Template talk:Citation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Template:Citation:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:

    CGNDB Discussion[edit]

    I thought some page watchers might be interested in a discussion for changing CGNDB into a redirect here. Thanks! Plastikspork ―Œ(talk)

    Ending punctuation[edit]

    How do you suppress the period at the end for usage in a string cite? postdlf (talk) 21:35, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

    By default, the {{citation}} template does not produce a period at the end. Are you perhaps referring instead to the Help:CS1 templates such as {{cite journal}}? If so, the answer is to use |postscript=none. But because their formatting is a little different, those templates shouldn't be mixed with {{citation}}. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:38, 19 September 2014 (UTC)

    Google books[edit]

    Editors could save much tricky syntax with templates like:

    {{cite gb|asdf|ref=harv}}

    and

    {{sfn gb|asdf|p=1}}

    In my dreams the former would work like {{cite doi}}, producing a global, editable reference, and the latter would link both to the cite and separately (using the page number) to the appropriate page number in Google books.

    Please let me know if there is another place to put this suggestion. Thanks. Lfstevens (talk) 21:47, 20 September 2014 (UTC)

    {{cite doi}} relies on a bot to fill in the citation. --  Gadget850 talk 23:13, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    A bot which (as I understand it) went down with Toolserver at the end of June. But that aside, please can we avoid creating yet more citation templates? See small-font comment by PBS dated 19:06, 20 September 2014 at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources#Should we improve ref tags? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:30, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
    Made some comments over there. I don't understand the reticence towards enhancing the best-working part of the ref system—{{cite}}.

    Access date. Again[edit]

    Where was this change discussed? The bit in parenthesis was removed and re-added today, and it appears to be the crux of a small edit-war at St Pancras railway station. --Redrose64 (talk) 20:49, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

    I do not recall that text being discussed anywhere. It doesn't make sense to me, and it is inconsistent with the more verbose documentation for |accessdate= that appears farther down:
    "Full date when original URL was accessed; use the same format as other access and archive dates in the citations; requires url.[date 1] Do not wikilink. Not required for web pages or linked documents that do not change; mainly for use of web pages that change frequently or have no publication date. Can be hidden or styled by registered editors."
    I would recommend removing that parenthetical remark unless there is some strong consensus on the Talk page for its insertion. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:04, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    Agreed, and I have done so. (1) In some cases the identifiable date is explicitly a starting point (e.g. "2001 onwards", so even in its own terms the addition isn't correct. (2) There's no way of guaranteeing that user-maintained web sites weren't updated after any stated date – it's easy to forget to change the date. (3) There's also the issue of link-rot; an access date is a useful indicator.
    Actually I think the documentation for |accessdate= is too weak in this respect. I would prefer to see an access date unless there is a clear 'permanent' link such as a doi, pmid, etc. Peter coxhead (talk) 06:49, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    The |accessdate= gives context about when that section of article was contributed/revisioned; external websites do change, which is why we have sites like www.newsdiffs.org; |accessdate= is helpful when rescuing and selecting the nearest |archiveurl=. In the age of the web and most sites being in content management systems it is not enough to re-state an apparent publication date. The advice we give to people wanting to cite Wikipedia is to always use a stable URL with |oldid= to a specific revision (ie. the accessdate + time).
    Since |accessdate= is (nearly) always known by the contributing editor, the status-quo with near-universal addition of |accessdate= should be codified more strongly than |date= which may be known. We have had a situation where the present/temporary IP wording has been used as the basis of for widescale removal of |accessdate= from articles; something I would prefer to see unambiguously prevented, if nothing else that simply to prevent needless unhelpful diff-noise and the continued time-wastage from trying to work out what really changed. Yes, I would support a stronger statement. —Sladen (talk) 07:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    While |accessdate= may not always be relevant, removing it is certainly never helpful. My personal opinion is that any web links should include accessdate, as even stable websites change or disappear eventually. -mattbuck (Talk) 22:21, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
    No, if it's not relevant it's helpful to remove it, because it creates needless clutter. Nikkimaria (talk) 04:17, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    "Clutter" – possibly, although it's only a small part of a good citation; "needless" – no, as has been explained above. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:36, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Yes, if it's truly a document that does not change. Nikkimaria (talk) 14:24, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    And will not change its location. Basically this means documents with DOIs or DOI-like URLs. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:51, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Even if it is clutter, having an accessdate is doing no harm. For this reason, I think they should not be removed from citations. Mjroots (talk) 20:09, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    Clutter is arguably harmful, and if it's doing no good there should be no problem with removing it. Nikkimaria (talk) 20:34, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
    |accessdate= is highly useful and contextual, both for our editors and for other editors who contribute to an article later in (ie. "doing good"), and so—if I understand your argument correctly—should not be removed. —Sladen (talk) 01:26, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    I agree with Nikkimaria. I have never found |accessdate= to be of the smallest use. -- Alarics (talk) 12:41, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
    It is useful when fixing deadlinks, as it is relevant to finding the correct archived snapshot per wp:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Also, it comes in handy when it is necessary to decipher which rev of the article the citation was used to support. Editors often change the meaning of assertions (intentionally or not) while leaving the existing citation in place... LeadSongDog come howl! 05:13, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
    And there are editors who believe you need access dates for hard copy sources. And those who will go through an article, check to make the links work and update the access dates. Regardless, this is a perennial discussions and as usual will not end with any consensus. I hide the access dates and don't worry about them. --  Gadget850 talk 13:08, 29 September 2014 (UTC)

