Template talk:Cite news/Archive 3

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

Position of quotation marks[edit]

Unresolved: Question not answered.

Hi guys,

before eventually editing the code I would like to ask: is it intentional that the quotation marks enclose the whole [...] tag rather than just the title? This, of course, causes the external link image to be visualized inside quotes. Thanks --Gennaro Prota•Talk 12:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

I believe it is an accident of history, not a deliberate action. RossPatterson 22:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
modify the template?[edit]

How about having an optional publisher2 or wire service parameter? Bwrs (talk) 08:40, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Use "work" for the wire part, and "publisher" for the publication that used it. --Adoniscik(t, c) 22:55, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Volume/issue for magazines[edit]

Unresolved: Consensus discussion on this has stalled, but it needs resolution.

As there is no specific template for Magazines, I assume this is the one to use for citing magazines. If this is the case is it possible to add an ISSUE parameter for use by magazines, as this is at the moment missing? Cheers Lethaniol 16:41, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Try {{cite journal}} instead. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 16:43, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Have read that cite journal is for academic use only, due to the way it is formatted – see Wikipedia talk:Citation templates#Magazines? and it says at cite journal "cite journal is for formatting references to articles in academic journals in a consistent and legible manner." Ideally Magazines should be somewhere else I should think, and they have much more in common with News – e.g. Magazine like the The Economist. Lethaniol 16:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Well, technically, both formats can be used. I've seen numerous cases where magazines were cited giving only a date rather without volume/issues. Circeus 21:06, 23 December 2006 (UTC)
Let's just borrow code from {{Cite journal}} and (if necessary) some new code, to enable volume and number parameters, and an issue parameter. This would once and for all end any confusion about whether to use {{Cite news}} or {{Cite journal}} for magazines, probably much to the pleasure of {{Cite journal}} people. We would need both volume/number and issue because different publications use different systems (and need them at all, because not all publications make it apparent at all what date they were published. For example, I subscribe to Cook's Country, a cooking magazine, and it never has a publication date in it anywhere, making it impossible to cite that magazine with this template. After this is done, it would be wise to have {{Cite magazine}} and {{Cite mag}} redirects go to {{Cite news}} to prevent any further confusion. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:37, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
Alternatively, use volume/issue, and document that "issue" can mean either "issue within a volume" if used with "volume" or "issue since the first one" for publications that don't use volume numbers. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Volume/issue, redux[edit]


This has been requested before: could someone please add an option volume and issue parameter for citing printed media? (Yes, we could use {{cite journal}} for this, but that is not correct if you're not actually citing a scholarly journal. Thanks, Lewis Collard! (natter) 06:38, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Seems reasonable. It would speed things up if you write and test the code in a sandbox somewhere. CMummert · talk 12:05, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
I'm thinking that's not my job. Lewis Collard! (natter) 00:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
Everyone here is a volunteer – it's nobody's job. So if you are particularly interested in a new template feature, but refuse to write and test code, you have to wait until someone else makes time to do it. In this case it won't be hard to write the code but requires thorough testing, which takes some time. CMummert · talk 02:14, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
I take back my previous comment. (Was tired and cranky at the time. ;/) Lewis Collard! (natter) 12:35, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
With over 20,000 transclusions, there should probably some testing first : – ) . Also the new code doesn't need to include so many spaces. Also, I'm not sure the documentation needs to be included in the actual template hidden in comments. That could probably be removed also. Cheers. --MZMcBride 15:34, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

This code contains "volume" and "issue" copied directly from {{cite journal}} and placed below "pages", just like {{cite journal}}. I've also removed all HTML comments and other spaces that could be safely removed. It reduced the overall size from 3,998 bytes → 2,088 bytes, though the code is not nearly as pretty now. Note: This code has not been tested. Cheers. --MZMcBride 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

