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:

    |url= and |chapterurl=, with |archiveurl= etc.[edit]

    Both the main url and a chapterurl are set. Both items were long gone, but are archived in wayback. But there is only one |archiveurl= but needs also |archivechapterurl= (or |chapterarchiveurl=).

    {{citation | last1 = NSO | author1link = Philippine Statistics Authority#National Statistics Office | last2 = Census of Population (1995, 2000 and 2007) | title = Total Population by Province, City and Municipality | url = https://web.archive.org/web/20110709064029/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/p000000.pd%66 | chapter = Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS) | chapterurl = http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/h070000.pd%66 | archiveurl = https://web.archive.org/web/20110624035646/http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/h070000.pd%66 | archivedate = {{date|24 jun 2011}} }}

    NSO; Census of Population (1995, 2000 and 2007), "Region VII (CENTRAL VISAYAS)", Total Population by Province, City and Municipality, archived from the original on 24 June 2011 

    Use of |deadurl= doesn't make any difference. And even though both url and chapterurl are gone, the legend "archived from original" has the original url is 'live'. (talk) 22:49, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

    Perhaps the best solution to this problem is to split the single citation into two so that you can have original and archive urls for both. That might also allow you to use the other parameter correctly: 'Census of Population (1995, 2000 and 2007)' is not an author name; don't put it in an author name parameter. Remember that cs1|2 templates are designed to render a single citation for a single source.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
    Personally, I think that only the most specific url, if archived, would be sufficient. The aim is to provide a citation supporting information included in the encyclopedia, not to provide a convenient set of links to information resources. That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to having 'archive' urls for each of the specific url types included in various citation templates. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:43, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    Registration or subscription needed[edit]

    Currently I understand the “subscription” parameter accepts only a true/false value, correct? But many scholarly sources, especially medical journals, provide a free abstract but require payment to view the full text.

    Therefore, I propose a new value “fulltext” (aliases: “full text” or “full-text”) for the “subscription” parameter. If somebody puts “{{cite|author=author|title=title|work=journal title|url=URL|date=date|subscription=full text}},” then it should say that payment is required to view the whole article. 2600:1003:B015:319D:0:50:8948:D601 (talk) 16:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)

    I think that updating the documentation to say that a preview or an abstract may be available, but that access to the full source requires subscription or registration, would be a better enhancement. – Jonesey95 (talk) 02:02, 9 August 2016 (UTC)
    I agree with Jonsey95, but in broader terms. Typically, the real situation is that there is a paywall, that you don't need a subscription to buy the article. Nowadays, 'subscription' rarely applies to online resources but remains very true for offline sources. I would actually like to see the introduction of 'paywall' as a yes/no value. Now, the broader context - often for pay resources you might not, in fact, get an abstract, but the first 100 words; this is true of newspaper archives and some live newspapers that require subscription or payment for timed article access. Another type of 'only the first one is free' is that some news outlets allow 3 to 5 articles free each month and all after that require subscription or payment-as-accessed. So, might be good to have an overall review of the most common non-free access schemes and see what might be the best combination of current or new fields would be good to use to accommodate communication of these to end users in an easily understandable manner. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:34, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    I should have included the distinction between free and paid subscriptions as well. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:38, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    Why |year= instead of |date= when using Simple citation?[edit]

    Using |date= is recommended unless several conditions are met, and on most pages they are not. Unless I'm missing something |date= is better since one can state either the full date or just the year, as needed. --Middle 8 (tc | privacyCOI) 12:19, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

    Because it's simpler to provide a year than a full date. Hence "simple citation". – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:54, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
    However, if 'date' can take a year value and not throw an error, simplicity suggests using only one field. Wonder if there is a way to display 'year' and mean that you are adding a value to the 'date' field? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:26, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

    Display of access date[edit]

    Would anyone support a proposal to hide (but not remove) the access date field? The field is useful to editors, but not so much to the average reader, so it tends to clutter up references unnecessarily. They also tend not to reflect the actual last access date, just the last time an editor bothered to update it. As a result, I, and I'd suspect a number of other editors, often actually remove access dates when I'm cleaning up references. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 21:18, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

    Not a good practice to just remove access dates because you don't like them. They have value else they would not have been made part of cs1|2 as they are are similarly used by the published style guides that informed cs1|2 development. If you don't want to see them in rendered articles, see Help:Citation_Style_1/accessdate.
    Trappist the monk (talk) 21:28, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
    Not only is it "not a good practice", it's contrary to WP:CITEVAR if there's a consistent citation style. Removing access dates is quite unacceptable. Peter coxhead (talk) 01:08, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Don't mean to pile on, but I agree, removing this information isn't a good idea. I do agree, though, that the value of the information is very variable. It would be really cool if we had a link-check-bot that slowly ran through all of the external links and updated the last access date or, as appropriate, labeled a link as dead. I seem to remember that there is, in fact, something like this available. Anyone know more about this? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
    Bots should not update accessdate, because they can only tell if the link is still active, they can't tell if the web page still supports the claim in the article. Jc3s5h (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2016 (UTC)


    Could a |page-url= or a similar parameter be added? I'd like to link the section number in {{Smyth}}, and the template does not currently allow it. — Eru·tuon 01:26, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Clarification: Smyth's Greek Grammar for colleges is organized in three chapters. I'm using |chapter= for the chapters, and since |chapter= and |section= are considered the same thing, there is no url parameter left for the section numbers. Hope this makes sense... — Eru·tuon 01:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    I don't see why you need two URLs. Use |chapterurl=. --Redrose64 (talk) 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Redrose64, that's not what I meant: I wanted the section to be linked. But I decided to just put the link directly into the |at= parameter, so the problem is sort of solved. Still, it seems like the template should have a URL parameter corresponding to the |page= or |pages= parameter... — Eru·tuon 07:16, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    I don't see us doing this without we create enumerated |pagen= and |pagesn= with matching enumerated |page-urln= and |pages-urln=, and deprecate the current use of |pages= where heretofore editors have been able to list multiple pages in a free-form fashion: |pages=2, 13–15, 19, 21. To which of these would |page-url= apply?
    Trappist the monk (talk) 10:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Yes, it may seem a good idea to have |page-url=, but actually it's not. There may be a case for |at-url=, though, since in this case it would be clear that the whole of the value of |at= would be the text of the link. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:20, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    Trappist the monk, I see what you mean, because I have encountered this problem trying to convert refs in Ancient Greek grammar to the template {{Smyth}}. When there's a range of pages, there isn't an appropriate URL to link to. — Eru·tuon 18:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

    Protected edit request on 23 November 2016[edit]

    Please add (full stop) after the phrase terminal punctuation is a period (under "mode") in the documentation at Template:Citation#Display options—both for the sake of differing US-UK terminology and to make the relevant part more easily searchable in the page (since searching for period also yields all instances of periodical). —Sangdeboeuf (talk) 19:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

    Template:Citation/doc is not protected, so this does not need to be handled as a protected edit request. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:21, 23 November 2016 (UTC)