    Accessibility and COinS[edit]

    There may be an accessibility issue with the COinS metadata that is appended to citations emitted by the {{citation}} template as well as all the Citation Style 1 templates. See Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 130#Spurious text on source links. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2014 (UTC)

    Where to put archive database used to access article?[edit]

    I put in citations in the publisher field: "Accessed via LexisNexis" or "Accessed via NewsBank", as the case may be, to denote where I found the source and where others in the future may access the source if they wish to read that article text.

    Is there another place or another field to place this info?

    I ask because sometimes people with bots or scripts come by and remove the entire "publisher" field, and then my notes on how to access those articles would be lost !

    Any help?

    Cirt (talk) 00:18, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Use |via= like this:
    {{cite news|title=Jimmy Wales isn't a billionaire; He hasn't capitalized on Wikipedia, but still lives a jet-setter's life|first=Amy|last=Chozick|date=June 29, 2013|work=[[International Herald Tribune]]|page=9|via=[[LexisNexis]]}}
    Chozick, Amy (June 29, 2013). "Jimmy Wales isn't a billionaire; He hasn't capitalized on Wikipedia, but still lives a jet-setter's life". International Herald Tribune. p. 9 – via LexisNexis. 
    Because what you put in |publisher= is included in the citation's COinS metadata, using it to hold information that has nothing to do with the actual publisher corrupts that data. |via= is not part of the COinS.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 00:41, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    Oh, wow, thanks very much!!! — Cirt (talk) 00:44, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now I just gotta find all the places I used "publisher" instead of "via", and fix those before the bots and/or scripts take away those publisher fields!!! — Cirt (talk) 00:48, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Might help if we documented |via=. Anyone have a good description of use? --  Gadget850 talk 01:07, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    Yes that would be most helpful! And if it could be publicized to the people who run bots and scripts not to remove it? — Cirt (talk) 01:55, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
    My mistake: this is documented. --  Gadget850 talk 11:42, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

    @Trappist the monk:@Gadget850:, can someone please help fix q:Template:Cite news and q:Template:Citation at Wikiquote so they display the via parameter in cites? Thank you so much, — Cirt (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

    Not that simple. Those templates still use {{citation/core}} while we have switched to Module:Citation. This would need the module and sub-modules copied over, then the templates can be updated. --  Gadget850 talk 20:40, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
    Can you help with that please, Gadget850 ? — Cirt (talk) 20:42, 9 October 2014 (UTC)

    Two user script questions[edit]

    Maybe someone here can answer these questions there Wikipedia_talk:User_scripts#Two_questions. — Cirt (talk) 19:40, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

    "produces output identical to that of the Cite templates [..] Cite web" - no[edit]

    See my edit. I noticed ", retrieved" in lower case. It was because of "citation" and changed to upper case (and period) when I changed to "cite web". I didn't change all the other cases as I guess it can be "fixed" here (I couldn't figure it out). I'm not even sure if it's preferred to change in pages. comp.arch (talk) 18:05, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    Citation Style 1 and {{citation}} are two different styles, so you should use the current prevailing style. The article is now a mix of Citation Style 1, {{citation}} and non-template citations, thus the rendered styles are going to differ. --  Gadget850 talk 18:28, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    (edit conflict)

    {{citation}} uses a comma separator so it is considered, as I understand it, to be a sentence fragment. As such, 'retrieved ...' is not capitalized. The CS1 citation, {{cite web}}, etc use period (full stop) separators so 'Retrieved ...' Starts its own very short sentence. There are those who prefer one way; there are those who prefer the other. Whenever one style is used, the other should not be – use should be consistent throughout the article.
    It is possible to make CS1 mimic {{citation}} by using |separator=, and |postscript=none:
    Author, "Cite Web Title", retrieved 2014-10-11 
    Author, Citation Title, retrieved 2014-10-11 
    and the other way as well:
    Author. "Cite Web Title". Retrieved 2014-10-11. 
    Author. Citation Title. Retrieved 2014-10-11.  – here |separator=. and |postscript=.
    Why? I don't know.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 18:30, 11 October 2014 (UTC)

    PD/WS icons[edit]