I think it would be worthwhile to have a page with test cases for important templates like this that exercise all the features and can be consulted whenever changes are made (or can be copied and used to test drafts). I'll work on it. CMummert · talk 02:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
| {{#if:{{{authorlink|}}}
| [[{{{authorlink}}}|{{#if:{{{last|}}}
| {{{last}}}{{#if:{{{first|}}}| , {{{first}}} }}
| {{{author}}}
| {{#if:{{{last|}}}
| {{{last}}}{{#if:{{{first|}}}| , {{{first}}} }}
| {{{author}}}
| {{#if:{{{coauthors|}}} | , {{{coauthors}}} }}. 
| [{{{url}}} {{{title}}}] 
| {{{title}}}
}}{{#if:{{{curly|}}}|”|"}}{{#if:{{{format|}}}|  ({{{format}}}) 
| , ''{{{work}}}''}}{{#if:{{{publisher|}}}
| , {{{publisher}}}
| , {{{date}}}
  | '''{{{volume}}}'''
  | ({{{issue}}})
| , pp. {{{pages}}}
| , p. {{{page}}}
| . {{{id}}}
| . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]
|  (in {{{language|}}})
|  “{{{quote}}}”
}}|Template error: argument '''title''' is required.}}<span class="Z3988" title="ctx_ver=Z39.88–2004<!--
-->{{#if:{{{first|}}}| &rft.aufirst={{urlencode:{{{first}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{last|}}}| &rft.aulast={{urlencode:{{{last}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{author|}}}| &rft.au={{urlencode:{{{author}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{url|}}}| &rft.identifier={{urlencode:{{{url}}}}}}}<!-- 
-->{{#if:{{{format|}}}| &rft.format={{urlencode:{{{format}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{work|}}}| &rft.source={{urlencode:{{{work}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{publisher|}}}| &rft.publisher={{urlencode:{{{publisher}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{pages|}}}| &rft.pages={{urlencode:{{{pages}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{page|}}}| &rft.spage={{urlencode:{{{pages}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{date|}}}| &rft.date={{urlencode:{{{date}}}}}}}<!--
-->{{#if:{{{language|}}}| &rft.language={{urlencode:{{{language}}}}}}}<!--
-->"> </span></includeonly><noinclude>
{{protected template}}

So, what's the hold up? — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Section parameter needed?[edit]

Unresolved: Unopposed proposal, but not acted upon.

For many newspapers, a page is identified in the format: Section, Page. For example, "City & State, Pg. 2". Given this, would it be desirable to have a "Section" parameter for this template? It looks a bit awkward inserting "City & State" in the "Page" argument, since it gets rendered as "pp. City & State, p. 2". -SpuriousQ 17:17, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I came here to suggest that as well, but I don't know enough about hacking this really complex template to do that. Anyone? --Delirium 11:49, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Strongly concur. I believe that {{Cite web}} has code for this which can be copied. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 21:55, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I'd like the revive this proposal. I currently shoehorn the section into the page number, but it's unwieldy to see something like "p. Opinions". --Adoniscik(t, c) 17:18, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Request date format change[edit]

Unresolved: Consistency problem obvious and no opposition to fixing it, but it hasn't been fixed.

This isn't a note about wikilinking the date – no worries :) Just a formatting question. For "cite web" (and I think others), the date appears just after the author. Is it supposed to be different for newspaper references? -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 00:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

No, and it needs to get fixed. Discussed in more detail below. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:28, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} I've had no response here or on Wikipedia:Citing sources, so I'd like to request a change to this template. Please move the date of the publication (in parentheses) to directly follow the author, if there is one, to match {{cite web}}, {{cite book}}, and {{cite journal}}. If there isn't an author name, the date should stay where it is. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a good idea. It would lead to a huge amount (anonymous ones) of references starting with a date rather than more useful bibliographic data. Circeus 15:59, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Oh – I don't mean that. Cite-web and the others start with author name if there is one and then have the date (in parentheses). If there isn't an authors name, it they start with the article's title (or book title) and then have the date. This template should match that format, that's all. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 17:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Here is what we have right now:
{{cite book}}
Author (2007). Title. 
Title. 2007. 
{{cite journal}}
Author (2007). "Title". 
"Title". 2007. 
{{cite news}}
Author (2007). "Title". 
"Title". 2007. 
{{cite web}}
Author (2007). [URL "Title"] Check |url= value (help). 
[URL "Title"] Check |url= value (help). 2007. 
It looks like web is the only one of these that rearranges when the author is omitted. You are suggesting making {{cite news}} act like {{cite web}}, right? There is already a lack of standardization between the templates, so I don't know that it is worth doing it just for the sake of standardization. CMummert · talk 18:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm sorry – that last comment cracks me up – it isn't worth standardizing for the sake of standardizing? :)
Web does seem to be the only one that's rearranging. But all of the three have the date before the title with the exception of web if it would mean starting with the date. I'd like to see it standardized here as well, with the date before the title unless it means starting with the date. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 21:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else have a comment on this issue? CMummert · talk 14:29, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
The method used by the other three templates does look slightly better. The coding might be complicated, though. --ais523 16:47, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. This should be standardized. IMHO, it looks weird in a long list of references if the date is sometimes before the date and sometimes after. — Ksero 10:42, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I disabled the editprotected tag for now, but that does not mean that this issue is "resolved". If someone writes the code to accomplish what SatyrTN suggests, and there is consensus for it here, I will be glad to edit the template. CMummert · talk 00:41, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

