Template talk:Cite journal/Archive 2009 March

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Citing papers from collections published as books[edit]

OK, not sure if this is the right place, but it's timely: I've never known how to cite a paper taken from an edited collection of papers published as a book, where one needs to distinguish multiple authors of the paper from multiple editors of the book, and the title of the paper from the title of the book. Using the various parameters I could find in either {{cite book}} or {{cite journal}} never gave anything very clear-looking. Is this a problem with the template or with the documentation? --Trovatore (talk) 18:54, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

It's a problem with the documentation. I'd use cite book/citation with chapter/contribution, editor, author and title parameters.
So something like this:
  • Feng, Qi, Menachem Magidor, and W. Hugh Woodin. "Universally Baire sets of reals". In Judah, H., W. Just, and H. Woodin. Set Theory of the Continuum. Mathematical Sciences Research Institute Publications. 
OK, I guess that actually works. Could a note and an example be added both to the {{cite book}} documentation and to the documentation here? Most people doing this will think that they're citing a paper, not a book, so something should be said about it here too. --Trovatore (talk) 22:12, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
What if it's not published as a book? Many journals will devote an entire issue to one topic, with a series of papers on that topic by different authors. Usually the issue has a special title and there are also usually special editors for that issue aside from the journal's usual editors. For instance, there is an issue of Modern Geology from 1998 that is completely devoted to the Morrison Formation. It has about a dozen papers, all by different authors, and the entire issue is edited by Carpenter, Chure, and Kirkland. But using cite_journal there is no way to put in those editors, or the title of the issue (The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: blah blah blah). Every single New Mexico Museum of Natural History and Science Bulletin (a fairly important journal for us dinosaur editors) is also like this. I have to use cite_book, which is suboptimal for this purpose. Maybe we can add an |editors parameter and an |issuetitle parameter? Sheep81 (talk) 09:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
#1: To cite papers from collections published as books:
{{citation|
last=A1Lastname|first=A1Firstname |last2=A2Lastname|first2=A2Firstname|
contribution=Title of Article|title=Title of Book|pages=pages=32-42|year=2009|
editor-last=E1Lastname|editor-first=E1Firstname|editor2-last=E2Lastname|editor2-first=E2Firstname|
location=London|publisher=Oxford University Press}}.
Which returns:
A1Lastname, A1Firstname; A2Lastname, A2Firstname (2009), "Title of Article", in E1Lastname, E1Firstname; E2Lastname, E2Firstname, Title of Book, London: Oxford University Press, pp. 32–42 .
Add/remove fields as needed, e.g. add series=<name of series> if that book is part of a monograph series.
The same syntax works for chapter in a book, article in a dictionary, article in an encyclopedia, etc, etc, etc.
#2: To provide the name of a particular issue of a periodical ...
Lastname, Firstname (1998), Title of Article, Modern Geology 10 (The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: blah blah blah): 32–42 .
The key (quite literally) terms used in the question were "issue" and "journal".
Its all rather easy when one doesn't need to think in contrived terms of "what-exactly-constitutes-a-book?" -- Fullstop (talk) 12:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
A followup question: if I want to include the original publication year and periodical for something republished in a collection, where should I do this? Example: I have a source for which the year published is relatively important information since it establishes origin of a term, but the copy which I have examined has been translated and republished recently. My understanding of the available fields leads me to believe that it is not possible to include these in a clear way. True? KellenT 14:06, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Properly, the date (or year) parameter is for the authorship, while publication-date is for the edition.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:19, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
As always, only cite sources that you have access to, and which you have verified with your own eyes. So, if you only have access to the collection, then you would only refer to the collection.
But if you also possess the original issue (or can otherwise ensure that the source you are using for your citation exactly matches the original issue) then simply concatenate the two {{citation}}s with "reprinted in" or "reprinted as" (whichever the case may be). Example:
Baxter, Bobby (1998), Thou shalt not cheat, Journal of Sleight of Hand 10 (6): 32–42 , reprinted in Public, John Q., ed. (2008), Card Tricks for Vegas, Reno: Underground Press, pp. 150–160 .
After all, the two have different titles etc. If the title of the contribution differs too, then you would use
Baxter, Bobby (1998), Thou shalt not cheat, Journal of Sleight of Hand 10 (6): 32–42 , reprinted as Baxter, Bobby (2008), "Please don't cheat", in Public, John Q., Card Tricks for Vegas, Reno: Underground Press, pp. 150–160 .
That's it really. -- Fullstop (talk) 16:10, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
If you only have the reprint available, but it identifies the original publication date, you can use:
Baxter, Bobby (2008), "Please don't cheat", in Public, John Q., Card Tricks for Vegas, Reno: Underground Press, pp. 150–160 , reprinted from Baxter, Bobby (1998), Thou shalt not cheat, Journal of Sleight of Hand 10 (6): 32–42 . This is the same principle as for the "as cited in" usage.LeadSongDog (talk) 18:30, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
Hmmm, more what I was looking for was fields that could produce this:
Lastname, Firstname. (1998). "Article Title." In: Carpenter; Chure; & Kirkland (eds.). The Upper Jurassic Morrison Formation: blah blah blah. Modern Geology 10: 32-42.
...which is how you usually see it cited in journals. I would just use cite_book but the formatting is different and doesn't really match cite_journal. I could (and I do) use a workaround but that seems pretty... well, like a workaround. Sheep81 (talk) 06:25, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Absence of publisher suppresses output of location[edit]

