should be offended if a drive-by repair is made rather that a drive-by tag.
This is also a template that will cause "false-positives". Some kind editor will fix the references but will not remove the template. I noticed the template on Uzziah when I was there checking on some chronology and noticed that the references appeared to be in order. I went back through the history, found when the template had been placed and found when the references had been fixed so that I could give that information in my edit summary when I removed the template. That took longer than finding the article and checking the chronology.
It would be a fine example of personal responsibility if those who dearly love this template would go through the articles where it has been placed and delete from the false positives. I could do it and would but I don't think this template should exist at all. JimCubb ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since the problem this template asks to address is simple to fix, what would people think of adding a category:articles_with_ibid or such so they will all be listed in one place for people who want to go through and fix them (instead of being mixed in with general clean up)? RJFJR ( talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Add in idem which is essentially the same as ibid. Smallman12q ( talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
Editrequested}}
Please fix this template by changing |cat-date=
to |cat=
. This template is based on {{
Ambox}}, which does not take "cat-date", but combines the functions of "cat" and "date" in "cat".
Debresser (
talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Opcit. Since the editors who participate here may have had some involvement with the Template:Opcit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It says "discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes"
But where exactly in that link is ibid etc discouraged or even discussed? I can't find a mention at all!
Could it be that the link supplied by the template needs to be updated? Or could it even be that ibid etc used to be discouraged but is no longer so...? 213.112.134.102 ( talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |removalnotice = yes
inside the {{
ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.
Omni Flames ( talk) 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shouldn't this template also mention the use of op. cit.? jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Read some of the discussions above, as mention of op. cit. was removed from this template because
WP:IBID doesn't prohibit it. --
Ahecht (
TALKHello, I think so
AWB uses this template. If i'm right, please someone add {{AWB standard installation}}
to
its documentation page. Thanks! ⇒
Aram
Talk 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
This template is too verbose, and consequently takes too much space on the page. I've done some work to reduce it to a more sensible length, but about half of what I removed has been reinstated. All we really need to do is to say that such notations are unacceptable, and to link to an explanation of how they should be done. If the template is too large, there will be opposition to using it, at all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
this template is a joke. Let people either change the abbreviations they object to (e.g. use find-replace), or comment no talk. Disfiguring an article with a warning box to the effect "readers please note, somebody at some point objected to some abbreviation used somewhere in this article" isn't good practice. If we absolutely need this template, make it a talkpage template. -- dab (𒁳) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
OK the template wording isn't clear then. It's not that ibid shoud be ibidendum or whatever, but that there is a fundamental problem with using construct such as ibid in footnotes in a dynamic environment; that is that removing the first reference to the work, or in some inserting a new ref between the first and the ibid will leave all those ibids ans op. cit.s either dangling or more likely referring to the wrong work, and no one will know - this goes to the core of having well referenced articles. This may indeed have already happened, which is one reason why automated removal of ibid is not an option.
Further the articles are all placed in the clean-up queue by the addition of this template, so that they should all be addressed in time, whereas using "search" will not have that benefit.
As far as putting clean-up templates at end of the article for on the talk page, I am in agreement with these ideas, but that is not consensus: Only {{ uncategorized}} goes at the end, and some of the templates are added to talk pages (such as {{ locateme}}) however it would be possible to move the template to the references section. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44 22 January 2009 (UTC).
Who asked for, or authorised bot addition of this template???? Arnoutf ( talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is it OK to remove op. cit. as an abbreviation listed in the template because WP:MOS says it is less of a problem than Ibid.? PleaseStand ( talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
I've just scoured WP:MOS and WP:CS to no avail: there is no mention whatsoever of a policy regarding repeated citations (i.e op. cit. and ibid.). So what's this template about, then ? Urhixidur ( talk) 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
Ah, here it is, in WP:FOOT. Urhixidur ( talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
In June of 2009, I made this edit to WP:FOOT softening the discouragement of op. cit., and explaining why. Nobody has objected. I suggest that mention of op. cit. be removed from this template, or at least that it not be grouped with ibid. and loc. cit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit protected}}
There is a link in the Ibid template that is incorrect.
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once|named references]]
needs to be changed to:
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once)|named references]]
Alternatively, an anchor (e.g., "Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once", or something shorter but appropriately suggestive -- perhaps just "named references") -- could be defined within Wikipedia:Footnotes to protect the Ibid template against further edits in Wikipedia:Footnotes.
Explanation: Currently, if someone sees the "Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes..." note on a page, and tries to follow the link associated with the words "named references", they are simply taken to the top of the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)" article, and would have to navigate within the article on their own. The conventions/guidelines/rules regarding footnotes in Wikipedia are confusing enough without giving people ineffective links to the current documentation.
I do not believe this suggested change would be controversial, because it appears that at one time the link was correct, but someone later changed the heading of the pertinent section of Wikipedia:Footnotes and failed to edit the Ibid template to match, thus breaking the link in the Ibid template.
N.B.: There is another link in the Ibid template associated with the phrase "quick guide", but I cannot tell if it is going to the correct place or not because the text it takes us to (Template:Refref) doesn't seem to relate to the subject matter (footnotes, abbreviations, manual of style, etc.) I would say that this second link is probably pointing to the wrong place, but I don't know what was intended so I can't suggest a better destination for this "quick guide" link.
NameIsRon ( talk) 04:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
In my opinion there are far too many templates that allow an editor, often using a bot or AWB, to identify a "problem" but do nothing to fix it. If a reference should be fixed, an editor should not be able to tag the reference and leave it for someone else to fix. No one should be offended if a drive-by repair is made rather that a drive-by tag.
This is also a template that will cause "false-positives". Some kind editor will fix the references but will not remove the template. I noticed the template on Uzziah when I was there checking on some chronology and noticed that the references appeared to be in order. I went back through the history, found when the template had been placed and found when the references had been fixed so that I could give that information in my edit summary when I removed the template. That took longer than finding the article and checking the chronology.
It would be a fine example of personal responsibility if those who dearly love this template would go through the articles where it has been placed and delete from the false positives. I could do it and would but I don't think this template should exist at all. JimCubb ( talk) 18:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Since the problem this template asks to address is simple to fix, what would people think of adding a category:articles_with_ibid or such so they will all be listed in one place for people who want to go through and fix them (instead of being mixed in with general clean up)? RJFJR ( talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
{{ editprotected}}
Add in idem which is essentially the same as ibid. Smallman12q ( talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)
{{
Editrequested}}
Please fix this template by changing |cat-date=
to |cat=
. This template is based on {{
Ambox}}, which does not take "cat-date", but combines the functions of "cat" and "date" in "cat".
Debresser (
talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
I asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Opcit. Since the editors who participate here may have had some involvement with the Template:Opcit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. GoingBatty ( talk) 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
It says "discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes"
But where exactly in that link is ibid etc discouraged or even discussed? I can't find a mention at all!
Could it be that the link supplied by the template needs to be updated? Or could it even be that ibid etc used to be discouraged but is no longer so...? 213.112.134.102 ( talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please add |removalnotice = yes
inside the {{
ambox}} template. Many of the other maintenance templates contain this and this one should be the same. See
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_131#Implementing_Help:Maintenance_template_removal.
Omni Flames ( talk) 07:07, 14 June 2016 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shouldn't this template also mention the use of op. cit.? jd22292 ( Jalen D. Folf) ( talk) 16:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
{{
edit template-protected}}
template. Read some of the discussions above, as mention of op. cit. was removed from this template because
WP:IBID doesn't prohibit it. --
Ahecht (
TALKHello, I think so
AWB uses this template. If i'm right, please someone add {{AWB standard installation}}
to
its documentation page. Thanks! ⇒
Aram
Talk 22:18, 11 February 2020 (UTC)