    Hello. I was wondering if it would be possible to add a parameter to set an icon (like Template:Cite_DNB) for works that are in PD and/or in wikisource. That way editors can easily spot "free" sources to improve the page. Of course I'm not talking about works that are already incorporated in the article (i.e. Template:Source-attribution). Thanks. -Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 22:01, 18 October 2014 (UTC)

    • Is this a standard internationally recognized icon or something we made up?
    • The icon is currently not accessible; that is, it has no meaning to our readers who use screen readers. --  Gadget850 talk 09:55, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Can we? Yes. Should we? No. Adding icons to an already dense collection of text, numbers and punctuation, is just unnecessary clutter.
    Unlike the pdf icon that is added by css, the icons at templates like {{cite DNB}} can easily and so should have alt text added to them.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:40, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Anthropomorphism#Notes is an example of something like that already happening. It doesn't seem cluttered to me. - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:00, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I see a blue ladybug on ref 7 and a cents symbol on 8. --  Gadget850 talk 12:04, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    That seems more like an issue with the way those templates deal with icons - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:27, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    Anyway, I see your point and I'm all for alt text of course. - Ihaveacatonmydesk (talk) 12:32, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    Formatting of journal article title[edit]

    Has the formatting of |title= in journal articles formatted by {{citation}} changed recently or has it always been broken? It should be in an upright font, in quotation marks, but instead it comes out italicized (like the title of a book). Example:

    • Cite journal, formatted correctly (except for the separator being a period):
      • {{cite journal|title=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013). "Womp Rats". Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138. 
    • CItation with |title=, formatted incorrectly (title in italics rather than quoted):
      • {{citation|title=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013), Womp Rats, Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138 
    • CItation with |contribution=, formatted correctly:
      • {{citation|contribution=Womp Rats|journal=Journal of Exobiology|volume=66|year=2013|page=1138|first=Luke|last=Skywalker}}
      • Skywalker, Luke (2013), "Womp Rats", Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138 

    There are a lot of examples of {{citation}} of journal articles that use |title=, and our documentation says to use |title= in this type of citation, so I'm pretty sure this is indeed a bug and not just a bad choice of input parameters. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:54, 19 October 2014 (UTC)

    It does seem to have changed, yes. This might be the same issue as Help talk:Citation Style 1#Titles of journal articles. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:38, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
    I think this also affected |trans_chapter=. For journal articles, one would set {{para|title} and use |trans_chapter= but now one must use |trans_title= instead. Many editors have done clean up, so now I think all the |trans_chapter= params have been changed. I don't know if that was the intended result. Glrx (talk) 20:29, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    I'm confused. The correct use of |trans-title= has always been with |title=; |trans-chapter= with |chapter=. The formatting issue described by Editor David Eppstein with regard to {{citation}} has been fixed in the sandbox.
    Skywalker, Luke (2013), "Womp Rats", Journal of Exobiology 66: 1138 
    Making of changes based solely on current live module's improper formatting of {{citation}} |title= parameters is strongly discouraged.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 21:46, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
    Template talk:Citation/Archive 6#trans_title broken for journal articles Glrx (talk) 02:13, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
    Now I'm even more confused. Why are you bringing up an old conversation from when citations used {{citation/core}}? I have lifted a citation from that conversation that was described as not working properly. Here is a side by side comparison of the old {{citation/core}}, the live Module:Citation/CS1 and new Module:Citation/CS1/sandbox:
    Citation compare
    {{ citation | last=Erdős | year=1962 | title=Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról | first=Pál | journal=Matematikai Lapok | url=http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1962-22.pdf | trans_title=Some remarks on number theory, III | mr=0144871 | volume=13 | pages=28–38 | language=Hungarian | authorlink=Paul Erdős }}
    Old Erdős, Pál (1962), "Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról" (in Hungarian), Matematikai Lapok 13: 28–38, MR 0144871, http://www.renyi.hu/~p_erdos/1962-22.pdf
    Live Erdős, Pál (1962), Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról [Some remarks on number theory, III], Matematikai Lapok (in Hungarian) 13: 28–38, MR 0144871 
    Sandbox Erdős, Pál (1962), "Számelméleti megjegyzések, III. Néhány additív számelméleti problémáról" [Some remarks on number theory, III], Matematikai Lapok (in Hungarian) 13: 28–38, MR 0144871 
    Trappist the monk (talk) 03:04, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

    Is anything happening with moving this from the sandbox to the live template? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

    Because Module:Citation/CS1 is used in almost 2.5 million pages I try not to make multiple incremental changes to the live module. Unless the problem is a showstopper (the module uses up all of its allotted time, there is a fatal error, etc) incremental changes are made to the sandbox. After enough changes have accumulated, then I will update live module. Because there are several changes in progress, the sandbox in not ready to do an update.
    This has not been forgotten.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 22:25, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
    Ok, thanks. I'll just continue to wait patiently then. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:56, 12 November 2014 (UTC)