{{editprotected}} The absence of publisher=sample suppresses output of location=where. {{cite journal | title = Title | location = Someplace }} "Title". Someplace.  {{cite journal | title = Title | publisher = Someone | location = Someplace }} "Title". Someplace: Someone.  Publisher often provides redundant information. Location often provides essential information. -- davidz (talk) 02:32, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

See the discussion above about whether a publisher or location should ever be specified with this template. See below re. a fix: the new version of the template already resolves the problem. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 19:18, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Quotation marks for quotes[edit]

{{editprotected}} This template generates curly typograpic quote marks around quotations contrary to WP:PUNCT: "The exclusive use of straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended." And inconsistent with cite news. -- davidz (talk) 02:48, 10 October 2008 (UTC) {{cite journal | title = Title | quote = Quote }} "Title". "Quote"  {{cite news | title = Title | quote = Quote }} "Title". "Quote" 

Specifically, please change the two occurrances of:
{{#ifeq:{{{quotes|}}} 
 | no 
 | 
 | {{#if:{{{curly|}}}|”|"}} 
 }}
to:
{{#ifeq:{{{quotes|}}} 
 | no 
 | 
 | "
}}
RossPatterson (talk) 16:24, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
Neither of the two issues you reported are a problem in the "broken" new template, currently at Template:Cite journal/sandbox. If you can find any problems with it, though, please report them at Template:cite journal/test cases so they can be fixed!
Thanks a lot, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 18:58, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
The  '​"broken" new template '​ effort appears to be at least temporarily stalled, so I've re-enabled the {{editprotected}} request. This template is currently out of compliance with the Manual of Style, and cleaning it up is as simple as the change I noted above several weeks ago. 18:03, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Done. Pagrashtak 19:16, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Please restore the code altered by the above request. Despite the contention of many MOSers, the MOS is only a guideline and not a list of musts and must nots. Even the bit quoted above only says that the use of "straight quotes and apostrophes is recommended" (emphasis added), not required. Are there compelling reasons to use straight quotes? Yes, which is why the template defaulted to their use. Are curly quotes prohibited? I suspect not, which is why they were an option available to editors who so chose to use them. — Bellhalla (talk) 19:08, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand what "only a guideline" means. Here are some other pages that are "only" guidelines: Wikipedia:Assume good faith, Wikipedia:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point, Wikipedia:Do not create hoaxes, Wikipedia:Be bold. Being a guideline does not give one carte blanche to ignore at will. You admit that there are compelling reasons to use straight quotes. What are the compelling reasons for curly quotes that justify ignoring the MOS? Pagrashtak 19:56, 6 November 2008 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. Thanks, --Elonka 23:15, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
The initial change was done without consensus.... --Karnesky (talk) 00:14, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

CoinS[edit]

Hi, I would like to know if somebody knows enough the COinS to help me to insert this technology on the french version on this template. I have the time to make the transfert, but I don't want to do it, if nobody can just check if everything is ok. Thank you! --Riba-- (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

Format[edit]

The template is now bolding the volume information, which is weird ... is this is result of the recent reverted changes, or ... — TAnthonyTalk 02:32, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

It's always done that. See the bolding discussions at the top of the page. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 02:44, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

Parallel activity[edit]

Editors here may be interested in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Merging the zillions citation templates out there and Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style#Comments (templates merger) on a new Citation template that would putatively replace all the Cite family.LeadSongDog (talk) 15:45, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Great, thanks! -- Philcha (talk)

Publisher Item Identifier[edit]

What template is used for the Publisher Item Identifier (PII)? Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Surely this is redundant to DOIs?
Not really. Some references don't have DOIs assigned to them (especially those that are only printed resources). Technically, it would seem that a single work could have multiple PIIs, based on the expression (e.g. print vs. electronic). --Karnesky (talk) 14:19, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Need to unlink dates[edit]

{{editprotected}} The wikilinking of dates is now deprecated. Whereever [[{{{accessdate}}}]], [[{{{accessyear}}}]], [[{{{doi_brokendate|}}}]], and [[{{{laydate}}}]] appear in the template, please remove the [[]] brackets. Thank you. -- Suntag 16:37, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Done. --Elonka 03:37, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

Are quotation marks necessary?[edit]

I've seen the quotes=| argument. What does it do? Why is it available? It simply makes the template inconstant in its appearance. I simply do not understand why this argument is actually available, other than changing look of the template "because I don't want any quotation marks." Shouldn't the formatting be constant? Hołek ҉ 19:36, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

What it does is this: quotes=no causes cite journal to generate
""The title"".  Unknown parameter |quotes= ignored (help)
instead of
"The title". 
Why it does it comes down to the fact that there is no consensus on WP to adopt a single consistent style of journal citation. If such consensus comes to exist, the template could presumably force a value of quotes=no or quotes=yes.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
Still, shouldn't it be consistent for now, since it is one of the most important citation templates? I mean, we can change it anytime we will feel like it, there is no need to make it inconsistent in appearance. Therefore, this argument is faulty, it is completely unnecessary. It only creates unnecessary question for the editor, that has no relative meaning for him, because usually he does not know which style he should use. "I will use quotes, because they look kewl." What I mean is, we can change it back to quotes or to lack of them after we reach the consensus, but this argument has no value at all, therefore it should be removed. Hołek ҉ 10:36, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Yes, make it consistent then settle the debate. Right now readers have to cope with inconsistent formatting. -- Philcha (talk) 11:04, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
No--or at least not until articles that currently use 'quotes=no' are investigated & we convert citations that don't use this template to match. This parameter was added partly to deprecate {{cite journal2}} & I'd hate to have yet another template whose only difference was to not have quotes. --Karnesky (talk) 12:12, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
There is another way it could have been done. If all the wikitexts changed to explicit quotation marks instead of implicit the template could do away with the quotes= parameter. The transition would be brutal, but it could be done through an interim stage that first ensured that every cite had an explicit quotes= value (yes or no). After that was done for all articles, each instance of
{{cite journal|title=The title|quotes=yes}}
could be changed to
{{cite journal|title="The title"|quotes=no}}
Then the template could changed to force quotes=no in all cases, rendering the parameter unnecessary. In a final step the quotes=yes and quotes=no (now irrelevant) could be removed from all the wikitexts. Pretty ugly though.LeadSongDog (talk) 14:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
Agreed that is ugly--it additionally screws up COinS. I think that we should just update the documentation to state that quotes is for compatibility with a deprecated citation template & that use of that parameter in new citations is discouraged and only warranted for maintaining consistency with pre-existing citations in an article. --Karnesky (talk) 15:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
I've now deprecate the quotes option in the documentation. --Salix (talk): 16:57, 31 October 2008 (UTC)

Requiring title[edit]

I just noticed that this template requires the article title (and in fact this is the only required parameter). This parameter should be optional. The name of the journal, volume, and page numbers along with the author's name constitute a complete reference—sufficient information to find the specified article. It is common in academic publishing (at least in physics) not to include the article title in citations. We should not artificially force the title to be entered.--Srleffler (talk) 17:28, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

This is fixed in {{cite journal/sandbox}}:
{{cite journal/sandbox|author=Srleffler}} leads to Srleffler.  Missing or empty |title= (help)
--Karnesky (talk) 19:56, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

url is broken[edit]

The template does not implement the url= part. Please see reference section in equilibrium moisture content. Could someone fix this? Thanks PAR (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

You need to start a URL with http://, I've fixed the article for you. Rjwilmsi 20:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Upper-case parameters are inconsitent with all others[edit]

The recent changes to use {{Citation/core}} inside this template introduced several all-upper-case parameters, which are inconsitent with all other parameters in this and all other {{cite whatever}} templates. They duplicate their all-lower-case equivalents, but the should still be removed - all {{cite whatever}} parameters are all-lower-case, and are documented to be so. RossPatterson (talk) 00:41, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Lower case parameters still work. Additionally allowing upper-case parameters too means that some incorrectly formatted citations will still display correctly. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 23:16, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

"Issue" parameter[edit]

The "issue" parameter does no longer show up in refs in articles, see e.g. ref1 in Corin Nemec. – sgeureka tc 22:31, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

I think there's an issue with your input; it's fine in other articles, see Link's Awakening and Chicxulub crater/. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 00:58, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
Found the culprit. If you use |publisher= instead of |journal=, the issue number no longer shows up. Thanks. – sgeureka tc 01:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate parameter[edit]

Currently the default is the delinked ISO format. If you change this to the American format of November 26, 2008 it will default to the international format of 26 November 2008. Someone needs to allow the American format to show up in the accessdate. Currently only the ISO and international formats are possible. The cite journal template seems to be the only cite template where this is a problem, all the others allow the American date format. And the regular "date" parameter on this template works fine, it's just the accessdate one that has the problem. LonelyMarble (talk) 20:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem is at citation-core metatemplate and so mirrors exactly what {{citation}} does.
Hence {{citation|title=Title|url=http://www.example.org|accessdate= November 26, 2008}}
Gives Title, retrieved November 26, 2008 
Need ask there, not here about that. David Ruben Talk 21:47, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

As another point, the MOS currently requires that the date style in the references section be consistent. Cite journal is currently autoformatting ISO dates while cite web isn't. As a result, consistent use of the ISO format now results in an inconsistent references section. Well, Wikipedia isn't on a dealine, so so long as this is eventually resolved it's not a big deal, but I'd just like to point out that this is still true and it's been awhile. My personal preference is that we should go back to just using and accepting unlinked ISO dates everywhere - it's an international format that's unambiguous and compact, which is helpful in references sections which can tend to get way the heck too long. SnowFire (talk) 16:49, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Personally I concur, and would leave easier autoformating (NB not same as blue linking) if the mediawiki features later improve to allow page-wide settings to be made (ie on date format to be used across a specific article). As it is the 1970-01-01 problem of #time: function recently fixed (putting to rest much of previous debate on technicals aspects - just make sure we don't call pre 1900 yyyy-mm-dd as "ISO" point out defines dates after 1900). David Ruben Talk 19:22, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Given the current climate suggesting consensus to deprecate autoformatting, I think that cite journal should follow in that direction. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 19:59, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
This will be resolved in the next update of Template:Citation/core, which is being proposed at Template talk:Cite web. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:07, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I am unable to discern what the behavior of the accessdate parameter will be after the cnange mentioned by Smith609, even after reading Template talk:Cite web. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing the trailing period if the quote field is used[edit]

I think the period should be suppressed in the quote field is used, otherwise you often end up with you periods; one for the quoted sentence, and one for the whole citation. --Adoniscik(t, c) 20:23, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Should also handle the fact that journal article titles sometimes end in a "?",(eg Ant#cite_note-76) and newspaper articles can presumably even have a terminal "!". Shyamal (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
This'll be easy once changes to Template:Citation/core, proposed at Template talk:Cite web, are incorporated. I'll be happy to code up the modifications when that change is made. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

archiveURL parameter?[edit]

I'm suggesting that this template also incorporate the archiveurl and archivedate parameters, similar to the "Cite web" template. The "Cite journal" template works well for references to magazines and newsletters, and there is often a version of these articles that is posted by the publisher to the web. To prevent linkrot, I usually include a link to an archive version of the articles in these cases. Are there any arguments against this? Cheers, Easchiff(talk) 11:38, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

This version of the sandbox supports such a parameter; if you with to add it, simply copy the sandbox code to Template:Cite journal. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 14:02, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I think only admins (i.e. not myself) can change this template. Easchiff(talk) 14:55, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Even without a template change, it doesn't hurt to provide and populate the archiveURL parameter in the wikisource anyhow. If the main URL does suffer linkrot, the archive is right there waiting for the manual repair. LeadSongDog (talk) 15:28, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
Good point! I've started doing this also. Easchiff(talk) 15:52, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Double language parameter[edit]

Check out this call to Cite journal, which causes the language to be displayed twice:

  • {{Cite journal|journal=Spanish Journal of Things|language=Spanish|date=December 2008|title=Interesting Article}}
  • "Interesting Article". Spanish Journal of Things (in Spanish). December 2008. 
Pagrashtak 20:20, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
The prob appears to have been caused by a recent change to citation/core that had been implemented for some proposed fixes/changes for the {{cite book}} wrapper. The portion of those changes apparently causing the double-display of |language= parameter for cite journal calls (also caused |format= to display twice) has been backed out, and the issue seems fixed for now. See also discussion here. --cjllw ʘ TALK 08:18, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. With this template (and others to follow I would presume) using Citation/core, I wonder if it's time to deprecate this talk page. Pagrashtak 14:55, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

Add interwiki[edit]

Someone can add interwiki pt (potuguese) Predefinição:Cite_journal. Jcegobrain (talk) 13:25, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

That appears to be deprecated, so I added pt:Predefinição:Citar periódico instead. Please note that the documentation is not protected, so you can add these links yourself if you wish. Pagrashtak 14:20, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

accessdate now showing up[edit]

I just used this template, and I noticed that the accessdate field doesn't show up in the ref link section yet it is clearly and correctly filled in. Is there any reason why it's not showing up? El Greco(talk) 23:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

adding "issuename"[edit]

In this source, the issue is called "Traduction pour les enfants / Translation for children", but there is no param to put the issue name. It would be very good for context if the issue name appeared on the reference, since it's a source for the problems on the russian translation of Harry Potter. Suggestions on how to add the issue name in a sensible way? Should I simply put in on the "issue" parameter? --Enric Naval (talk) 23:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the |issue= parameter is appropriate here. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 04:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Horizontal[edit]

Can we state explicitly that horizontal lay out is preferred. Thanks. --Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:15, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

Leading stray period when no author or title[edit]

This citation, taken from Water fluoridation:

{{cite journal |journal=JAMA |volume=281 |issue=16 |pages=1481 |year=1999 |doi=10.1001/jama.281.16.1481 |pmid=10227303}}

generates output that contains a stray period at the start. Here's what it currently generates:

JAMA 281 (16): 1481. 1999. doi:10.1001/jama.281.16.1481. PMID 10227303. 

Can someone please fix this? Thanks. We don't want the author or title in this citation, because it's the same author and title as the previous citation and we merely want to draw readers' attention to the reprint in JAMA. Eubulides (talk) 08:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

On it: the change will have to be requested at Template:Citation/core. I may have to ask you to help test the fix, as I only have time to write the code. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 13:46, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Rendering problem[edit]

Reference 11 in Nemesysco (Eriksson, Lacerda) is rendered wrong, displaying strings like UNIQ174fb445295d998f-nowiki-0000005A-QINU and sometimes crashing my Firefox. I show the same below too, but it seems to render fine here.

For me, it displays like is in the article:

  1. ^ Eriksson, AndersUNIQ174fb445295d998f-nowiki-0000005A-QINUFrancisco Lacerda (2007). "Charlantry in forensic speech science: A problem to be taken seriously". International Journal of Speech Language and the Law (Equinox Publishing) 14 (2)UNIQ174fb445295d998f-nowiki-0000005B-QINU 169-193. :UNIQ174fb445295d998f-nowiki-0000005C-QINU. http://www.scribd.com/doc/9673590/Eriksson-Lacerda-2007. Retrieved on 2 February 2009.

--Apoc2400 (talk) 20:53, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ditto here. I'm seeing the problem on multiple articles, including Electron. I can't even tell if my edits to the citations were okay. Whatever change was just made, please revert it.—RJH (talk) 21:30, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I just wrote the article. It seems to have been fixed when I removed an empty publisher= field.--Apoc2400 (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

It seems to be fixed. See Wikipedia:VPT#Am_I_going_crazy.3F. Just purge the affected page and it will be ok. --Apoc2400 (talk) 21:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Template no longer accepts "work" parameter after switch to cite/core[edit]

Prior to the switch to cite/core, this template accepted either "journal" or "work" parameters for the name of the periodical. It looks like the template now accepts "journal", "periodical", "newspaper", or "magazine", but not "work". There are a lot of articles that were using the "work" parameter. I think that in order to fix this all you need to do is replaces all instances of...
{{{journal|{{{periodical|{{{newspaper|{{{magazine|}}}}}}}}}}}}
with...
{{{journal|{{{periodical|{{{newspaper|{{{magazine|{{{work|}}}}}}}}}}}}}}}
But I'm not 100% sure on that. Kaldari (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

I think "work" is an incorrect parameter to place the title of a journal in. A possible use for "work" that I could imagine is the collected works of some author. You could use "article" for the article title, "journal" for the journal title, and "work" for the book in which the author's works have been republished. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 22:37, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It looks like the work alias was added in August 2008 by Happy-melon. There are no telling how many articles have used it since then. If we want to remove it as an option, we need to do a bot run to fix all the incorrect uses first. In the meantime, I've added it back as an option so that those citations aren't broken. Kaldari (talk) 22:43, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Compatibility with Template:Cite paper[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please replace

  |Series={{{series|}}}

with

  |Series={{{series|{{{version|}}}}}}

to allow {Cite Paper} to redirect here (as per its talk page). Parameter defaults are okay in this instance as the two parameters are mutually exclusive. This won't affect the current functioning of the template in any way. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 15:15, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

I added the parameter. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I object to the change because the version parameter at Cite paper is not adequately documented, and there is no documentation at Cite journal for either parameter. We shouldn't have undocumented parameters. At the very least, the documentation should say the parameter is depricated (if indeed it is) and what it should be replaced with when an editor gets around to it. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:54, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Nothing prevents you from updating documentation yourself if you are not satisfied with it. Ruslik (talk) 19:52, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. The person asking for the parameter to be added should be responsible for adding documentation of that parameter since they are ostensibly in the best position to know what the parameter is for. This habit of adding parameters willy-nilly without proper documentation has caused innumerable headaches on Wikipedia. We can avoid a lot of problems in the long run by making sure that proper documentation is added to begin with. If none of the people that support adding this parameter are willing to add documentation, the parameter should not be added. Kaldari (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

RfC: May undocumented parameters be added to templates?[edit]

Resolved

In particular, is it appropriate to add the version parameter to this template with no documentation, and despite an objection on the talk page? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 20:50, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Fixed. You may wish to note that the template's documentation page is not protected, so you can document parameters yourself. In many cases (e.g. title, version) the parameter name is so self-explanatory that no documentation may be necessary. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 21:07, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I am not aware of any guideline that says that allparameters should be documented. Some of the parameters may be used only for limited purposes like template forwarding. Such parameters should not normally be used and therefore should not be documented. Ruslik (talk) 21:16, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
NOT FIXED. For one thing, merely listing the name of the parameter, and parroting the name of the parameter in the description, does not constitute documentation.
Furthermore, series and version are not actually synonymous. According to the 14th edition of Chicago Manual of Style p. 576, "As in the case of book series, some journals have attained such longevity that they have begun a new series of volumes or issues. Identification of the series (n.s., 2d ser., 3d ser., ser. b) must be made in citations to these journals." That does not sound anything like a version to me. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Ruslik0 that a parameter that is not intended to be entered by an editor does not necessarily have to be documented in the documentation of a template that calls another template. But the template that ultimately interprets the parameter should document it.--Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
Version parameter is not intended to be entered by an editor who uses cite journal template. So it should not be documented here. This parameter is only necessary for compatibility with (would be deprecated) cite paper template. Ruslik (talk) 21:34, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Please explain why it is proper for this template to treat two different things, series and version, as synonyms? Furthermore, if an editor notices that Cite paper has been redirected here, and wants to stop using Cite paper because it seems to be out of favor, how is the editor supposed to decide which Cite journal parameter to use instead of version? --Gerry Ashton (talk) 21:38, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

They're not synonyms, but they will never be used at the same time. If there was a need to use both in the same citation, someone would have proposed the 'version' parameter here before, or 'cite paper' would have a 'series' parameter. And if you feel that the documentation is insufficient, it's probably quicker for you to fix it than it is for you to tell us that it's inadequate. If you're incapable of this, then perhaps you could spell out what more it is necessary to add for somebody to be able to use the template. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 01:50, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
First of all, my understanding is that once the redirect occurs, an editor who encounters a Cite paper template will be directed to the Cite journal documentation, so an explaination of why the editor found herself at Cite journal is required, and possibly documentation of the version parameter. Second, I would like to know why the series parameter was created, and whether what I found in the Chicigao Manual of Style matches what was intended by whoever added it. Finally, I don't know why the version parameter exists, and the few mentions of it on the Cite paper talk page seem wrong; one example gives "version=PhD thesis" which is clearly wrong. If the version parameter has only been used incorrectly, and there are no correct usages, maybe it shouldn't be supported at all. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 02:09, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
Not Fixed. If the version parameter is only for compatibility with Cite paper, it should say that in the documentation. Why do we have to make everything so mysterious? Kaldari (talk) 06:37, 15 February 2009 (UTC)
I Have documented "series" and "version" as best I can. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. That's much better. Kaldari (talk) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

Semicolons?[edit]

The template currently seems to put a semicolon after the first author (if the |coauthors= parameter is filled). Should that be changed to a comma? rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 15:20, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

That one is debatable. A lot of people prefer the semi-colon since the first author's name usually already has a comma in it: "Doe, John". Traditional citations styles, however, usually use just a comma between author names even though it's sometimes confusing. Kaldari (talk) 17:56, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, that's true. I first noticed this because my refs were showing up like "Last, First; First Last, First Last, First Last," and it seemed weird to separate the first author out from the coauthors like that. I just went though and manually put in semicolons in my |coauthors= list, though, which is probably a simpler solution than going to the trouble of changing the template. rʨanaɢ talk/contribs 18:59, 20 February 2009 (UTC)
As at Cite book, the argument against a comma is the confusion caused; compare:
  • James, Darren; Ross, Peter; Clement, Andrew
  • James, Darren, Ross, Peter, Clement, Andrew
It's better to use the first# and last# parameters to ensure consistent formatting and to make the metadata more accessible - this is a more robust solution than editing 'coauthors'. Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 00:46, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Abbreviations "Vol." and "No."[edit]

Hi. Is there a way to include "Vol.", "No." (or "Iss.") in the template (other than simply filling it in, which is likely to be removed by Wikifiers sooner or later)? I'd like to use the template for quite a while, but I still have doubts that normal readers will understand abbreviated forms such as "11 (6)". IMO this is not reader-friendly. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 13:27, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why would editors remove the |volume= and |issue= parameters from the citation template? — Cheers, JackLee talk 15:56, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
If I understand, GPM is taking issue with our house style which this template implements, rather than with the implementing template itself. The venue for that discussion should be Wikipedia talk:Citing sources, though I think we'll find the succinct form is the one that wins out in a discussion. It's used in most major stylebooks. LeadSongDog (talk) 16:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
There is no house style. "Wikipedia talk:Citing sources" does not favor any style over another. Requiring issue and volume to be in any particular format would be new territory for "Citing sources". If you mean a standard way to do it among the Cite XXX and Citation templates, there is no one place to discuss that. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:49, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
GPM wants things to show up:
Powder Ma, Gun (2009-03-02). "What's the matter with the cite journal template?". Journal of discussion of journal citation templates. Vol. 11 (No. 6). 
and is concerned that the "Vol." and "No." bits will get removed by other editors, so GPM wants "Vol." and "No." to either be added by the template by default, or to have an option to turn them on. KellenT 17:41, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
It is certainly possible to use volume=Vol. 3|issue=Iss. 4<!-- please leave redundant Vol. and Iss. per talk --> with an explanation on the talk page, but it is not at all like other articles on WP and other editors would be well justified in arguing against that choice or simply in realizing the advice implicit in "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Examining Wikipedia:Citing sources/example style one finds a list of other widely used style guides including the APA, MLA, and Turabian, none of which use such notation. The only time I can think of that I'd even consider it is where the title ends in a numeral, to avoid having such fragile and ambiguous constructs as
Jones, W. "A paper". Journal of World War 1 2(3) p.45
but this situation is a rare one.LeadSongDog (talk) 20:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Yes, Kellen, that's what I am arguing for. Can we arrange that in the existing template, or can we create an otherwise identical subtemplate which shows "Vol.", "Iss." and/or "No."? I am aware that the current abbreviated style is often used in scientific works, but we are here really dealing with a much broader audience and many of our readers do not have a formal academic training. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
The mistaken assumption here is that there is a connection with "scientific works". The same form is used in the humanities too, perhaps with more regularity. I see no reason why we should assume that a reader's ability to understand citations undergoes changes as they click the "Random article" link. Also, even though WP is not paper, people do indeed print copies of articles. Verbosity without value wastes trees and toner, not just time.LeadSongDog (talk) 21:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Actually, there is nothing mistaken: JSTOR, one of the largest, most advanced and influential data bases for online journals worldwide, uses consistently the following scheme: Martin Beckmann: The "Columnae Coc(h)lides" of Trajan and Marcus Aurelius, Phoenix, Vol. 56, No. 3/4, (Autumn - Winter, 2002), pp. 348-357
If you like, I can look also up MUSE, ESCO, PAO and a number of other online journal data bases to verify that scholars and laymen alike indeed value complete citations. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:52, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion to use auto-archiving bot for this talk page[edit]

I would like to make a suggestion that this talk page be automatically archived, using a bot, such as {{Werdnabot}}. This would be a time-saver, since this page can fill up fast. Any objections? Thanks. --Funandtrvl (talk) 00:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Nope! — Cheers, JackLee talk 10:35, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Done. -- Fullstop (talk) 17:49, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Thank you again! --Funandtrvl (talk) 19:37, 16 March 2009 (UTC)