![]() | 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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Archives: Sep 2008 - Current
based on the application number and publication number ????
Can it be available for wiki contributor in the future??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.192.130 ( talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding a "machine translation" field to the cite web template for non-English websites. SharkD ( talk) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I frequently find myself wanting to use a book as a citation for than once for the same article. (You know - books - they're like the internet except printed on dead trees and with a really crappy search function). I'm a huge fan of resuing refs with the <ref name=book1 /> tag, but the problem is I also want to be as specific as possible in my ref, and that means inserting the page number. I don't want to redo the entire ref again because that just seems like a waste of space and not a very robust solution (reinventing the wheel and all that), but I don't see a better way of doing it. Is there anything in place (or could something developed) that would allow this to happen? For example, I could do <ref name=book>{{cite book...</ref> and then later when I wanted to cite a different page in the same book do something like <ref name=book|page=2 />. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{
cite book|parameters}}
Page 2</ref>
--
Lightsup55 (
T |
C )
03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
How is using that affected when you bring in other book references? LamontCranston ( talk) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that User:Fainites has mentioned this before (Another template please), but he got no response. When dealing with scholarly works that are edited collections of essays by various authors - anthologies or compendiums if you like - there is no {{cite xxx}} template that fully allows this. The {{Citation}} template covers this, by distinguishing between "contribution" and "title", and by allowing for editors to be listed. But there should also be the option of doing this with {{cite xxx}}, preferably {{cite book}}. I'd include these parameters myself, but I'm not exactly sure how, or if it would require talk page consensus. Lampman ( talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a good reason for having two incompatible families of citation templates? Many citation tools only offer output in one or the other family. So this means, for example, giving up either Zotero or the Universal reference formatter. To make matter worse, I'm not aware of any tool for converting between families. Can't we simply decide to use either commas or full stops for both? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have sources from Newspaper articles, but the articles are old, so the links are not online. How would I cite the newspaper without the link to a URL? Thanks! CarpetCrawler ( talk) 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merging the zillions citation templates out there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
can we get this pairing of parameters functional in {{ cite map}}, {{ cite press release}} and {{ cite book}} as well? I use these three templates frequently in writing articles, and I'd like to completely switch the references all over to be consistent. (One of the sources I use publishes their book online.) Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you site a page where the title is in an East-Asian language? Currently {{ cite web}} doesn't support showing those characters as part of the title. Jinnai ( talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Much to my own surprise, something I wrote years ago is cited as a source in
Christmas Tree EXEC. I'm not particularly notable, certainly not deserving of an article. Is it appropriate to set |authorlink=User:RossPatterson
on the citation template to point to my user page, or should I leave well enough alone? I'm not looking for credit or hype, I'm just wondering whether it's appropriate to link to a user's page when there is no article but the person is a WP editor. All advice is welcome, thanks.
RossPatterson (
talk)
01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_web#Arbitrary_date_format_change a proposal has been outlined on how to standardize and show the dates in {{ cite web}} by applying the following change. The change is worked out in a test template {{ cite web3}} with examples, by using {{ DATEtoMOS}}. Is this something we should applied to this template and or all other Citation templates? Nsaa ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used for citing material from a CD and/or its liner notes? Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Some templates end with a full stop / period, while others don't. This needs to be standardized. My concern is that these periods look ugly when I also use the quote field, resulting in citations that sometimes end like .". -- Adoniscik( t, c) 04:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone help me. I'm trying to cite a speech which is reprinted in a Historical Society Journal. In specific, the one at this link: [1]. The speech is given by a historian, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., entitled "Wessagussett and Weymouth" and was given July 4, 1874. (The bicentennial of the town.) I can do that just as-is. But the problem is what I'm really doing is a reprint of a speech and not the speech itself, so the correct template may be a journal-style citation with the author as "Weymouth Historical Society" and the title as it is given is then "Wessagussett and Weymouth, a Historical Address by Charles Francis Adams, Jr." and the publication date is 1905. I suspect that this is the best I can do, a mixture of the two, but maybe there is a better way to cite a reprint?
Citation | last = Adams, Jr. | first = Charles Francis | author-link = | title = Wessagusset and Weymouth | journal = | volume = vol. 3 | issue = | pages = | date = | year = 1905 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=aT4WAAAAYAAJ | publisher = Weymouth Historical Society | doi = | id =
Thanks for any help you can provide. JRP ( talk) 04:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a booklet published by the Yolo County Historical Society which has invaluable information about ghost towns and unincorporated areas in Yolo County. I just don't know how to cite it. It has the publication year, city, and a title for the booklet (Three Maps of Yolo County) but no author. I think it was a collective effort by the Society. How would I cite it? For now I'm going to just use the "cite book" template and just put in parameters that the booklet gives. My question is this: should (or could) I just put the Society's name in for one of the author name parameters? Killiondude ( talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Under Harvard citation examples, the rows in the two columns don't match up with each other. Could someone fix the formatting? Thank you-- Funandtrvl ( talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Any article which currently using accessmonthday/accessdaymonth together with accessyear in a reference is only displaying the year, but is missing the day and month. Anyone able to investigate and fix? -- TimTay ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Most journal articles are now indicating if an article has "free full-text" available, and so is PubMed. It would be nice if we did the same. A simple parameter could generate a link at the end for "Free full-text", where the hyperlink would be placed (this might be to the journal page, or to the PubMedCentral page, or whatever the free full-text URL is). In these cases, the title would automatically not be hyperlinked. Currently all URLs default to linking the title; sometimes these are available, sometimes they aren't. II | ( t - c) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently I added an article in PMC to lead poisoning ( ref 45). However, it's not displaying the PMC link. For a properly displayed PMC link, see water fluoridation ( ref 16). II | ( t - c) 18:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They're both books AND web links. BW95 ( talk) 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
i would like a citation to read as follows?
author first author last, "title". publication, date.
Steve Ipsorum, "The quick brown fox". New York Times, Aug. 28, 2004. Lucky dog ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Last name, First name. "Title of article in inverted commas", Title of newspaper in italics, Place of publication, date month year. Page no. Alarics ( talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice the examples all use ISO style dates (such as 2009-03-24). Is there a reason for this? I happen to think they look ugly and are less easy to understand than the regular date formats (24 March 2009 or March 24, 2009). Is there any reason these human-style dates cannot be used in reference templates? Thanks for your attention. -- John ( talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
Date|yyyy-mm-dd}}
(which I understand renders the date according to user preferences, or, if none are set, as "dd Month yyyy"). I suspect the use of ISO dates in the documentation is a) a left-over from the requirements of previous versions of these templates; b) an attempt to avoid US/UK issues.
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to remove empty parameters from templates when they are being used in articles, to save space and make editing easier? I ask because my request to have them removed as part of AWB has been put on hold to see if there is a consensus before implementation. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How would I go about using the {{cite book}} to cite a book that has been translated into english from another language? Where would I put the translator if the |last and |first are already taken up with original author? AngelFire3423 ( talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
{{cite book | title = Non-English work | language = Foreign language | author = A Mann | others = (trans. A Cleverman)}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)The date delinking issue started late last year; in November, the date fields for all of the citation templateswere delinked, resulting in the removal of formatting. This left thousands of dates in ISO and other formats.
We now have a technical fix to format dates without linking by the use of the new magic word. Examples:
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29}}
gives 2009-04-29 using your preferences. You can also set the style with:
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}}
29 April 2009
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|ymd}}
2009 April 29
This does work inside a ref tag:
<ref group=note> {{cite news | title = xxx | url = http://xx.xx | accessdate = {{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}} }}</ref>
Is there any consensus on getting this into the core and implementing in in the templates? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot to be done re standardising templates... many templates are missing some paramaters (eg. quote), others use some different syntax... ··gracefool ☺ 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Some publications have 2 ISSNs, one for the print version and one for online. It would be great if this was supported by Wikipedia. Here's an example publication that has both. Regional Monetary Integration in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council
Rigimoni ( talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This page should be readily available in the toolbox list of links on the left side of every page on this website. The reason this should be on that list, instead of other Wikipedia-related sections, is because citation is one of the most important parts of ANY type of reference. Add that to the fact that Wikipedia's citation template is one of the most unintuitive templates I've ever seen in my life, and it's a pain in the ass to have to type in "Wikipedia:Citation Templates" in the search bar and then wait for the page to load. Wikieditor1988 ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
We need a template for press conferences. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Does citing more than 1 url to be for the book is possible. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation|...|url=...}}
(See also [...], [...]).I am trying to find a straightforward way of citing an author of a chapter, notable because of his work in this area, in a collection of papers by various authors set out as chapters in a book. So, using Harvard this would be relatively straightforward, but I cannot figure out how to do this using either the citation or cite book templates. I do not want to cite the book or the editors, I want to cite the author and the chapter and page number in the context of the book and the editors. I have been scratching my head on this one and figured out a workaround, but it seems a bit untidy for something that is a no-brainer really. An example is:
Boswell, J. (1993). On the use of the term “homo” as a derogatory epithet. In M. Wolinsky & K. Sherrill (Eds.), Gays and the military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States (pp. 49-55). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Thanks. Mish ( talk) 09:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. the suggestions using the book cite and citation template for books, or for journals, what I have done is adapted the way suggested for citing conferences using citation:
{{citation
| first = John
| last = Boswell
| editor-last = Wolinsky
| editor-first = M
| editor2-last = Sherrill
| editor2-first = K
| contribution = On the use of the term “homo” as a derogatory epithet
| title = Gays and the military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States
| year = 1993
| pages = 49-55
| publisher = Princeton University Press
}}
Is this the only way to do this Mish ( talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that is similar to what I did - but it took a bit of figuring out, because this is not detailed on the project page. Would it be possible to put a section into the project page that spells this out - as the only reference to this is for conferences, and it might make it easier for others in the future to see how to do it straight away. Mish ( talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
chapter =
feature).
Stephen Kirrage
talk -
contribs
17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In doing some edits over the last few months, I've noticed that the inline tags for citations always cause the line on which they are located to push apart from the preceeding line, leading to an uneven pattern of line spacing that depends on the presence or absence of an inline tag in a line. This appears to be due only to the size of the inline tag. Is there any reason why the tags are the size that they are? I.e. is it possible to make them smaller? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a question that I have been unable to figure out from reading the CT article. How can I reuse the citation of a {{cite xxx}} reference in the same article, only I need to refer to a totally different page number from the first time I used the citation? Is there any way to do this using the {{ cite book}} citation technique? If so, where does it explain how to do this? I have noodled around with adding a page number to the standard reuse cite format (e.g., <ref name="Lamar1977" |page=123>) but have not been successful at getting it to 'take' a different page number than was used in the first {{ cite book}} source. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Imzadi1979 and Gadget850. I appreciate the quick responses! That is truly sad news to hear however. It seems two big reasons for Wikipedia articles not being better sourced is 1) the difficulty for any WP editor to learn the complexity of any single one of the multiple Wikipedia citation systems so that they can use it efficiently, and 2) the multiplicity of citation systems allowed, which means it is inevitable that any serious "citer" will run into the vastly different systems used in different articles. I have invested considerable time to learn the {{cite xxx}} citation system, and am simply unwilling (as a volunteer editor) to duplicate the time in learning a second system. This is, of course, not true only of me. Thus many articles will either not be cited correctly (if the editor forswears citations because they don't know the syntax of the system used in a particular article) or will be a mismash (if they cite in the system they know). Is there an active forum on Wikipedia where such matters are discussed? I suspect this Talk Page is not the place to resolve it. Thanks again. N2e ( talk) 22:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Many articles (for example, Birmingham Baths Committee) have a mix of citation templates and "raw text" references. Is there anyway to auto-magically convert the latter to the former, on a page-by-page basis? Or would somebody with the relevant skills like to consider making a tool to do so? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
< Since there are a mixture of templates and hand written citations, it is unlikely that anyone would object to you adding citation templates for the ones that remain. However, it is polite and prudent to post on the the talk page first (i.e. "Does anyone mind if I ..."), then wait a week or more, then carry out the edit. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Rereading your post, I realized we are all answering the wrong question. You were asking if there is a bot that automatically converts handwritten citations to citation templates. The answer is no, but there are bots that use only the ISBN, PMID or URL and ignore all the other information (which can potentially lead to ridiculous errors, if some editor has made a mistake with these numbers. So if you use these, check their output.) See User:Citation bot. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
importScript('User:Smith609/toolbox.js');
to your "monobook.js"
. (Step by step instructions are at
User:Citation_bot/use#Can I use the Citation bot?). This will add another set of tools to the left hand side of your screen called "reference formatting".{{cite book| isbn = isbn number from handwritten citation}}
.
PMIDs and
DOIs work as well.Using 'cite book', suppose we already have a Wikipedia article about the book being cited AND we want to include a URL. Is that possible? Normally the URL gets linked to the title. Yet if there is a Wiki article it gets linked to the title. This came up when I was trying to add a URL to an existing entry at Edward Said. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparing this guideline to Category:Citation templates, I noticed these templates are missing from the table:
These aren't in the table, however, they probably should be merged or deprecated. Anyway, there's no rush to list them in the table.
Templates which appear here, but aren't under Category:Citation templates
Just FYI. Someday we should add these. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this request to fix the formatting of the Hansard citation template? It would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The given example for the 'cite news' template indicates that the news entity (e.g. CNN, New York Times, etc.) should appear under the work field. This strikes me as odd; shouldn't this information be placed under the publisher field? If so, then what is the work field supposed to be used for? A quick review of featured content revealed that there is widespread confusion on this point. Wormcast ( talk) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed some additional discussion (but no answers) on this; see also Work_to_be_done_standardising_templates -- Wormcast ( talk) 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Note WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Work and publisher may or may not be the same thing. Note the following cites:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's usually common to italicize the names of publication titles (e.g. Time Magazine, New York Times, etc). However, the citation templates publication field is not automatically italicized by default. Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically italicize this? Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain how and why to use the journal format for a thesis or dissertation? I think of a this or dissertation as being fundamentally more like a book than a journal.
The example page mentions journals under the same section as thesis/diss, but doesn't provide an example of use. Is this really the right way to go? Kenirwin/( talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
|journal=
field is optional. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)(unindent) I was indeed citing the 5th edition, and it clearly indicates that the DAI should be cited. The choices given for dissertations are
All but the last are formatted like a journal citation to DAI. So the advise apparently has changed from the 5th to the 6th edition. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Over the last year, the major templates have all been merged. Also, most of the minor templates use a format that is based on the major templates. I think we can lift the restriction, noted in the lead, we shouldn't mix templates freely. (The only notable exception is {{ Citation}} and I'm adding a section on a way it can be sensibly used.) ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Am revamping the Delrina article, and using material from their annual reports for info. They're print-only sources, so the equivalent Web-based citations I've seen on the Microsoft article doesn't fit.
I am guessing that the book citation template is appropriate, though there's no "author" or ISBN that would ever be applicable. Captmondo ( talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The AutoWikiBrowser is removing the p. and pp. from the pages parameter in Cite journal. [3] Cite news and Cite book automatically add the pp. to page numbers while Cite journal requires the editor to manually add the pp. Here is the cite journal documentation:
The AWB behavior was changed around June 2009 [4] to remove the pp. from "pages = pp. 45-47" in a book or news cite. The different behavior between various Cite templates is confusing but I don't think AWB should break Cite journal while fixing Cite news and Cite book. If an article has references from books, newspapers and journals, references should be consistently formatted. I would like to get other opinions on this change. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone recommend a template for a (print) newsletter published by a non-commercial association/organization? A pdf copy is available on the web, but it's not really a "web" reference, nor is it properly "news" in the sense of media. I need a work (the newsletter's name), a title (article name), a publisher (the org) and a date. There's no author listed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there an easy way of using a bibtex entry to cite a source? It's a real pain to have to copy and paste this into the usual cite templates and I'd imagine lots of people don't bother adding the complete information as a result:
@inproceedings{BeJa96, author="M. {\sc Bernard} and F. {\sc Jacquenet}", title="{M}odularity and {G}enericity revisited for {PROLOG}", booktitle="Proceedings of the fourteenth Conference of Applied Informatics", address={Innsbr\"uck, Austria}, pages = "366-369", month="February", year="1996", }
pgr94 ( talk) 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Templates Cite report and Cite thesis are designed to deal with the issue of unpublished reports and theses appearing published due to Conference and Journal's respective use of italics. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In a number of articles (on historical railway subjects) I have contributed to, I have cite'd UK railway company minute books held in the UK's The National Archives. These minute books are usually handwritten and generally well indexed.
To Cite these sources I have adopted Cite:Book although it is not really suitable; these books generally do not have page numbers, rather each individual minute is numbered and each meeting is dated (some early minute books do not have sequential numbering, so the meeting date is the main reference). In the way I have to use Cite:Book at the moment, I can only cite a whole volume of minutes, it would be preferable to be able to cite the meeting (date) and/or the minute number, thus making the citation much more useful.
Finally a more general point, do handwritten company minute books count as 'published' sources for Wikipedia? They are (I believe) a legal requirement for UK companies and those that now reside in The National Archive or any other recognised record repository are available to the public for consultation, perhaps they do nor rate as 'published' but certainly a publically available and reputable source.
XTOV ( talk) 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
All of the example show one line for every data point of the reference. It is much easier to edit Wikipedia if the references are given in as little space as possible without separation by an "enter". Is there a bot that will accomplish this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We need a template for citing a preface written by someone who is not the author of the main work. Binksternet ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) ;; Darryl Lee. "Preface". In Man Soninson (ed.). A book about ducks.
The following citation templates have been nominated for deletion for lack of use and redundancy to the existing templates:
All are listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring at
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style. Your participation would be appreciated.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have written an essay encouraging editors to use citation templates. It is located at Wikipedia:Use citation templates. Any comments or proofreading would be appreciated.-- Blargh29 ( talk) 07:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the template named "Harvard reference" used, but I do not see the parameters for it. This template includes parameters like Surname1, Given1, Surname2, Given2.
ISBN numbers on amazon.com include formats like "ISBN-10: 083081776X" and "ISBN-13: 978-0830817764", but I do not see any templates or examples that use these formats. Obankston ( talk) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the template "Harvard reference" changed in an article with the edit summary of "deprecated template, replaced: {{Harvard reference → {{Citation (3) using AWB". "Harvard reference" was changed to "Citation", and the parameters of the template after the change were identical, other than the first letter of each parameter was changed from capital to small. Obankston ( talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add links to the top of the article taking us directly to the template we want. Thanks. SharkD Talk 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Some citation templates are picky about upper or lower case in the keywords. The "cite book" template is an example:
Only the lowercase "title" is accepted. Given that many WP editors are newcomers, shouldn't the templates be more forgiving? I could not find a good explanation why some are so strict, although there is a brief mention at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 4 it does not explain the reason. Case sensitivity is usually reserved for sensitive situations like passwords. Unless there is some compelling reason, I would suggest that the templates be more forgiving. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
CITE BOOK}}
will not work as a substitute for {{
cite book}}
. A few templates do allow a small degree of freedom with some of the parameter names (for example, {{
cite book}}
permits |isbn=
or |ISBN=
), but each possible variant needs to be catered for separately (for example, {{
cite book}}
does not permit |Isbn=
or |iSBN=
, nor any of the other twelve permutations), and to do so would mean an awful lot of extra coding, and would also make the templates larger and slower. Go with whatever form the documentation specifies - alternative case forms are unlikely to work, unless explicitly mentioned. If you know of instances where the documentation specifies a form which turns out not to work, bring it up at the talk page of the template concerned. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{lc: }}
), but that deals with data strings (such as parameter values), and not wikicode (such as parameter names). So
{{lc:Thursday February 25, 2010}}
{{
Page numbers}}
includes the line
{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|1}}|p
{{lc: }}
function is documented at
Help:Magic words#Formatting. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I have a lot of transcripts from news broadcasts that I would like to add to articles but there is no template for news broadcasts! Could someone make one? Please? (P.s. Not sure if this is the right place to put this, sorry if it isn't) Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
unsuitable? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Citation bot has been changing templates from, eg 'cite web' to 'cite news', or (as here), from 'cite book' to 'Citation'.
Is this policy? Are the 'cite book' etc templates now deprecated? (And if not, why is the bot changing them?)
EdJogg ( talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur -- other editors too may wish to look at the bot's talk page. -- EdJogg ( talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a cite message board template? I thought I recalled using one once which asked for "post #" and "date of posting" and all that. I ask because I need to cite message board postings from a band member who really only posts updates on his band ( Wintersun) via message board. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The above question comes up fairly frequently, so I created this table that should help. Collapsed here for space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some examples of citing vendor manuals. Typically these have an identifier, e.g., form #, order #, a title and a date. Sometimes the edition number is part of the identifier and sometimes it is external.
Ideally the examples would show how to render multi-line subjects, e.g., should
IBM Foo Bar Administration
be keyed in as "IBM Foo, Bar, Administration", "IBM Foo: Bar: Administration" or perhaps in some format I haven't thought of?
I've been using ref tags with vendor, title lines and identifier separating by commas or in some cases run together, but if there's a recommended style I'd like to adhere to it, especially if there are citation templates to automate it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
|id=
. There is a {{
cite manual}}, but I have it at TfD as no one can define the difference between a book and a manual. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)I'm trying to cite a source from the Mother's Milk linear notes for the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members. What citation template should I use? Thank you! WereWolf ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding magazines which are not academic journals, but are nevertheless generally WP:RS, such as The Railway Magazine.
If I use {{
cite magazine}}
(which to me is the obvious template to use because of its name), this redirects to {{
cite journal}}
, to which an editor objects on the grounds that RM is not a "scholarly academic paper"; he suggests that I should use {{
cite news}}
. I don't wish to do this, because: (a) it's not a newspaper; (b) {{
cite news}}
has no provision for the magazine's editor (articles may have no credited author); (c) {{
cite news}}
has |date=
, but not separate |month=
or |year=
; (d) {{
cite news}}
also lacks volume and issue, but this is a minor point. My objection to putting month and year into |date=
is based on the observation that Harvard reference linking doesn't always work in such cases, but always works when either (a) |date=
has a full 3-element date or (b) separate |month=
and |year=
are used.
Opinions please, on whether I should use {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite magazine}}
? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that editors should use the obvious and existing {{
cite magazine}}
. However, I have not found any discussion on where (or if) that template should redirect. The fact that the redirection target has been unchanged for ~3.5 years is not enough to claim "consensus" if there has been no discussion on the subject.
The little discussion I have found suggests there have been several contributors who do not find {{
cite journal}}
adequate to cite magazines.
A comment in the archives for cite journal talk indicates that some people are using {{
cite news}}
due to limitations of {{
cite journal}}
in describing some magazine content and
another describes a few using {{
cite web}}
.
One post in the cite news talk archives agrees that {{
cite magazine}}
should redirect to {{
cite news}}
.
Other discussion shows that many authors agree that a separate cite magazine template would be useful. Further, there are well-established citation styles that treat magazines closer to newspapers than to academic articles. Less than 1,000 articles use {{
cite magazine}}
& I would imagine that forking either {{
cite journal}}
or {{
cite news}}
to cater more specifically to the needs of magazine citations would be possible. --
Karnesky (
talk)
21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
are citing magazines and not journal articles. These can be improved. Yes, it is slightly harder to treat the citations that use {{
cite journal}}
(or {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
) for magazine content. But these could be processed manually and by using a bot to make changes that are based on the magazine title/information. You've really offered no concrete arguments as to why we should leave things the way they are other than the supposed tacit consensus.{{
cite journal}}
should be used for magazines and the implication that this consensus shuts down any argument that
Alarics might make. Again, ZERO discussion has been shown in support of this consensus, and all discussion has actually been to object to the status quo (another example being that {{
cite magazine article}}
redirected to {{
cite news}}
for
over two years). Per
WP:CONSENSUS: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" (I admit we might debate whether exposure is adequate here) and, more importantly, "consensus can change" (I hope we would not debate this point!). Alarics points are valid and have been raised before & discussion should not be halted just because you think there is consensus on the issue.{{
cite magazine}}
could have the following advantages:
{{
cite news}}
for some reason). DOIs, laysummary, laysource, laydate, and others MIGHT exist for magazines, but at frequencies that are much lower than for academic articles.{{
cite news}}
might be useful (it is useless for scholarly articles){{
cite magazine}}
. Changing that from a redirect to a new template would not impact any citation that used {{
cite journal}}
or {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
. If we do send a bot to modify citations to use {{
cite magazine}}
, that would be another (significant) advantage for having the separate template:
I still feel that if the material in the publication concerned, whatever its format happens to be, is clearly "journalism", then I will use "cite news". Time is plainly journalism just as much as The Observer is. Both publications appear weekly. Why give Time a different status just because it happens to use quarto size pages that are stapled together? Nobody needs to know who its editor happens to be in order to judge whether a piece of information cited in it is reliable or not. The name of its current editor is not what Time's reputation is based on. Whereas with an obscure scholarly academic journal, the reputation of the editor in the academic discipline concerned might be of some relevance.
Of course it is true that one can always just leave some paramaters blank if they are not relevant. The trouble is, people often don't. This all arose because I was surprised to see User:Redrose64, in the article Varsity Line, putting the following as a citation:
Marsh, Phil (2009).
Pigott, Nick (ed.). "Headline News: East-West Rail Link work gets underway".
The Railway Magazine. 155 (1295). London: IPC Media: 10.
ISSN
0033-8923. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This seems to me to be altogether too elaborate a citation for two short sentences-worth of news, just cluttering up the encyclopaedia for no good reason. The information that Nick Pigott is the editor of The Railway Magazine is quite superfluous. Since it is a reliably regular monthly periodical, I don't see that the volume number and issue number add anything useful that is not conveyed by the month and year, and anyway it may not be clear to the lay reader that that is what "155 (1295): 10." means, whereas in academia people are probably familiar with such notation for a scholarly journal that may not appear regularly. Above all, "publisher" information in such a case as this is pure clutter. If the reader really wants to know that the magazine is published by IPC Media, they can go to the article about the magazine itself. (I realise that "publisher" occurs in "cite news" as well, but fortunately people usually realise that it's not needed in the great majority of cases.)
If I were putting in the above citation, I would do it thus:
Marsh, Phil (March 2009). "East-West Rail Link work gets underway". The Railway Magazine. London. p. 10.
I was unaware of the consensus in this matter to which User:AnmaFinotera refers. I simply proceed on the basis of common sense.
Alarics ( talk) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
, took the cut-and-paste template from the doc page, pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could. I then removed all unused parameters, but as often happens, I omitted to change the word "journal" to "magazine", so despite my intent, it shows as {{
cite journal}}
. Now, if {{
cite magazine}}
had been a template in its own right, doubtless I would have cut-and-pasted a version beginning {{cite magazine
.{{
cite journal}}
being used by others for common-or-garden newsstand magazines are for the same reason - somebody took the cut-and-paste template and used it as it stood. Yes, it does have an awful lot of parameters, and I normally ignore all those after |issn=
mainly because I don't have anything sensible to put in them: I can easily find out what pmid/pmc/doi/etc. mean, but I'm darned if I know how to obtain the specific values for the article being cited. On the occasions that I locate a magazine article on the web (such as
here), I'll fill in the |url=
and |accessdate=
too. |ref=
does get used if the article has Harvard-style ref linking
as here, but those are the only three after |issn=
that I bother with. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)<ref>...</ref>
tags? I don't want answers to these questions here, but it illustrates a big part of the problem.
Wikipedia:Citing sources is completely silent on these subjects; it mainly rehashes reference presentation styles that are better covered elsewhere.{{
cite news}}
includes an 'agency' parameter (but, as I mentioned, {{
cite journal}}
is not an identical template with slightly different parameter names: magazine articles cannot have the news agency information if you use that template). You should only cite references you have actually read (
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)."..... took the cut-and-paste template .... pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could ....." -- Therein lies our difficulty in a nutshell. If people filled in only what was appropriate in a particular case, it probably wouldn't much matter which template they used. Alarics ( talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To respond to both
User:Redrose64 and
User:AnmaFinotera, {{
cite news}}
has volume, issue, month, and year as undocumented parameters, e.g.:
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |day=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I agree the editor is not essential for the reference in question. Thus, RR64's initial list of four reasons for using {{
cite journal}}
instead of {{
cite news}}
is whittled down to only one: it is not a newspaper. It is a magazine, which is distinct from a newspaper and from an academic journal. --
Karnesky (
talk)
16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
then. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Hi. I'm just asking for additional clarification on the best way to fill in the accessdate when using {{citeweb}}. I've seen a lot of featured articles which utilise one specific method, but on this project page another method is seemingly advised. In the example of today's date, which of the following would be better suited if, say, you wanted a featured article?
Furthermore, can we clarify this in the project page so there is no confusion? CR4ZE ( talk) 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
YYYY-MM-DDTraditionally referring to practices by incomplete standards names, when the standard has not been adopted, and when in fact the practice agrees with the standard in some respects and disagrees in other respects, is a terrible idea and I will not tolerate it. I will use every permissible means to fight such sloppiness in articles, policies, and guidelines. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True in theory, but in practice there is usually no "existing convention" because about 90% of WP articles are *not* consistent in the footnotes, because most people have no idea about referencing, so one often ends up being none the wiser as to which to use. Quite often, the dates in the article itself are not consistent either. My usual practice is to change them all to a consistent format using a bot, which will then change all the dates in the footnotes as well, by telling it to put e.g. "July 22, 2010" (for articles about American subjects) and "22 July 2010" (for all other articles). Alarics ( talk) 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
|accessdate=
in consistent style, go with that. Otherwise, you can choose whether to use the YYYY-MM-DD form for |accessdate=
, or to make your accessdates match the format used for dates within the article main text. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)I just noticed that if there are inline author link, for ex:{{cite book | last=[[author]]|year=2010|..., author 2010 does not generate a proper link. However removing the wiki link {{cite book | last=author ... fixes the issues. Should this be fixed or documented anywhere? Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
|authorlink=
parameter should be used, that is its sole purpose. For example, {{
cite book}}
states several times "Don't wikilink" or similar.
A statement by Ossie Nock {{harv|Nock|2010|p=123}}
*{{cite book |last=Nock |first=O. S. |authorlink=O. S. Nock |title=A book he wrote |year=2010 |ref=harv }}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)What is Wikipedia's policy on using email correspondence as a source?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On
St. Joseph Valley Parkway, reference 15 from the Indiana Department of Transportation is formated using cite book:
<ref name="INDOT-RPB">{{cite book |url=http://www.in.gov/indot/files/StateWide_2004.pdf |format=PDF |title=Reference Post Book |publisher=Indiana Department of Transportation |at=U-20, U-31 |year=2004 |location=Indianapolis |accessdate=August 6, 2010}}</ref>
resulting in: (PDF)
Reference Post Book. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Transportation. 2004. U-20, U-31. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
Does anyone know why the "(PDF)" is showing up before the book title instead of after?
Imzadi
1979
→
09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
format=PDF
. After removing it, we get
Reference Post Book (PDF). Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Transportation. 2004. U-20, U-31. Retrieved August 6, 2010.. I don't think there is any parameter from which we can make "(PDF)" appear after book title. --
TheMandarin (
talk)
12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|format=
is before |IncludedWorkTitle=
. This should be discussed at
Template talk:Citation/core. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)There is a discussion at User talk:Art LaPella#Your AWB edits concerning whether WP:NBSP should be applied within date parameters of a citation template as in date={{Nowrap|6 November}} 2010. It also concerns whether hyphens within titles should be changed to dashes according to the WP:DASH rules that apply elsewhere, as in this previous discussion. Art LaPella ( talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (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 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | Archive 7 |
Archives: Sep 2008 - Current
based on the application number and publication number ????
Can it be available for wiki contributor in the future??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.192.130 ( talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I propose adding a "machine translation" field to the cite web template for non-English websites. SharkD ( talk) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)
I frequently find myself wanting to use a book as a citation for than once for the same article. (You know - books - they're like the internet except printed on dead trees and with a really crappy search function). I'm a huge fan of resuing refs with the <ref name=book1 /> tag, but the problem is I also want to be as specific as possible in my ref, and that means inserting the page number. I don't want to redo the entire ref again because that just seems like a waste of space and not a very robust solution (reinventing the wheel and all that), but I don't see a better way of doing it. Is there anything in place (or could something developed) that would allow this to happen? For example, I could do <ref name=book>{{cite book...</ref> and then later when I wanted to cite a different page in the same book do something like <ref name=book|page=2 />. -- Bachrach44 ( talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
<ref>{{
cite book|parameters}}
Page 2</ref>
--
Lightsup55 (
T |
C )
03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
How is using that affected when you bring in other book references? LamontCranston ( talk) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
I notice that User:Fainites has mentioned this before (Another template please), but he got no response. When dealing with scholarly works that are edited collections of essays by various authors - anthologies or compendiums if you like - there is no {{cite xxx}} template that fully allows this. The {{Citation}} template covers this, by distinguishing between "contribution" and "title", and by allowing for editors to be listed. But there should also be the option of doing this with {{cite xxx}}, preferably {{cite book}}. I'd include these parameters myself, but I'm not exactly sure how, or if it would require talk page consensus. Lampman ( talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Is there a good reason for having two incompatible families of citation templates? Many citation tools only offer output in one or the other family. So this means, for example, giving up either Zotero or the Universal reference formatter. To make matter worse, I'm not aware of any tool for converting between families. Can't we simply decide to use either commas or full stops for both? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Hello! I have sources from Newspaper articles, but the articles are old, so the links are not online. How would I cite the newspaper without the link to a URL? Thanks! CarpetCrawler ( talk) 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merging the zillions citation templates out there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)
can we get this pairing of parameters functional in {{ cite map}}, {{ cite press release}} and {{ cite book}} as well? I use these three templates frequently in writing articles, and I'd like to completely switch the references all over to be consistent. (One of the sources I use publishes their book online.) Imzadi1979 ( talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
How do you site a page where the title is in an East-Asian language? Currently {{ cite web}} doesn't support showing those characters as part of the title. Jinnai ( talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
Much to my own surprise, something I wrote years ago is cited as a source in
Christmas Tree EXEC. I'm not particularly notable, certainly not deserving of an article. Is it appropriate to set |authorlink=User:RossPatterson
on the citation template to point to my user page, or should I leave well enough alone? I'm not looking for credit or hype, I'm just wondering whether it's appropriate to link to a user's page when there is no article but the person is a WP editor. All advice is welcome, thanks.
RossPatterson (
talk)
01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
In the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_web#Arbitrary_date_format_change a proposal has been outlined on how to standardize and show the dates in {{ cite web}} by applying the following change. The change is worked out in a test template {{ cite web3}} with examples, by using {{ DATEtoMOS}}. Is this something we should applied to this template and or all other Citation templates? Nsaa ( talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)
What template should be used for citing material from a CD and/or its liner notes? Willbyr ( talk | contribs) 14:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
Some templates end with a full stop / period, while others don't. This needs to be standardized. My concern is that these periods look ugly when I also use the quote field, resulting in citations that sometimes end like .". -- Adoniscik( t, c) 04:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)
Can someone help me. I'm trying to cite a speech which is reprinted in a Historical Society Journal. In specific, the one at this link: [1]. The speech is given by a historian, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., entitled "Wessagussett and Weymouth" and was given July 4, 1874. (The bicentennial of the town.) I can do that just as-is. But the problem is what I'm really doing is a reprint of a speech and not the speech itself, so the correct template may be a journal-style citation with the author as "Weymouth Historical Society" and the title as it is given is then "Wessagussett and Weymouth, a Historical Address by Charles Francis Adams, Jr." and the publication date is 1905. I suspect that this is the best I can do, a mixture of the two, but maybe there is a better way to cite a reprint?
Citation | last = Adams, Jr. | first = Charles Francis | author-link = | title = Wessagusset and Weymouth | journal = | volume = vol. 3 | issue = | pages = | date = | year = 1905 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=aT4WAAAAYAAJ | publisher = Weymouth Historical Society | doi = | id =
Thanks for any help you can provide. JRP ( talk) 04:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I have a booklet published by the Yolo County Historical Society which has invaluable information about ghost towns and unincorporated areas in Yolo County. I just don't know how to cite it. It has the publication year, city, and a title for the booklet (Three Maps of Yolo County) but no author. I think it was a collective effort by the Society. How would I cite it? For now I'm going to just use the "cite book" template and just put in parameters that the booklet gives. My question is this: should (or could) I just put the Society's name in for one of the author name parameters? Killiondude ( talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
Under Harvard citation examples, the rows in the two columns don't match up with each other. Could someone fix the formatting? Thank you-- Funandtrvl ( talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
Any article which currently using accessmonthday/accessdaymonth together with accessyear in a reference is only displaying the year, but is missing the day and month. Anyone able to investigate and fix? -- TimTay ( talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Most journal articles are now indicating if an article has "free full-text" available, and so is PubMed. It would be nice if we did the same. A simple parameter could generate a link at the end for "Free full-text", where the hyperlink would be placed (this might be to the journal page, or to the PubMedCentral page, or whatever the free full-text URL is). In these cases, the title would automatically not be hyperlinked. Currently all URLs default to linking the title; sometimes these are available, sometimes they aren't. II | ( t - c) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
Recently I added an article in PMC to lead poisoning ( ref 45). However, it's not displaying the PMC link. For a properly displayed PMC link, see water fluoridation ( ref 16). II | ( t - c) 18:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)
They're both books AND web links. BW95 ( talk) 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
i would like a citation to read as follows?
author first author last, "title". publication, date.
Steve Ipsorum, "The quick brown fox". New York Times, Aug. 28, 2004. Lucky dog ( talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Last name, First name. "Title of article in inverted commas", Title of newspaper in italics, Place of publication, date month year. Page no. Alarics ( talk) 15:19, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I notice the examples all use ISO style dates (such as 2009-03-24). Is there a reason for this? I happen to think they look ugly and are less easy to understand than the regular date formats (24 March 2009 or March 24, 2009). Is there any reason these human-style dates cannot be used in reference templates? Thanks for your attention. -- John ( talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
{{
Date|yyyy-mm-dd}}
(which I understand renders the date according to user preferences, or, if none are set, as "dd Month yyyy"). I suspect the use of ISO dates in the documentation is a) a left-over from the requirements of previous versions of these templates; b) an attempt to avoid US/UK issues.
Michael Bednarek (
talk)
02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Is there a consensus to remove empty parameters from templates when they are being used in articles, to save space and make editing easier? I ask because my request to have them removed as part of AWB has been put on hold to see if there is a consensus before implementation. Thanks! – Drilnoth ( T • C) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
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) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
How would I go about using the {{cite book}} to cite a book that has been translated into english from another language? Where would I put the translator if the |last and |first are already taken up with original author? AngelFire3423 ( talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
{{cite book | title = Non-English work | language = Foreign language | author = A Mann | others = (trans. A Cleverman)}}
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (
link)The date delinking issue started late last year; in November, the date fields for all of the citation templateswere delinked, resulting in the removal of formatting. This left thousands of dates in ISO and other formats.
We now have a technical fix to format dates without linking by the use of the new magic word. Examples:
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29}}
gives 2009-04-29 using your preferences. You can also set the style with:
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}}
29 April 2009
{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|ymd}}
2009 April 29
This does work inside a ref tag:
<ref group=note> {{cite news | title = xxx | url = http://xx.xx | accessdate = {{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}} }}</ref>
Is there any consensus on getting this into the core and implementing in in the templates? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a lot to be done re standardising templates... many templates are missing some paramaters (eg. quote), others use some different syntax... ··gracefool ☺ 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)
Some publications have 2 ISSNs, one for the print version and one for online. It would be great if this was supported by Wikipedia. Here's an example publication that has both. Regional Monetary Integration in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council
Rigimoni ( talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
This page should be readily available in the toolbox list of links on the left side of every page on this website. The reason this should be on that list, instead of other Wikipedia-related sections, is because citation is one of the most important parts of ANY type of reference. Add that to the fact that Wikipedia's citation template is one of the most unintuitive templates I've ever seen in my life, and it's a pain in the ass to have to type in "Wikipedia:Citation Templates" in the search bar and then wait for the page to load. Wikieditor1988 ( talk) 06:30, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
We need a template for press conferences. Kingturtle ( talk) 18:44, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Does citing more than 1 url to be for the book is possible. Kasaalan ( talk) 08:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
{{
citation|...|url=...}}
(See also [...], [...]).I am trying to find a straightforward way of citing an author of a chapter, notable because of his work in this area, in a collection of papers by various authors set out as chapters in a book. So, using Harvard this would be relatively straightforward, but I cannot figure out how to do this using either the citation or cite book templates. I do not want to cite the book or the editors, I want to cite the author and the chapter and page number in the context of the book and the editors. I have been scratching my head on this one and figured out a workaround, but it seems a bit untidy for something that is a no-brainer really. An example is:
Boswell, J. (1993). On the use of the term “homo” as a derogatory epithet. In M. Wolinsky & K. Sherrill (Eds.), Gays and the military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States (pp. 49-55). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University
Thanks. Mish ( talk) 09:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
P.S. the suggestions using the book cite and citation template for books, or for journals, what I have done is adapted the way suggested for citing conferences using citation:
{{citation
| first = John
| last = Boswell
| editor-last = Wolinsky
| editor-first = M
| editor2-last = Sherrill
| editor2-first = K
| contribution = On the use of the term “homo” as a derogatory epithet
| title = Gays and the military: Joseph Steffan versus the United States
| year = 1993
| pages = 49-55
| publisher = Princeton University Press
}}
Is this the only way to do this Mish ( talk) 09:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, thanks, that is similar to what I did - but it took a bit of figuring out, because this is not detailed on the project page. Would it be possible to put a section into the project page that spells this out - as the only reference to this is for conferences, and it might make it easier for others in the future to see how to do it straight away. Mish ( talk) 10:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
chapter =
feature).
Stephen Kirrage
talk -
contribs
17:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
In doing some edits over the last few months, I've noticed that the inline tags for citations always cause the line on which they are located to push apart from the preceeding line, leading to an uneven pattern of line spacing that depends on the presence or absence of an inline tag in a line. This appears to be due only to the size of the inline tag. Is there any reason why the tags are the size that they are? I.e. is it possible to make them smaller? -- Miesianiacal ( talk) 12:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
I have a question that I have been unable to figure out from reading the CT article. How can I reuse the citation of a {{cite xxx}} reference in the same article, only I need to refer to a totally different page number from the first time I used the citation? Is there any way to do this using the {{ cite book}} citation technique? If so, where does it explain how to do this? I have noodled around with adding a page number to the standard reuse cite format (e.g., <ref name="Lamar1977" |page=123>) but have not been successful at getting it to 'take' a different page number than was used in the first {{ cite book}} source. Thanks. N2e ( talk) 20:07, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks Imzadi1979 and Gadget850. I appreciate the quick responses! That is truly sad news to hear however. It seems two big reasons for Wikipedia articles not being better sourced is 1) the difficulty for any WP editor to learn the complexity of any single one of the multiple Wikipedia citation systems so that they can use it efficiently, and 2) the multiplicity of citation systems allowed, which means it is inevitable that any serious "citer" will run into the vastly different systems used in different articles. I have invested considerable time to learn the {{cite xxx}} citation system, and am simply unwilling (as a volunteer editor) to duplicate the time in learning a second system. This is, of course, not true only of me. Thus many articles will either not be cited correctly (if the editor forswears citations because they don't know the syntax of the system used in a particular article) or will be a mismash (if they cite in the system they know). Is there an active forum on Wikipedia where such matters are discussed? I suspect this Talk Page is not the place to resolve it. Thanks again. N2e ( talk) 22:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
Many articles (for example, Birmingham Baths Committee) have a mix of citation templates and "raw text" references. Is there anyway to auto-magically convert the latter to the former, on a page-by-page basis? Or would somebody with the relevant skills like to consider making a tool to do so? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 10:22, 10 August 2009 (UTC)
< Since there are a mixture of templates and hand written citations, it is unlikely that anyone would object to you adding citation templates for the ones that remain. However, it is polite and prudent to post on the the talk page first (i.e. "Does anyone mind if I ..."), then wait a week or more, then carry out the edit. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 05:58, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
Rereading your post, I realized we are all answering the wrong question. You were asking if there is a bot that automatically converts handwritten citations to citation templates. The answer is no, but there are bots that use only the ISBN, PMID or URL and ignore all the other information (which can potentially lead to ridiculous errors, if some editor has made a mistake with these numbers. So if you use these, check their output.) See User:Citation bot. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 06:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
importScript('User:Smith609/toolbox.js');
to your "monobook.js"
. (Step by step instructions are at
User:Citation_bot/use#Can I use the Citation bot?). This will add another set of tools to the left hand side of your screen called "reference formatting".{{cite book| isbn = isbn number from handwritten citation}}
.
PMIDs and
DOIs work as well.Using 'cite book', suppose we already have a Wikipedia article about the book being cited AND we want to include a URL. Is that possible? Normally the URL gets linked to the title. Yet if there is a Wiki article it gets linked to the title. This came up when I was trying to add a URL to an existing entry at Edward Said. EdJohnston ( talk) 20:36, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
Comparing this guideline to Category:Citation templates, I noticed these templates are missing from the table:
These aren't in the table, however, they probably should be merged or deprecated. Anyway, there's no rush to list them in the table.
Templates which appear here, but aren't under Category:Citation templates
Just FYI. Someday we should add these. ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 13:42, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone help with this request to fix the formatting of the Hansard citation template? It would be much appreciated. Cordless Larry ( talk) 23:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The given example for the 'cite news' template indicates that the news entity (e.g. CNN, New York Times, etc.) should appear under the work field. This strikes me as odd; shouldn't this information be placed under the publisher field? If so, then what is the work field supposed to be used for? A quick review of featured content revealed that there is widespread confusion on this point. Wormcast ( talk) 15:57, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I just noticed some additional discussion (but no answers) on this; see also Work_to_be_done_standardising_templates -- Wormcast ( talk) 16:05, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
Note WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Work and publisher may or may not be the same thing. Note the following cites:
Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 00:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
It's usually common to italicize the names of publication titles (e.g. Time Magazine, New York Times, etc). However, the citation templates publication field is not automatically italicized by default. Wouldn't it make more sense to automatically italicize this? Dr. Cash ( talk) 18:43, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain how and why to use the journal format for a thesis or dissertation? I think of a this or dissertation as being fundamentally more like a book than a journal.
The example page mentions journals under the same section as thesis/diss, but doesn't provide an example of use. Is this really the right way to go? Kenirwin/( talk) 14:20, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
|journal=
field is optional. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
15:56, 7 September 2009 (UTC)(unindent) I was indeed citing the 5th edition, and it clearly indicates that the DAI should be cited. The choices given for dissertations are
All but the last are formatted like a journal citation to DAI. So the advise apparently has changed from the 5th to the 6th edition. -- Jc3s5h ( talk) 22:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
Over the last year, the major templates have all been merged. Also, most of the minor templates use a format that is based on the major templates. I think we can lift the restriction, noted in the lead, we shouldn't mix templates freely. (The only notable exception is {{ Citation}} and I'm adding a section on a way it can be sensibly used.) ---- CharlesGillingham ( talk) 20:02, 14 September 2009 (UTC)
Am revamping the Delrina article, and using material from their annual reports for info. They're print-only sources, so the equivalent Web-based citations I've seen on the Microsoft article doesn't fit.
I am guessing that the book citation template is appropriate, though there's no "author" or ISBN that would ever be applicable. Captmondo ( talk) 22:19, 20 September 2009 (UTC)
The AutoWikiBrowser is removing the p. and pp. from the pages parameter in Cite journal. [3] Cite news and Cite book automatically add the pp. to page numbers while Cite journal requires the editor to manually add the pp. Here is the cite journal documentation:
The AWB behavior was changed around June 2009 [4] to remove the pp. from "pages = pp. 45-47" in a book or news cite. The different behavior between various Cite templates is confusing but I don't think AWB should break Cite journal while fixing Cite news and Cite book. If an article has references from books, newspapers and journals, references should be consistently formatted. I would like to get other opinions on this change. -- SWTPC6800 ( talk) 02:39, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
Can anyone recommend a template for a (print) newsletter published by a non-commercial association/organization? A pdf copy is available on the web, but it's not really a "web" reference, nor is it properly "news" in the sense of media. I need a work (the newsletter's name), a title (article name), a publisher (the org) and a date. There's no author listed. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 23:41, 7 October 2009 (UTC)
Is there an easy way of using a bibtex entry to cite a source? It's a real pain to have to copy and paste this into the usual cite templates and I'd imagine lots of people don't bother adding the complete information as a result:
@inproceedings{BeJa96, author="M. {\sc Bernard} and F. {\sc Jacquenet}", title="{M}odularity and {G}enericity revisited for {PROLOG}", booktitle="Proceedings of the fourteenth Conference of Applied Informatics", address={Innsbr\"uck, Austria}, pages = "366-369", month="February", year="1996", }
pgr94 ( talk) 10:43, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
Templates Cite report and Cite thesis are designed to deal with the issue of unpublished reports and theses appearing published due to Conference and Journal's respective use of italics. Fifelfoo ( talk) 01:29, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
In a number of articles (on historical railway subjects) I have contributed to, I have cite'd UK railway company minute books held in the UK's The National Archives. These minute books are usually handwritten and generally well indexed.
To Cite these sources I have adopted Cite:Book although it is not really suitable; these books generally do not have page numbers, rather each individual minute is numbered and each meeting is dated (some early minute books do not have sequential numbering, so the meeting date is the main reference). In the way I have to use Cite:Book at the moment, I can only cite a whole volume of minutes, it would be preferable to be able to cite the meeting (date) and/or the minute number, thus making the citation much more useful.
Finally a more general point, do handwritten company minute books count as 'published' sources for Wikipedia? They are (I believe) a legal requirement for UK companies and those that now reside in The National Archive or any other recognised record repository are available to the public for consultation, perhaps they do nor rate as 'published' but certainly a publically available and reputable source.
XTOV ( talk) 19:31, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
All of the example show one line for every data point of the reference. It is much easier to edit Wikipedia if the references are given in as little space as possible without separation by an "enter". Is there a bot that will accomplish this? Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 22:37, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
We need a template for citing a preface written by someone who is not the author of the main work. Binksternet ( talk) 15:32, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |author=
has generic name (
help) ;; Darryl Lee. "Preface". In Man Soninson (ed.). A book about ducks.
The following citation templates have been nominated for deletion for lack of use and redundancy to the existing templates:
All are listed at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 January 14.-- AnmaFinotera ( talk · contribs) 07:12, 14 January 2010 (UTC)
There is a discussion occurring at
Wikipedia:Centralized discussion/Wikipedia Citation Style. Your participation would be appreciated.
—
V = I * R (
talk to Ohms law)
23:28, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
I have written an essay encouraging editors to use citation templates. It is located at Wikipedia:Use citation templates. Any comments or proofreading would be appreciated.-- Blargh29 ( talk) 07:29, 23 January 2010 (UTC)
I have seen the template named "Harvard reference" used, but I do not see the parameters for it. This template includes parameters like Surname1, Given1, Surname2, Given2.
ISBN numbers on amazon.com include formats like "ISBN-10: 083081776X" and "ISBN-13: 978-0830817764", but I do not see any templates or examples that use these formats. Obankston ( talk) 14:34, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
I have seen the template "Harvard reference" changed in an article with the edit summary of "deprecated template, replaced: {{Harvard reference → {{Citation (3) using AWB". "Harvard reference" was changed to "Citation", and the parameters of the template after the change were identical, other than the first letter of each parameter was changed from capital to small. Obankston ( talk) 05:13, 28 January 2010 (UTC)
Please add links to the top of the article taking us directly to the template we want. Thanks. SharkD Talk 03:45, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
Some citation templates are picky about upper or lower case in the keywords. The "cite book" template is an example:
Only the lowercase "title" is accepted. Given that many WP editors are newcomers, shouldn't the templates be more forgiving? I could not find a good explanation why some are so strict, although there is a brief mention at Wikipedia talk:Citation templates/Archive 4 it does not explain the reason. Case sensitivity is usually reserved for sensitive situations like passwords. Unless there is some compelling reason, I would suggest that the templates be more forgiving. -- Noleander ( talk) 16:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{
CITE BOOK}}
will not work as a substitute for {{
cite book}}
. A few templates do allow a small degree of freedom with some of the parameter names (for example, {{
cite book}}
permits |isbn=
or |ISBN=
), but each possible variant needs to be catered for separately (for example, {{
cite book}}
does not permit |Isbn=
or |iSBN=
, nor any of the other twelve permutations), and to do so would mean an awful lot of extra coding, and would also make the templates larger and slower. Go with whatever form the documentation specifies - alternative case forms are unlikely to work, unless explicitly mentioned. If you know of instances where the documentation specifies a form which turns out not to work, bring it up at the talk page of the template concerned. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:38, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
{{lc: }}
), but that deals with data strings (such as parameter values), and not wikicode (such as parameter names). So
{{lc:Thursday February 25, 2010}}
{{
Page numbers}}
includes the line
{{#ifeq:{{str index|{{lc:{{{1}}}}}|1}}|p
{{lc: }}
function is documented at
Help:Magic words#Formatting. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
18:16, 25 February 2010 (UTC)I have a lot of transcripts from news broadcasts that I would like to add to articles but there is no template for news broadcasts! Could someone make one? Please? (P.s. Not sure if this is the right place to put this, sorry if it isn't) Panyd The muffin is not subtle 16:09, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite news}}
unsuitable? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:20, 23 April 2010 (UTC)
Citation bot has been changing templates from, eg 'cite web' to 'cite news', or (as here), from 'cite book' to 'Citation'.
Is this policy? Are the 'cite book' etc templates now deprecated? (And if not, why is the bot changing them?)
EdJogg ( talk) 12:56, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I concur -- other editors too may wish to look at the bot's talk page. -- EdJogg ( talk) 19:49, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
Didn't there used to be a cite message board template? I thought I recalled using one once which asked for "post #" and "date of posting" and all that. I ask because I need to cite message board postings from a band member who really only posts updates on his band ( Wintersun) via message board. – Kerαunoςcopia◁ galaxies 00:39, 18 May 2010 (UTC)
The above question comes up fairly frequently, so I created this table that should help. Collapsed here for space. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 04:17, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
I'd like to see some examples of citing vendor manuals. Typically these have an identifier, e.g., form #, order #, a title and a date. Sometimes the edition number is part of the identifier and sometimes it is external.
Ideally the examples would show how to render multi-line subjects, e.g., should
IBM Foo Bar Administration
be keyed in as "IBM Foo, Bar, Administration", "IBM Foo: Bar: Administration" or perhaps in some format I haven't thought of?
I've been using ref tags with vendor, title lines and identifier separating by commas or in some cases run together, but if there's a recommended style I'd like to adhere to it, especially if there are citation templates to automate it. Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz ( talk) 15:44, 28 May 2010 (UTC)
|id=
. There is a {{
cite manual}}, but I have it at TfD as no one can define the difference between a book and a manual. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
18:59, 28 May 2010 (UTC)I'm trying to cite a source from the Mother's Milk linear notes for the List of Red Hot Chili Peppers band members. What citation template should I use? Thank you! WereWolf ( talk) 18:42, 11 June 2010 (UTC)
Regarding magazines which are not academic journals, but are nevertheless generally WP:RS, such as The Railway Magazine.
If I use {{
cite magazine}}
(which to me is the obvious template to use because of its name), this redirects to {{
cite journal}}
, to which an editor objects on the grounds that RM is not a "scholarly academic paper"; he suggests that I should use {{
cite news}}
. I don't wish to do this, because: (a) it's not a newspaper; (b) {{
cite news}}
has no provision for the magazine's editor (articles may have no credited author); (c) {{
cite news}}
has |date=
, but not separate |month=
or |year=
; (d) {{
cite news}}
also lacks volume and issue, but this is a minor point. My objection to putting month and year into |date=
is based on the observation that Harvard reference linking doesn't always work in such cases, but always works when either (a) |date=
has a full 3-element date or (b) separate |month=
and |year=
are used.
Opinions please, on whether I should use {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite magazine}}
? --
Redrose64 (
talk)
13:26, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
I agree that editors should use the obvious and existing {{
cite magazine}}
. However, I have not found any discussion on where (or if) that template should redirect. The fact that the redirection target has been unchanged for ~3.5 years is not enough to claim "consensus" if there has been no discussion on the subject.
The little discussion I have found suggests there have been several contributors who do not find {{
cite journal}}
adequate to cite magazines.
A comment in the archives for cite journal talk indicates that some people are using {{
cite news}}
due to limitations of {{
cite journal}}
in describing some magazine content and
another describes a few using {{
cite web}}
.
One post in the cite news talk archives agrees that {{
cite magazine}}
should redirect to {{
cite news}}
.
Other discussion shows that many authors agree that a separate cite magazine template would be useful. Further, there are well-established citation styles that treat magazines closer to newspapers than to academic articles. Less than 1,000 articles use {{
cite magazine}}
& I would imagine that forking either {{
cite journal}}
or {{
cite news}}
to cater more specifically to the needs of magazine citations would be possible. --
Karnesky (
talk)
21:34, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
---— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 22:22, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
are citing magazines and not journal articles. These can be improved. Yes, it is slightly harder to treat the citations that use {{
cite journal}}
(or {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
) for magazine content. But these could be processed manually and by using a bot to make changes that are based on the magazine title/information. You've really offered no concrete arguments as to why we should leave things the way they are other than the supposed tacit consensus.{{
cite journal}}
should be used for magazines and the implication that this consensus shuts down any argument that
Alarics might make. Again, ZERO discussion has been shown in support of this consensus, and all discussion has actually been to object to the status quo (another example being that {{
cite magazine article}}
redirected to {{
cite news}}
for
over two years). Per
WP:CONSENSUS: "silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community" (I admit we might debate whether exposure is adequate here) and, more importantly, "consensus can change" (I hope we would not debate this point!). Alarics points are valid and have been raised before & discussion should not be halted just because you think there is consensus on the issue.{{
cite magazine}}
could have the following advantages:
{{
cite news}}
for some reason). DOIs, laysummary, laysource, laydate, and others MIGHT exist for magazines, but at frequencies that are much lower than for academic articles.{{
cite news}}
might be useful (it is useless for scholarly articles){{
cite magazine}}
. Changing that from a redirect to a new template would not impact any citation that used {{
cite journal}}
or {{
cite news}}
or {{
cite web}}
. If we do send a bot to modify citations to use {{
cite magazine}}
, that would be another (significant) advantage for having the separate template:
I still feel that if the material in the publication concerned, whatever its format happens to be, is clearly "journalism", then I will use "cite news". Time is plainly journalism just as much as The Observer is. Both publications appear weekly. Why give Time a different status just because it happens to use quarto size pages that are stapled together? Nobody needs to know who its editor happens to be in order to judge whether a piece of information cited in it is reliable or not. The name of its current editor is not what Time's reputation is based on. Whereas with an obscure scholarly academic journal, the reputation of the editor in the academic discipline concerned might be of some relevance.
Of course it is true that one can always just leave some paramaters blank if they are not relevant. The trouble is, people often don't. This all arose because I was surprised to see User:Redrose64, in the article Varsity Line, putting the following as a citation:
Marsh, Phil (2009).
Pigott, Nick (ed.). "Headline News: East-West Rail Link work gets underway".
The Railway Magazine. 155 (1295). London: IPC Media: 10.
ISSN
0033-8923. {{
cite journal}}
: Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)
This seems to me to be altogether too elaborate a citation for two short sentences-worth of news, just cluttering up the encyclopaedia for no good reason. The information that Nick Pigott is the editor of The Railway Magazine is quite superfluous. Since it is a reliably regular monthly periodical, I don't see that the volume number and issue number add anything useful that is not conveyed by the month and year, and anyway it may not be clear to the lay reader that that is what "155 (1295): 10." means, whereas in academia people are probably familiar with such notation for a scholarly journal that may not appear regularly. Above all, "publisher" information in such a case as this is pure clutter. If the reader really wants to know that the magazine is published by IPC Media, they can go to the article about the magazine itself. (I realise that "publisher" occurs in "cite news" as well, but fortunately people usually realise that it's not needed in the great majority of cases.)
If I were putting in the above citation, I would do it thus:
Marsh, Phil (March 2009). "East-West Rail Link work gets underway". The Railway Magazine. London. p. 10.
I was unaware of the consensus in this matter to which User:AnmaFinotera refers. I simply proceed on the basis of common sense.
Alarics ( talk) 07:34, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
, took the cut-and-paste template from the doc page, pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could. I then removed all unused parameters, but as often happens, I omitted to change the word "journal" to "magazine", so despite my intent, it shows as {{
cite journal}}
. Now, if {{
cite magazine}}
had been a template in its own right, doubtless I would have cut-and-pasted a version beginning {{cite magazine
.{{
cite journal}}
being used by others for common-or-garden newsstand magazines are for the same reason - somebody took the cut-and-paste template and used it as it stood. Yes, it does have an awful lot of parameters, and I normally ignore all those after |issn=
mainly because I don't have anything sensible to put in them: I can easily find out what pmid/pmc/doi/etc. mean, but I'm darned if I know how to obtain the specific values for the article being cited. On the occasions that I locate a magazine article on the web (such as
here), I'll fill in the |url=
and |accessdate=
too. |ref=
does get used if the article has Harvard-style ref linking
as here, but those are the only three after |issn=
that I bother with. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
10:33, 23 June 2010 (UTC)<ref>...</ref>
tags? I don't want answers to these questions here, but it illustrates a big part of the problem.
Wikipedia:Citing sources is completely silent on these subjects; it mainly rehashes reference presentation styles that are better covered elsewhere.{{
cite news}}
includes an 'agency' parameter (but, as I mentioned, {{
cite journal}}
is not an identical template with slightly different parameter names: magazine articles cannot have the news agency information if you use that template). You should only cite references you have actually read (
WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT)."..... took the cut-and-paste template .... pasted it into the page and filled in everything that I could ....." -- Therein lies our difficulty in a nutshell. If people filled in only what was appropriate in a particular case, it probably wouldn't much matter which template they used. Alarics ( talk) 13:47, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
To respond to both
User:Redrose64 and
User:AnmaFinotera, {{
cite news}}
has volume, issue, month, and year as undocumented parameters, e.g.:
{{
cite news}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help); Unknown parameter |day=
ignored (
help); Unknown parameter |month=
ignored (
help)I agree the editor is not essential for the reference in question. Thus, RR64's initial list of four reasons for using {{
cite journal}}
instead of {{
cite news}}
is whittled down to only one: it is not a newspaper. It is a magazine, which is distinct from a newspaper and from an academic journal. --
Karnesky (
talk)
16:08, 23 June 2010 (UTC)
{{
cite magazine}}
then. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
16:14, 23 June 2010 (UTC)Hi. I'm just asking for additional clarification on the best way to fill in the accessdate when using {{citeweb}}. I've seen a lot of featured articles which utilise one specific method, but on this project page another method is seemingly advised. In the example of today's date, which of the following would be better suited if, say, you wanted a featured article?
Furthermore, can we clarify this in the project page so there is no confusion? CR4ZE ( talk) 08:38, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
YYYY-MM-DDTraditionally referring to practices by incomplete standards names, when the standard has not been adopted, and when in fact the practice agrees with the standard in some respects and disagrees in other respects, is a terrible idea and I will not tolerate it. I will use every permissible means to fight such sloppiness in articles, policies, and guidelines. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:05, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
True in theory, but in practice there is usually no "existing convention" because about 90% of WP articles are *not* consistent in the footnotes, because most people have no idea about referencing, so one often ends up being none the wiser as to which to use. Quite often, the dates in the article itself are not consistent either. My usual practice is to change them all to a consistent format using a bot, which will then change all the dates in the footnotes as well, by telling it to put e.g. "July 22, 2010" (for articles about American subjects) and "22 July 2010" (for all other articles). Alarics ( talk) 19:44, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
|accessdate=
in consistent style, go with that. Otherwise, you can choose whether to use the YYYY-MM-DD form for |accessdate=
, or to make your accessdates match the format used for dates within the article main text. --
Redrose64 (
talk)
12:49, 23 July 2010 (UTC)I just noticed that if there are inline author link, for ex:{{cite book | last=[[author]]|year=2010|..., author 2010 does not generate a proper link. However removing the wiki link {{cite book | last=author ... fixes the issues. Should this be fixed or documented anywhere? Thanks. -- TheMandarin ( talk) 05:22, 1 August 2010 (UTC)
|authorlink=
parameter should be used, that is its sole purpose. For example, {{
cite book}}
states several times "Don't wikilink" or similar.
A statement by Ossie Nock {{harv|Nock|2010|p=123}}
*{{cite book |last=Nock |first=O. S. |authorlink=O. S. Nock |title=A book he wrote |year=2010 |ref=harv }}
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)What is Wikipedia's policy on using email correspondence as a source?-- DrWho42 ( talk) 23:59, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
On
St. Joseph Valley Parkway, reference 15 from the Indiana Department of Transportation is formated using cite book:
<ref name="INDOT-RPB">{{cite book |url=http://www.in.gov/indot/files/StateWide_2004.pdf |format=PDF |title=Reference Post Book |publisher=Indiana Department of Transportation |at=U-20, U-31 |year=2004 |location=Indianapolis |accessdate=August 6, 2010}}</ref>
resulting in: (PDF)
Reference Post Book. Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Transportation. 2004. U-20, U-31. Retrieved August 6, 2010.
Does anyone know why the "(PDF)" is showing up before the book title instead of after?
Imzadi
1979
→
09:51, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
format=PDF
. After removing it, we get
Reference Post Book (PDF). Indianapolis: Indiana Department of Transportation. 2004. U-20, U-31. Retrieved August 6, 2010.. I don't think there is any parameter from which we can make "(PDF)" appear after book title. --
TheMandarin (
talk)
12:52, 6 August 2010 (UTC)
|format=
is before |IncludedWorkTitle=
. This should be discussed at
Template talk:Citation/core. ---—
Gadget850 (Ed)
talk
13:16, 6 August 2010 (UTC)There is a discussion at User talk:Art LaPella#Your AWB edits concerning whether WP:NBSP should be applied within date parameters of a citation template as in date={{Nowrap|6 November}} 2010. It also concerns whether hyphens within titles should be changed to dashes according to the WP:DASH rules that apply elsewhere, as in this previous discussion. Art LaPella ( talk) 23:11, 18 August 2010 (UTC)