Template talk:Ibid

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

Too long[edit]

This template is too verbose, and consequently takes too much space on the page. I've done some work to reduce it to a more sensible length, but about half of what I removed has been reinstated. All we really need to do is to say that such notations are unacceptable, and to link to an explanation of how they should be done. If the template is too large, there will be opposition to using it, at all. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually it's quite terse. It's hard enough to get people to read linked pages. The template should frame the issue with at least some rationale and explanation. The current template is about the same size as, for example, {{story}}, {{capitalization}}, {{gameguide}} etc., and significantly shorter than, for example, {{notability}}, {{Blpdispute}}, {{fictionlist}}. I appreciate your effort in reducing the size, and incorporated quite a few of your reduction edits, but we don't need to bowdlerize all meaning in the interest of extreme terseness. The idea that this template is so long that there will be opposition to using it strikes me as nothing but a bald-faced assertion.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 04:16, 27 October 2008 (UTC)
I bowdlerised nothing. While those templates may occupy the same space, they need and use it to explain what is required; none of those I've looked at take up space with redundant and tautological verbosity such as "because of difficulty in keeping them consistent over time." or hypothetical justifications like "Such notations may be broken by later footnote additions, and many readers are unfamiliar with their meaning". My comments were based on experience of using and discussing cleanup templates elsewhere, but if you want to worry about bald-faced (sic) assertion, what about "It's hard enough to get people to read linked pages"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 22:21, 28 October 2008 (UTC)
As the user who suggested this template in the first place, I've had a go at rewording it. Actually, Andy, the template's "hypothetical justifications" you referred to above are from the footnote guidelines themselves, and have been on that page for at least a year (did you not follow the link to read the guidelines?<w>). Anyway, I hope my changes will be acceptable to all... - dcljr (talk) 04:30, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
Indeed; and those hypothetical justifications belong on that page, not in this template, I've made some further, minor changes, as did another editor, before me. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 13:19, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
I've added a sandbox for us to fiddle with the wording more without affecting all the transclusions. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:40, 1 November 2008 (UTC)

what?[edit]

this template is a joke. Let people either change the abbreviations they object to (e.g. use find-replace), or comment no talk. Disfiguring an article with a warning box to the effect "readers please note, somebody at some point objected to some abbreviation used somewhere in this article" isn't good practice. If we absolutely need this template, make it a talkpage template. --dab (𒁳) 06:28, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree. It should be in the "References" section or on the Talk page, but certainly not at the top of the article. Or it could be deleted altogether, since anyone who wants to fix the relevant problem can use the Search button on "Ibid" etc just as easily as Whatlinkshere on this Template. And has this page been publicized anywhere since it went live, or are you waiting for more would-be objectors to stumble upon it before responding to our objections? And the name is rather cryptic.
There is a more general issue of cleanup templates being placed on the article when they are of benefit only to editors, not readers. IMO all such templates should be on the Talk: page. jnestorius(talk) 13:38, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
In my opinion mainspace templates of this kind should only be used for the most important or even essential issues that are directly related to reliability of articles to readers. The use of "ibid" etc does not touch core reliability of an article, hence this template should NOT EVER be used in the article space; if it were used it should be used on talk pages. Arnoutf (talk) 22:41, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

OK the template wording isn't clear then. It's not that ibid shoud be ibidendum or whatever, but that there is a fundamental problem with using construct such as ibid in footnotes in a dynamic environment; that is that removing the first reference to the work, or in some inserting a new ref between the first and the ibid will leave all those ibids ans op. cit.s either dangling or more likely referring to the wrong work, and no one will know - this goes to the core of having well referenced articles. This may indeed have already happened, which is one reason why automated removal of ibid is not an option.

Further the articles are all placed in the clean-up queue by the addition of this template, so that they should all be addressed in time, whereas using "search" will not have that benefit.

As far as putting clean-up templates at end of the article for on the talk page, I am in agreement with these ideas, but that is not consensus: Only {{uncategorized}} goes at the end, and some of the templates are added to talk pages (such as {{locateme}}) however it would be possible to move the template to the references section. Rich Farmbrough, 11:44 22 January 2009 (UTC).

I have no objection to the template per se. However it should definitely not appear on articles. Its proper place is on article talk pages. And if there is no consensus to put it there, then it should not be used at all. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:25, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't read Dbachmann's original post carefully enough. To clarify: I did understand the purpose of the template was to remove the ibid, not to dis-abbreviate it. The rest of my comment then stands. It is as easy to maintain the cleanup queue as a listpage under Wikipedia:WikiProject Citation cleanup rather than adding and deleting this ridiculous template to articles. I also think that whatever consensus there was for the original policy, there does not seem to be any consensus for this template, if discussion at Wikipedia talk:Footnotes#ibid., op. cit. and loc. cit. is anything to go by. jnestorius(talk) 00:49, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

Bot automation[edit]

Who asked for, or authorised bot addition of this template???? Arnoutf (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

It has stopped Arnoutf (talk) 16:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Op. cit. is unacceptable?[edit]

Is it OK to remove op. cit. as an abbreviation listed in the template because WP:MOS says it is less of a problem than Ibid.? PleaseStand (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I've just scoured WP:MOS and WP:CS to no avail: there is no mention whatsoever of a policy regarding repeated citations (i.e op. cit. and ibid.). So what's this template about, then ? Urhixidur (talk) 20:14, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Ah, here it is, in WP:FOOT. Urhixidur (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

op. cit.[edit]

In June of 2009, I made this edit to WP:FOOT softening the discouragement of op. cit., and explaining why. Nobody has objected. I suggest that mention of op. cit. be removed from this template, or at least that it not be grouped with ibid. and loc. cit. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 03:21, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

Having seen no objectiveion, I've modified the template to tone down the discouragement of the op. cit. construct. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 21:26, 26 March 2010 (UTC)
Having two extra lines for this is a bit excessive. Simply removing it from the "discouraged" section should be enough. I've removed the detail which took this template to four lines long on my screen resolution. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 19:35, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
Op. cit. is just as dangerous, and moreover, risks becoming plausible. For example I add "Cunnigham op. cit." to refer to "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham (at work) and someone removes that, a third person now inserts "All the Worlds Mobsters" by Chris Cunningham (not at work), and suddenly there is something that will raise no eyebrows. This is particularly likely in niche fields where "Gilroy, Poppingham and Masters" may have published annually on the subject together. Maybe we need a concerted drive to actually fix these articles up. But automation is really needed to find when the ibid, loc cit or op cit was inserted. Rich Farmbrough, 07:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC).
WP:CITE#Citation styles and consistency says that editors should follow the established style when editing established articles. Two common styles in articles which use footnotes are "Repeated full references" and "Shortened footnotes", with the former often mixed with footnoted cites using Op. cit. (with or without actually uttering the intellectualizing abbreviated latinism "Op. cit.").
Example: Repeated full references
35. "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham p.12
45. "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham p.34
56. "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham p.56
Example: Full References mixed with Op. cit. (uttered)
35. "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham p.12
45. Op. cit. Cunningham p.34
56. Op. cit. Cunningham p.56
Example: Full references mixed with Op. cit. (not uttered)
35. "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham p.12
45. Cunningham p.34
56. Cunningham p.56
Example: Shortened footnotes
35. Cunningham p.12
45. Cunningham p.34
56. Cunningham p.56
References
  • "All the Worlds Monsters" by Chris Cunningham
All of the examples above are often fancied up with publication-date info, etc., and they often vary in format (e.g., author-first ordering -- often as Last, First).
The shortened reference examples above are often enhanced with internal links between the shortened references and the associated full citation (which, being unrepeated, lacks redundancy) .
All of the examples above except Repeated full references will be broken if someone changes Monsters to Mobsters in one place where it appears.
All of the shortened examples above differ from and have an advantage over Ibid. and Loc. cit. in that they explicitly refer to a particular cited work. This template warns about "easily broken" citation techniques. I submit that Op. cit., properly done -- i.e., referring explicitly to a particular cited work, is no more easily broken than Shortened footnotes.
Personally, I think that Op. cit., uttered or not, is ugly, and I tend to avoid it where I have the flexibility to do so. However, I think that repeated full citations are uglier, and tend to opt in favor of Op. cit. (uttered or not) over that where I have the flexibility to do so but do not have the flexibility to use shortened footnotes.
The question at issue here is whether or not this template should deprecate Op. cit. alongside Ibid. and Loc. cit. I opine that it should not. If it should, should Shortened footnotes, which shares the problem you point out with Op. cit (uttered or not), also be demonized? Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 23:59, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NameIsRon, 26 October 2010[edit]

{{edit protected}} There is a link in the Ibid template that is incorrect.
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once|named references]]
needs to be changed to:
[[Wikipedia:Footnotes#Reference name (naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once)|named references]]

Alternatively, an anchor (e.g., "Naming a ref tag so it can be used more than once", or something shorter but appropriately suggestive -- perhaps just "named references") -- could be defined within Wikipedia:Footnotes to protect the Ibid template against further edits in Wikipedia:Footnotes.

Explanation: Currently, if someone sees the "Constructs such as ibid. and loc. cit. are discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes..." note on a page, and tries to follow the link associated with the words "named references", they are simply taken to the top of the "Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes)" article, and would have to navigate within the article on their own. The conventions/guidelines/rules regarding footnotes in Wikipedia are confusing enough without giving people ineffective links to the current documentation.

I do not believe this suggested change would be controversial, because it appears that at one time the link was correct, but someone later changed the heading of the pertinent section of Wikipedia:Footnotes and failed to edit the Ibid template to match, thus breaking the link in the Ibid template.

N.B.: There is another link in the Ibid template associated with the phrase "quick guide", but I cannot tell if it is going to the correct place or not because the text it takes us to (Template:Refref) doesn't seem to relate to the subject matter (footnotes, abbreviations, manual of style, etc.) I would say that this second link is probably pointing to the wrong place, but I don't know what was intended so I can't suggest a better destination for this "quick guide" link.

NameIsRon (talk) 04:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

(partially done) I placed an {{anchor}} in the renamed target section in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (footnotes) (alias WP:Footnotes). I used the longish target name as given here as there may be other wikilinks out there trying to target that name.
The Template:Refref doesn't look like it's doing what is expected here, but I didn't have time to look at that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:06, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done I reverted Template:Refref back to an earlier version which appears to work as desired. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 06:52, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

This Is Another Template That Encourages Laziness[edit]

In my opinion there are far too many templates that allow an editor, often using a bot or AWB, to identify a "problem" but do nothing to fix it. If a reference should be fixed, an editor should not be able to tag the reference and leave it for someone else to fix. No one should be offended if a drive-by repair is made rather that a drive-by tag.

This is also a template that will cause "false-positives". Some kind editor will fix the references but will not remove the template. I noticed the template on Uzziah when I was there checking on some chronology and noticed that the references appeared to be in order. I went back through the history, found when the template had been placed and found when the references had been fixed so that I could give that information in my edit summary when I removed the template. That took longer than finding the article and checking the chronology.

It would be a fine example of personal responsibility if those who dearly love this template would go through the articles where it has been placed and delete from the false positives. I could do it and would but I don't think this template should exist at all. JimCubb (talk) 18:32, 25 December 2010 (UTC)

Category?[edit]

Since the problem this template asks to address is simple to fix, what would people think of adding a category:articles_with_ibid or such so they will all be listed in one place for people who want to go through and fix them (instead of being mixed in with general clean up)? RJFJR (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Yeah. I thought something similar... But as you are able to use "what links here" within the template and get a looong list to work on ;) mabdul 11:08, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
I want to eliminate the backlog of ~2300 articles (starting with the oldest edit) (until next year), so it would be nice getting a new/separate category like:
  • Ibid-tagged articles since Month-Year
  • or category:articles_with_ibid_since_Month-Year or similar
mabdul 16:24, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Okay, shall I replace Category:Articles needing cleanup from XXX with Category:Articles with ibid from XXX and Category:All pages needing cleanup with Category:All articles with ibid? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:45, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes, please. mabdul 20:31, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Just to clarify: not replacing the whole Category:All pages needing cleanup --> the article tagged with other templates shouldn't in Category:All articles with ibid. *g* mabdul 20:37, 7 June 2011 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, could you create the required categories? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:13, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Thanks. Yes I will today or at least tomorrow. mabdul 09:47, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

Idem[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Add in idem which is essentially the same as ibid.Smallman12q (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2011 (UTC)

Done. --Closedmouth (talk) 10:08, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Fix needed[edit]

{{Editrequested}}

Please fix this template by changing |cat-date= to |cat=. This template is based on {{Ambox}}, which does not take "cat-date", but combines the functions of "cat" and "date" in "cat". Debresser (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Already done by Rich Farmbrough. Reaper Eternal (talk) 21:16, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Template:Opcit listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

Information.svg

I asked for a discussion to address the redirect Template:Opcit. Since the editors who participate here may have had some involvement with the Template:Opcit redirect, you might want to participate in the redirect discussion. GoingBatty (talk) 17:47, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Actual mention (of discouragement)[edit]

It says "discouraged by Wikipedia's style guide for footnotes"

But where exactly in that link is ibid etc discouraged or even discussed? I can't find a mention at all!

Could it be that the link supplied by the template needs to be updated? Or could it even be that ibid etc used to be discouraged but is no longer so...? 213.112.134.102 (talk) 18:37, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Maybe the link should be updated to be WP:IBID? GoingBatty (talk) 01:24, 24 September 2013 (UTC)