The lack of standardization among the various cite templates is crazy making, but I always assumed they followed some standard citation format (whether it be MLS, APA, whatever). I'd like more standardization, but only if a consistent citation style is employed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Quick comment: I'm certainly in favour of standardising. Like Sandy, I'd prefer if they all followed one house style. I'll have a look through the various talk pages and the Style Guides to investigate (unless someone else contributes that info first...) Colin°Talk 07:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

OK. I've had a good read of the talk history and various house styles. It appears that the cite templates produce a formatting that is home-grown as a result of internal discussions, and follows none of the major style guides. Admin Ligulem is a frequent maintainer. The publication year comes after the author(s) in APA, Chicago and Harvard styles. Only the APA put it in parenthesis. The year goes at the end, with the other publication info, in the MLA and NLM (medical) styles. All the style guides vary as to the punctuation, but other than the year, the order is relatively uniform. Whether "pp" or a colon precedes the page(s) varies amongst guides and also among source types.
The {{citation}} template is an alternative to all the various cite templates. See Citation templates for details of both. That template is at least consistent wrt news and other sources.
There doesn't seem to be any effort to produce templates that closely support a particular house style (or even to have the style as a parameter itself). Without this considerable effort, the only way to get consistent styles in the format of your choosing, is to follow Sandy and ignore the templates. Colin°Talk 13:26, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a perennial argument, in which everybody champions their own favourite "Manual of Style". There will be no end to this argument, which is pointless anyway; having people switch references around from one externally-favoured format to another is a complete waste of time and resources. What is needed is for us to decide on a synthesised style which works best for Wikipedia, rather than borrowing from other places which simply work in a different manner. You don't get "consistent styles" if different users keep using "styles of their choosing".

The only consensus is that there is no consensus. WP:CITE/ES says "please use the citation style of your choice" (their emphasis). Templates are a means-to-an-end. Only the end result is relevant as far as WP policy and guidelines are concerned (unless the implementation details are a source of problems in themselves). If editors are encouraged to pick a style of their choosing, it might be nice to have template support for it. If WP wishes to invent its own house style, then it should be better documented! That way, editors can choose whether to use templates or not but still follow that style. Currently, the cite templates aren't consistent (both in appearance and also in parameter usage). The citation template is better in this regard: implementing one synthesised style. I can appreciate the argument that says "pick what works best for WP", however there is no consensus for "best". I'm no template expert, but it appears the limitations prevent clever handling of punctuation, etc. Therefore, anyone wishing to format citations neatly is forced to ignore templates. The loss of meta data is one consequence of this. Colin°Talk 14:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, from a template and coding point of view, there's no limitation like you speak of. Particular templates may not be handling things right, but that's a coding issue that can be (and should be) fixed. I routinely use the templates because I don't understand what the "best" format is. I agree with everyone that a standard should be implemented (our own home-grown or an adopted one). But I have no idea how to go about that – and from what I've seen, it's been tried. But I'm willing to do the coding if one can be consensed! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 14:55, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but :-) As I understand the long-standing issue (and having seen it on FAC/FAR), there are plenty of editors who *do* have a preferred style, and will scream if a different standard is implemented. Different topic areas use different styles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

On a different note, I have been agitating for some considerable time for some code to avoid the problem of the date appearing first when no author is specified, in particular for use in "Bibliography" sections in articles for authors, where we don't actually want the name to be duplicated: it would appear that I have missed some important developments, which are nonetheless very welcome. Maybe we could work to incorporate this code into the other templates. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 13:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what style is used or what style is chosen; I just advocate for consistency between the templates. The templates frustrate me so much I rarely use them. I think the only time I consistently use them is if an article has a lot of PMID links that need to be converted (then I use Diberri), or if I'm helping out on an article that already uses a lot of them. If a consistent style would be employed, I would still do refs manually, but I would follow the cite template style. (Two asides while we have the attention of some folk: Link to previous discussion in my talk page archives and WP:CITE/ES has some dismally outdated examples, which I'm hoping to work on as soon as I get time. I've been sending people to that page, which turns out is frustrating them as well, since it's in bad shape.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Punctuation inconsistency[edit]

Unresolved: Consistency problem clearly identified, but not fixed yet.

Look at this output from Cite news (sans links):

Gene Weingarten. "Cartoon Raises a Stink; Some See Slur Against Islam in a 'B.C.' Outhouse Strip", Washington Post, November 21, 2003, pp. C1+.

Why is there a period after the author's name but a comma after every other element? --zenohockey 02:06, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

It looks strange here because the date is after the title. Most of the cite * templates put the date right after the author's name, and so it looks more reasonable. But it is consistent with the other cite * templates to put a period after the list of authors (in some cases, this list can be long). CMummert · talk 11:22, 9 April 2007 (UTC)
Then as per the above thread, I propose that we fix the inconstency between this template and the others in its class. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Formatted "accessdate"[edit]

Unresolved: This issue needs to be settled, across all of these templates consistently.

{{editprotected}} Can't we just leave the formatting of the "accessdate" field alone? If it's a proper date, it will be formatted by the user's preferences – no need to fiddle with US vs European formats, etc. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 01:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100%. The recent changes should be reverted. --- RockMFR 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Strongly agree: Please revert to unembellished earlier version: "Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]" --HailFire 19:44, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
done. CMummert · talk 02:30, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is now being carried out at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#Date formats in cite templates. Please comment there. CMummert · talk 15:24, 14 April 2007 (UTC)

The comments on Willage Pump redirect to here. Apparently there is some belief that there is little objection to this inconsistently-applied change. But I have to agree with the above viewpoints that this revision should definitely be reverted, at least until a consensus opinion can be reached. — RJH (talk) 21:13, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


The date on this template appears to be unformatted, since April 13. CMummert · talk 12:45, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

"Edition" parameter suggested[edit]

Unresolved: Proposal unopposed, but remains unimplemented.

An edition, like "Late Edition – Final" is a necessary part of a cite of many newspapers, since many newspapers publish multiple editions on the same day.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Randwolf (talkcontribs) 22:55, April 24, 2007

Strongly concur with whoever wrote that. {{Cite journal}} wasn't created for this sort of thing; newspapers are news, not science journals, so the needed parameters for them belong in this template. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:06, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Spacing of (in language)[edit]

Unresolved: No oppostion, but unimplemented.

Think the (in {{{language}}}) should use &nbsp; — looks bad when it breaks there... --GregU 03:19, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I think you mean &nbsp;&ndash;, which which I would concur. That is, if we are going to used a spaced dash it should be an en-dash, per WP:MOS, and it must butt up against the leading nbsp in order for it to not allow a linebreak there. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)
I think he means to change (in {{{language}}}) to (in&nbsp;{{{language}}}), rather than add any dash. —Ms2ger (talk) 18:30, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Cite news bot[edit]

Has the idea ever been discussed before about create a bot that'll convert wikilinked news references to use this template before they die? Since I've noticed a lot of these (specifically from yahoo) turning up dead a few months later. —Dispenser 07:09, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Pages parameter major problem[edit]

The "page" and "pages" parameters here need to replaced with the code from {{Cite book}} (and its documentation), not only for consistency but so that {{Cite news}} can be transcluded itself is more source-specific templates. Before anyone WP:PANICs, the "page" parameter should be kept, silently in the source code, as an alternative to "pages", and a bot or big AWB session would be used to change cite news occurrences of "page=foo" to "pages=p. foo", and "pages=foo" to "pages=pp. foo". The manually formatted cite book style "page" is more useful for other reasons, as well, such as citing things that are not numbered pages (e.g. "page=frontispiece" or "page=back cover", someting that is not possible with cite news's current parameters. Even without this bot cleanup work, it's not a big deal; some citation styles call for not using "p." or "pp." to begin with, but simply giving the page number, since the numbers can't mean anything but page numbers in the context. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:17, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Too many unresolved items here[edit]

After doing an archival run on this page, which was getting long and had a lot of duplicate threads, it's become clear that the number of unresolved but non-controversial improvement requests and proposals is really kind of through the roof here. The vast majority of them can be resolved with copy-pasted code from related templates and massaging it in. Any volunteers? I can probably do it, but if someone more intimately familiar with this template did it that would probably be better. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 23:08, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Archive-2 set up for old or clearly "done" items. