![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Archives: Nov 2007 - Sep 2008
QUESTION: I have been working on the Wikipedia College Football project and have gotten information from the Sports Information Department from the University of Texas at Arlington about their college football program that was discontinued back in the 1980's. This is the only source I have found on the program and coaching records--but the events are noteworthy because many of the coaches went on to other schools after successful seasons at UTA. But all I have are "scratch notes" on the program. I'm sure the information is correct because it came from their SID dept... how do I cite the source?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the {{ Cite video game}} citation template be added to the list? It would make it much easier for people to realize there is such a template. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the MLA style, it would need the parameters of citing a periodical:
"(author, article title, periodical title, and volume, date, and page number information) followed by the name of the database or subscription collection, the name of the library through which you accessed the content, including the library's city and state, plus date of access. If a URL is available for the home page of the service, include it." [1]
Earthsound ( talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In the example for encyclopedia, should we include the way of handling multiple editors? (eg. editor1-last, editor2-last) DGG ( talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The code is already there, it works to use it the way i mentioned. andd it looks like it automatically moves to et al after a certain number. It's just a question of adding an example. DGG ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources about the current guideline wording, and the wider issue of whether or not the use of Citation templates on the whole should be discouraged.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to cite a brochure for a location as a source for information? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For book citations, the common usage column for the citation template shows both location and place, but the documentation seems to indicate these are synonyms. Shouldn't just one of these be listed? -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
why isn't the interview template Template:Cite_interview listed on the template page??
Hi, I posted this over on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and it was suggested I mention it here too:
I've made a simple bookmarklet that helps to create formatted citations. You can find it here, with a description and example usage. Much lower-rent than Zotero, but I find it frustrating when Zotero won't extract perfectly good metadata. I don't want to blow my own horn by adding it to the list of tools straight away, since I don't know if anything like this already exists (I couldn't find anything quite like this), or if anyone else would find this useful. Feel free to play with it. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
when i use this template the release date doesn't show up in the footnotes generated, even though i enter it each time. is that deliberate, or am i doing something wrong, or ... ? one example of what i mean is the citation of Four Flicks, currently numbered 100 on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gibson_players i entered the 2003 release date in what i believe is the proper place, but it doesn't appear in the footnote. thanks for any insights!
and as long as i'm here ... the "citation" template for periodicals seems to use a different convention for page numbers than the "cite book" template. maybe it would be worthwhile for some generous Template Expert to tinker with those to make them consistent? that would be easier for well-meaning non-experts struggling to get the hang of these things. thanks Sssoul ( talk) 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates - would it be worthwhile updating that page to include this "year2" variation and/or a recommendation to check out the {{ cite video}} page?
Is there a template to cite an article in book? If so, what, where, etc. If not, why not? -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the various templates be reformed to output the word "accessed" rather than "retrieved" in response to the accessdate parameter. In the case of {{ cite web}} in particular, the source being cited is sometimes an interactive site that is being accessed to obtain the information to which the cite applies. Retrieving the cited URL, by itself, does not obtain the information.
An example is in D. B. Cooper where we have:
which expands to:
It seems to me that "accessed" will always be accurate, but sometime "retrieved" will not be. Another admittedly minor point is that it matches the parameter name, so it's more intuitive to see what parameter generates what text. TJRC ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I very often find myself in need of citing Russian laws in articles, and I've been looking for a way to use an existing citation template for that. Unfortunately, none of the existing options work well. To see what I need, take a look at, for example, Gruzinsky (settlement) (where the citation is entered as plain text). The choke points in this example are, first, that the date should not be in parentheses, and second, and more importantly, that existing templates provide no means to add English translation after the Russian title. Any suggestions would be appreciated.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there a deliberate decision to show date=[[yyyy-mm-dd]] examples vice date=yyyy-mm-dd in the template documentation? I thought the templates all handled this without datelinking. LeadSongDog ( talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Should their be a special template for the likes of Google books [2] i've been using {{ cite web}} however {{ cite book}} would also apply , perhaps we need a {{ cite book with url}} Gnevin ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't seem to find a reference anywhere in Wiki for citing software (except a Micosoft Style book I'd rather not buy). Either way, a template would certainly be useful. In the meantime, I suppose I should treat it like a book?-- Mac128 ( talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please contribute to this discussion at Citing sources: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again -- EnOreg ( talk) 16:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus: We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, -- EnOreg ( talk) 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How does one cite matter from a chapter in a book that has contributors that are different from the editors mentioned on the cover and elsewhere? Which all authors are to be included in the citation?
Kindly help me with this doubt.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'airdate' field of the {{
cite episode}} template
produces a wikilink to the date. (Example: "
The Gymnast".
Seinfeld. Season 6. Episode 6. November 3, 1994. {{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)) I don't think it should
be doing so, since the full date doesn't necessarily have a page. The editor should be allowed to wikilink the date themselves.—
RJH (
talk)
20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)) This is the standard way of inputing dates into cites.--
十
八
20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Hi, I'm using the conference citation template - the template wikifies the Retrieved on date - this must be a mistake, no reason for that, and it produces an ugly link in red. See this example:
Last, First (2006). [ww.ishm2006.hu/abstracts/files/ishmpaper_093.doc "The title comes out nice"]. 40th International Congress on the History of Medicine. Budapest, Hungary August 26-30, 2006. Retrieved June 5, 2008. {{
cite conference}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
-
Power.corrupts (
talk)
13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)Is there a recommendation for how to do patent citations? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am using a book entitled "House of Steel" about the Pittsburgh Steelers stadium, Heinz Field. The book is listed as (c) 2002 Pittsburgh Steelers. Now obviously the football team didn't write the book; on the copyright page it lists a long line of names from the Steelers and "NFL Creative". Should I cite the "Editor-in-cheif" as the author, as his name is at the top of the list? Or just leave the author blank? This probably seems like a picky question, but I like to be through. Thanks! Black ngold29 05:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help), Contributors: Pittsburgh Steelers Staff, NFL Creative Staff.Anyone using this template on a different MediaWiki-powered site? For some reason, my citations are coming out like this in the references section:
In other words, the Title becomes a link to whatever is listed as the URL parameter, but then the URL is also listed between chevrons. Corsulian ( talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I see the point of giving the date of retrieval of general website pages, because they tend to change often, but why in the world do we indicate the date of access of online journal and news articles, which are not supposed to change in the first place? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Phenylalanine, please see the extensive discussion here. In particular, please contribute your opinion to this last section. Thanks, -- EnOreg ( talk) 03:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, you will see the funny there. 65.189.146.128 ( talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I attempting to tidy the references in Exeter. A particular book is cited multiple times but with different page numbers. I considered using Op. cit. on the later citations - any opinions on this? Normally if a work is cited multiple times, I would of course use a named reference but this then does not allow citing the page number which is valuable. The way it is currently done with a separate bibliography seems messy to me. Any opinions?-- NHSavage ( talk) 08:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we have one for those papers that are published as chapters of an edited book. This happens a lot in the area I'm editing in. I was using the citation template but that produces different results to the family cite templates. I've now used the encyclopedia template which works - but they're not really encyclopaedias and it took ages to find out what to do. How about "compendium" ? Fainites barley 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a good reason why one would use the format field with a document type recognized by MediaWiki, such as PDF? I think it is junk. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if this is a bug, or expected behaviour (or just me !), but when using the {{cite book}} template, if I specify "isbn=xxxxxx", then it displays ok, but if I specify it as "ISBN=xxxxx" (i.e. capitalised), then it doesn't - yet the {{citation}} template copes with both. CultureDrone ( talk) 08:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
{{cite book | last = Cordell | first = Bruce R. | coauthors = Jeff Grubb, David Noonan | title = [[Manual of the Planes]] | publisher = [[Wizards of the Coast]] | date = 2001 | pages = pp. 198-203 | month = September | notakeyword = nonsense | ISBN = 9-9999-9999-9 | isbn = 0-7869-1850-8 }}
Cordell, Bruce R. (2001).
Manual of the Planes.
Wizards of the Coast. pp. pp. 198-203.
ISBN
0-7869-1850-8. {{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); More than one of |ISBN=
and |isbn=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |notakeyword=
ignored (
help)
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
See Template talk:Cite web#Edit requested dates: optional links and style about moving away from always having blue wikilinked dates, as these are nolonger required by WP:MOS. More specifically need to be able to specify American style (eg August 1, 2008) or British/European/International style (eg 1 August 2008) as might be geographically appropriate to the contents of an article. Whilst registered editors currently may set a date preference, most have not and this does not apply to all unregistered anon editors both of whom currently see the ISO style of 2008-08-01. There is no immediate wish to remove the current default of wikilinking dates, but only to allow fixed formating where editors choose to in articles.
Unfortunately MediaWiki does not currently allow the best of both worlds - namely always showing in a user's preferred format where this has been set, otherwise for everyone else showing as either the current default ISO or some fixed style set by an editor - for there is no means to test if an editor has set a date preference ( meta:Help:Date formatting and linking#Accessibility of date preference for branching).
Compare, as an example, current cite web:
To planned version with datestyle parameter:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |datestyle=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |datestyle=
ignored (
help)
A couple of further points:
I've posted notes at the main cite_XXX & citation templates without really much additional comment, hence this heads-up more afar - further discussion should be had for now at Template talk:Cite web#Working version and final discussion David Ruben Talk 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I just read the article Modern animation in the United States, which is, imho, completely unreadable because there are too many occurrences of "citation needed" in it. Could we please work towards a new rule that defines how often this tag can be placed? Thanks. Peter S. ( talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In situations like that they should use {{ refimprove}} or {{ refimprovesect}} -- Adoniscik( t, c) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed --
Adoniscik(
t,
c)
01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Public Library has a collection of historic photographs that relate to the Wineville Chicken Murders. One can view the pictures by going to the LA Public Libary homepage, clicking BROWSE THE PHOTO COLLECTION and entering the key word "Northcott". There are currently 131 relevant copyrighted pictures viewable at the LA Public Library. There is no permanent direct link to these picture. What is the proper way of citing this resource?-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can the templates be fixed so that they allow the form "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as an alternative to "Retrieved on 2008- 01-01"? If I indicate the article date as June 1, 2007, for consistency, I prefer to use the same date style for the accessdate: "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as opposed to "Retrieved on 2008- 01-01". Also, I would prefer it if wikilinking the accessdates was optional (requiring the use of brackets). Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
linking of dates is no longer encouraged in MOSNUM, I believe they should be delinked in all the relevant templates. I am referring to the 'accessdate' field, which links the ISO-formatted dates to the relevant date/year articles. These links add nothing to the article and create unnecessary and often totally irrelevant cross-links. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The templates concerned are, inter alia:
|date=
be applied to |accessdate=
post-haste. I.e. make it an open field. This will a) de-link the ISO dates (which is okay, FA test not withstanding), b) make the many, many cases of |accessdate=[[YYYY-MM-DD]]
link, but be valid code finally, and c) make the many, many cases of |accessdate=Month DD, YYYY
, |accessdate=[[DD Month YYYY]]
, and other variants by people who did not notice or ignored the off-kilter instructions to use ISO, to also work fine, whether linked or not. PS: I don't understand what someone said above about moving |accessdate=
date components into the separate date parameters; can't do that - |year=
, |month=
and |day=
are an alternative to |date=
, not to |accessdate=
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I'm confused about this proposal, since the way to delink dates in citation templates is already there: instead of accessdate, use accessmonthday or accessdaymonth along with accessyear. I've been doing it for months. I have not yet found an article where I can't make consistent delinked dates in citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
Date|param}}
instead? That would avoid the ugly display of ISO dates, wouldn't it? (I know that {{
Date}} only works for dates later than 31-Dec-1969, but that can't possibly be a problem for "accessdate" — although it might be for dates after 19-Jan-2038.)
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
08:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)At
Cite.php it has been proposed a solution to the problem with <ref>
-tags needed to contain the information, templates etc. inside the first occurrence in the text. The solution above place all text/templates etc inside the ref in a block at the end. If this is implemented a big pain will be relieved for a lot of editors (not so familiar with meta data and codes disturbing the main text etc.). Should this be implemented at en-wiki (see
Cite.php)?
Nsaa (
talk)
22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been slowly working on the comments made on the Whitby and Pickering Railway article. Some of the references I am adding need to cite material produced (and in some cases published) by the early railway companies or reports by Railway Inspectors; all of which is held in what is now The National Archives although I still think of as the Public Record Office. I imagine some similar problems may arise when referencing material in other similar institutions in other countries, perhaps even the Library of Congress.
So far in different articles I have tried Citation and Cite Book but neither really meet my requirements, trying to fit the necessary information into them gives a rather 'klunky' feel. Neither template (to my knowledge) supports quoting things like volume and minute numbers when referencing company minute books
Is there already a more appropriate cite template that I could use ? Or could a suitable new template be created, if so further consultation with possible users would be needed to ensure it covers all required fields. I doubt my very limited experience of template writing would be adequate for this task - are their others who might take it on ?
Indeed do (unpublished) company minute books and other records held in a national archive (or indeed any archive), qualify for use in a Wikipedia reference ? XTOV ( talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a couple of requests at Template talk:Cite news for the "location" parameter to be made functional. Supposedly the "location" parameter displays only when the "work" parameter is omitted. That in itself would be a problem, because there should always be a "work" associated with a news article. The purpose I would expect for the "location" parameter would be to display the location where the news source is published where that is not obvious from the title of the "work".
But the "location" parameter doesn't even display when the "work" is omitted. See below for examples.
{{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work=The Sun |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} displays as:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work= |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} displays as:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)What I think the "location" parameter ought to do is as follows.
{{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work=The Sun |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} should display as:
Can anyone make this possible? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
|work=
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)|location=
parameter is supposed to be displayed (always, if present, not with or without the presence of work!); it is part of all (MLA, AP, etc.) style manuals on citation, as it is crucial meta-data about a cited work (if unclear on why, consider that a book written about Colonial India published in London may be very, very different in its assumptions, biases, coverage, focus and intended audience, than one published in New Delhi; also there are publishers by the same name in muliple countries, and some publishers (Oxford U. Pr., etc.) that publish different editions, with different page numbering, etc., of some works, out of multiple branches in multiple countries).Location: Publisher
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [Above, David Ruben says it comes after publisher, but he meant the italicized work title (|title=
in {{
Cite book}}, |work=
in {{
Cite web}}, |journal=
in {{
Cite journal}}, etc.).]display=none;
- it should still be present in source, even as received by the end-user browser, as valid meta-data) of |location=
and its following colon if |publisher=
is empty, since it looks funny. Since publisher location is rarely known where publisher is not, there should be very few such cases (many {{
Cite web}} users neglect to put a publisher field, but they don't use location either generally). —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Archives: Nov 2007 - Sep 2008
QUESTION: I have been working on the Wikipedia College Football project and have gotten information from the Sports Information Department from the University of Texas at Arlington about their college football program that was discontinued back in the 1980's. This is the only source I have found on the program and coaching records--but the events are noteworthy because many of the coaches went on to other schools after successful seasons at UTA. But all I have are "scratch notes" on the program. I'm sure the information is correct because it came from their SID dept... how do I cite the source?-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 13:53, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Can the {{ Cite video game}} citation template be added to the list? It would make it much easier for people to realize there is such a template. AnmaFinotera ( talk) 21:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Following the MLA style, it would need the parameters of citing a periodical:
"(author, article title, periodical title, and volume, date, and page number information) followed by the name of the database or subscription collection, the name of the library through which you accessed the content, including the library's city and state, plus date of access. If a URL is available for the home page of the service, include it." [1]
Earthsound ( talk) 16:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
In the example for encyclopedia, should we include the way of handling multiple editors? (eg. editor1-last, editor2-last) DGG ( talk) 00:15, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The code is already there, it works to use it the way i mentioned. andd it looks like it automatically moves to et al after a certain number. It's just a question of adding an example. DGG ( talk) 05:22, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
There's a discussion in Wikipedia talk:Citing sources about the current guideline wording, and the wider issue of whether or not the use of Citation templates on the whole should be discouraged.
-- SallyScot ( talk) 21:05, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Is there a way to cite a brochure for a location as a source for information? Thanks. Rufous-crowned Sparrow ( talk) 04:10, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
For book citations, the common usage column for the citation template shows both location and place, but the documentation seems to indicate these are synonyms. Shouldn't just one of these be listed? -- Gerry Ashton ( talk) 20:19, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
why isn't the interview template Template:Cite_interview listed on the template page??
Hi, I posted this over on Wikipedia talk:Citing sources and it was suggested I mention it here too:
I've made a simple bookmarklet that helps to create formatted citations. You can find it here, with a description and example usage. Much lower-rent than Zotero, but I find it frustrating when Zotero won't extract perfectly good metadata. I don't want to blow my own horn by adding it to the list of tools straight away, since I don't know if anything like this already exists (I couldn't find anything quite like this), or if anyone else would find this useful. Feel free to play with it. -- Bazzargh ( talk) 01:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
when i use this template the release date doesn't show up in the footnotes generated, even though i enter it each time. is that deliberate, or am i doing something wrong, or ... ? one example of what i mean is the citation of Four Flicks, currently numbered 100 on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Gibson_players i entered the 2003 release date in what i believe is the proper place, but it doesn't appear in the footnote. thanks for any insights!
and as long as i'm here ... the "citation" template for periodicals seems to use a different convention for page numbers than the "cite book" template. maybe it would be worthwhile for some generous Template Expert to tinker with those to make them consistent? that would be easier for well-meaning non-experts struggling to get the hang of these things. thanks Sssoul ( talk) 11:44, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_templates - would it be worthwhile updating that page to include this "year2" variation and/or a recommendation to check out the {{ cite video}} page?
Is there a template to cite an article in book? If so, what, where, etc. If not, why not? -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 04:55, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the various templates be reformed to output the word "accessed" rather than "retrieved" in response to the accessdate parameter. In the case of {{ cite web}} in particular, the source being cited is sometimes an interactive site that is being accessed to obtain the information to which the cite applies. Retrieving the cited URL, by itself, does not obtain the information.
An example is in D. B. Cooper where we have:
which expands to:
It seems to me that "accessed" will always be accurate, but sometime "retrieved" will not be. Another admittedly minor point is that it matches the parameter name, so it's more intuitive to see what parameter generates what text. TJRC ( talk) 22:21, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
I very often find myself in need of citing Russian laws in articles, and I've been looking for a way to use an existing citation template for that. Unfortunately, none of the existing options work well. To see what I need, take a look at, for example, Gruzinsky (settlement) (where the citation is entered as plain text). The choke points in this example are, first, that the date should not be in parentheses, and second, and more importantly, that existing templates provide no means to add English translation after the Russian title. Any suggestions would be appreciated.— Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • ( yo?); 18:17, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Was there a deliberate decision to show date=[[yyyy-mm-dd]] examples vice date=yyyy-mm-dd in the template documentation? I thought the templates all handled this without datelinking. LeadSongDog ( talk) 20:05, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Should their be a special template for the likes of Google books [2] i've been using {{ cite web}} however {{ cite book}} would also apply , perhaps we need a {{ cite book with url}} Gnevin ( talk) 13:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Can't seem to find a reference anywhere in Wiki for citing software (except a Micosoft Style book I'd rather not buy). Either way, a template would certainly be useful. In the meantime, I suppose I should treat it like a book?-- Mac128 ( talk) 17:33, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
Please contribute to this discussion at Citing sources: Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Retrieval dates for online versions of old printed sources, again -- EnOreg ( talk) 16:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Consensus: We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, -- EnOreg ( talk) 09:22, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
How does one cite matter from a chapter in a book that has contributors that are different from the editors mentioned on the cover and elsewhere? Which all authors are to be included in the citation?
Kindly help me with this doubt.
Regards.
—KetanPanchal taLK 13:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
The 'airdate' field of the {{
cite episode}} template
produces a wikilink to the date. (Example: "
The Gymnast".
Seinfeld. Season 6. Episode 6. November 3, 1994. {{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)) I don't think it should
be doing so, since the full date doesn't necessarily have a page. The editor should be allowed to wikilink the date themselves.—
RJH (
talk)
20:44, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite episode}}
: Unknown parameter |episodelink=
ignored (|episode-link=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |serieslink=
ignored (|series-link=
suggested) (
help)) This is the standard way of inputing dates into cites.--
十
八
20:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)Hi, I'm using the conference citation template - the template wikifies the Retrieved on date - this must be a mistake, no reason for that, and it produces an ugly link in red. See this example:
Last, First (2006). [ww.ishm2006.hu/abstracts/files/ishmpaper_093.doc "The title comes out nice"]. 40th International Congress on the History of Medicine. Budapest, Hungary August 26-30, 2006. Retrieved June 5, 2008. {{
cite conference}}
: Check |url=
value (
help); Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)
-
Power.corrupts (
talk)
13:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
cite conference}}
: Unknown parameter |booktitle=
ignored (|book-title=
suggested) (
help)CS1 maint: location (
link)Is there a recommendation for how to do patent citations? -- SV Resolution( Talk) 16:36, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
I am using a book entitled "House of Steel" about the Pittsburgh Steelers stadium, Heinz Field. The book is listed as (c) 2002 Pittsburgh Steelers. Now obviously the football team didn't write the book; on the copyright page it lists a long line of names from the Steelers and "NFL Creative". Should I cite the "Editor-in-cheif" as the author, as his name is at the top of the list? Or just leave the author blank? This probably seems like a picky question, but I like to be through. Thanks! Black ngold29 05:44, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
{{
citation}}
: |editor-last=
has generic name (
help), Contributors: Pittsburgh Steelers Staff, NFL Creative Staff.Anyone using this template on a different MediaWiki-powered site? For some reason, my citations are coming out like this in the references section:
In other words, the Title becomes a link to whatever is listed as the URL parameter, but then the URL is also listed between chevrons. Corsulian ( talk) 01:49, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
I see the point of giving the date of retrieval of general website pages, because they tend to change often, but why in the world do we indicate the date of access of online journal and news articles, which are not supposed to change in the first place? -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Phenylalanine, please see the extensive discussion here. In particular, please contribute your opinion to this last section. Thanks, -- EnOreg ( talk) 03:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Trust me, you will see the funny there. 65.189.146.128 ( talk) 17:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I attempting to tidy the references in Exeter. A particular book is cited multiple times but with different page numbers. I considered using Op. cit. on the later citations - any opinions on this? Normally if a work is cited multiple times, I would of course use a named reference but this then does not allow citing the page number which is valuable. The way it is currently done with a separate bibliography seems messy to me. Any opinions?-- NHSavage ( talk) 08:45, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can we have one for those papers that are published as chapters of an edited book. This happens a lot in the area I'm editing in. I was using the citation template but that produces different results to the family cite templates. I've now used the encyclopedia template which works - but they're not really encyclopaedias and it took ages to find out what to do. How about "compendium" ? Fainites barley 21:19, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
Can anyone think of a good reason why one would use the format field with a document type recognized by MediaWiki, such as PDF? I think it is junk. -- Adoniscik( t, c) 01:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Hi. I don't know if this is a bug, or expected behaviour (or just me !), but when using the {{cite book}} template, if I specify "isbn=xxxxxx", then it displays ok, but if I specify it as "ISBN=xxxxx" (i.e. capitalised), then it doesn't - yet the {{citation}} template copes with both. CultureDrone ( talk) 08:09, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
{{cite book | last = Cordell | first = Bruce R. | coauthors = Jeff Grubb, David Noonan | title = [[Manual of the Planes]] | publisher = [[Wizards of the Coast]] | date = 2001 | pages = pp. 198-203 | month = September | notakeyword = nonsense | ISBN = 9-9999-9999-9 | isbn = 0-7869-1850-8 }}
Cordell, Bruce R. (2001).
Manual of the Planes.
Wizards of the Coast. pp. pp. 198-203.
ISBN
0-7869-1850-8. {{
cite book}}
: |pages=
has extra text (
help); Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); More than one of |ISBN=
and |isbn=
specified (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |notakeyword=
ignored (
help)
-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 13:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
See Template talk:Cite web#Edit requested dates: optional links and style about moving away from always having blue wikilinked dates, as these are nolonger required by WP:MOS. More specifically need to be able to specify American style (eg August 1, 2008) or British/European/International style (eg 1 August 2008) as might be geographically appropriate to the contents of an article. Whilst registered editors currently may set a date preference, most have not and this does not apply to all unregistered anon editors both of whom currently see the ISO style of 2008-08-01. There is no immediate wish to remove the current default of wikilinking dates, but only to allow fixed formating where editors choose to in articles.
Unfortunately MediaWiki does not currently allow the best of both worlds - namely always showing in a user's preferred format where this has been set, otherwise for everyone else showing as either the current default ISO or some fixed style set by an editor - for there is no means to test if an editor has set a date preference ( meta:Help:Date formatting and linking#Accessibility of date preference for branching).
Compare, as an example, current cite web:
To planned version with datestyle parameter:
{{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |datestyle=
ignored (
help){{
cite web}}
: Unknown parameter |datestyle=
ignored (
help)
A couple of further points:
I've posted notes at the main cite_XXX & citation templates without really much additional comment, hence this heads-up more afar - further discussion should be had for now at Template talk:Cite web#Working version and final discussion David Ruben Talk 18:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I just read the article Modern animation in the United States, which is, imho, completely unreadable because there are too many occurrences of "citation needed" in it. Could we please work towards a new rule that defines how often this tag can be placed? Thanks. Peter S. ( talk) 07:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
In situations like that they should use {{ refimprove}} or {{ refimprovesect}} -- Adoniscik( t, c) 14:18, 28 July 2008 (UTC)
Fixed --
Adoniscik(
t,
c)
01:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
The Los Angeles Public Library has a collection of historic photographs that relate to the Wineville Chicken Murders. One can view the pictures by going to the LA Public Libary homepage, clicking BROWSE THE PHOTO COLLECTION and entering the key word "Northcott". There are currently 131 relevant copyrighted pictures viewable at the LA Public Library. There is no permanent direct link to these picture. What is the proper way of citing this resource?-- Dan Dassow ( talk) 13:24, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Can the templates be fixed so that they allow the form "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as an alternative to "Retrieved on 2008- 01-01"? If I indicate the article date as June 1, 2007, for consistency, I prefer to use the same date style for the accessdate: "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as opposed to "Retrieved on 2008- 01-01". Also, I would prefer it if wikilinking the accessdates was optional (requiring the use of brackets). Thanks. -- Phenylalanine ( talk) 23:53, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
linking of dates is no longer encouraged in MOSNUM, I believe they should be delinked in all the relevant templates. I am referring to the 'accessdate' field, which links the ISO-formatted dates to the relevant date/year articles. These links add nothing to the article and create unnecessary and often totally irrelevant cross-links. Ohconfucius ( talk) 04:27, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
The templates concerned are, inter alia:
|date=
be applied to |accessdate=
post-haste. I.e. make it an open field. This will a) de-link the ISO dates (which is okay, FA test not withstanding), b) make the many, many cases of |accessdate=[[YYYY-MM-DD]]
link, but be valid code finally, and c) make the many, many cases of |accessdate=Month DD, YYYY
, |accessdate=[[DD Month YYYY]]
, and other variants by people who did not notice or ignored the off-kilter instructions to use ISO, to also work fine, whether linked or not. PS: I don't understand what someone said above about moving |accessdate=
date components into the separate date parameters; can't do that - |year=
, |month=
and |day=
are an alternative to |date=
, not to |accessdate=
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
04:56, 12 September 2008 (UTC)I'm confused about this proposal, since the way to delink dates in citation templates is already there: instead of accessdate, use accessmonthday or accessdaymonth along with accessyear. I've been doing it for months. I have not yet found an article where I can't make consistent delinked dates in citations. SandyGeorgia ( Talk) 04:44, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
{{
Date|param}}
instead? That would avoid the ugly display of ISO dates, wouldn't it? (I know that {{
Date}} only works for dates later than 31-Dec-1969, but that can't possibly be a problem for "accessdate" — although it might be for dates after 19-Jan-2038.)
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
08:12, 1 November 2008 (UTC)At
Cite.php it has been proposed a solution to the problem with <ref>
-tags needed to contain the information, templates etc. inside the first occurrence in the text. The solution above place all text/templates etc inside the ref in a block at the end. If this is implemented a big pain will be relieved for a lot of editors (not so familiar with meta data and codes disturbing the main text etc.). Should this be implemented at en-wiki (see
Cite.php)?
Nsaa (
talk)
22:53, 4 September 2008 (UTC)
I have been slowly working on the comments made on the Whitby and Pickering Railway article. Some of the references I am adding need to cite material produced (and in some cases published) by the early railway companies or reports by Railway Inspectors; all of which is held in what is now The National Archives although I still think of as the Public Record Office. I imagine some similar problems may arise when referencing material in other similar institutions in other countries, perhaps even the Library of Congress.
So far in different articles I have tried Citation and Cite Book but neither really meet my requirements, trying to fit the necessary information into them gives a rather 'klunky' feel. Neither template (to my knowledge) supports quoting things like volume and minute numbers when referencing company minute books
Is there already a more appropriate cite template that I could use ? Or could a suitable new template be created, if so further consultation with possible users would be needed to ensure it covers all required fields. I doubt my very limited experience of template writing would be adequate for this task - are their others who might take it on ?
Indeed do (unpublished) company minute books and other records held in a national archive (or indeed any archive), qualify for use in a Wikipedia reference ? XTOV ( talk) 22:41, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
I have placed a couple of requests at Template talk:Cite news for the "location" parameter to be made functional. Supposedly the "location" parameter displays only when the "work" parameter is omitted. That in itself would be a problem, because there should always be a "work" associated with a news article. The purpose I would expect for the "location" parameter would be to display the location where the news source is published where that is not obvious from the title of the "work".
But the "location" parameter doesn't even display when the "work" is omitted. See below for examples.
{{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work=The Sun |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} displays as:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help){{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work= |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} displays as:
{{
cite news}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Check date values in: |date=
(
help)What I think the "location" parameter ought to do is as follows.
{{cite news |first=John |last=Doe |title=Some Arbitrary Article |work=The Sun |location=Kuala Lumpur |page=1 |date=[[2008]]-[[09-09]] |accessdate=2008-09-09}} should display as:
Can anyone make this possible? -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
|work=
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)|location=
parameter is supposed to be displayed (always, if present, not with or without the presence of work!); it is part of all (MLA, AP, etc.) style manuals on citation, as it is crucial meta-data about a cited work (if unclear on why, consider that a book written about Colonial India published in London may be very, very different in its assumptions, biases, coverage, focus and intended audience, than one published in New Delhi; also there are publishers by the same name in muliple countries, and some publishers (Oxford U. Pr., etc.) that publish different editions, with different page numbering, etc., of some works, out of multiple branches in multiple countries).Location: Publisher
. —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC) [Above, David Ruben says it comes after publisher, but he meant the italicized work title (|title=
in {{
Cite book}}, |work=
in {{
Cite web}}, |journal=
in {{
Cite journal}}, etc.).]display=none;
- it should still be present in source, even as received by the end-user browser, as valid meta-data) of |location=
and its following colon if |publisher=
is empty, since it looks funny. Since publisher location is rarely known where publisher is not, there should be very few such cases (many {{
Cite web}} users neglect to put a publisher field, but they don't use location either generally). —
SMcCandlish [
talk] [
cont] ‹(-¿-)›
06:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)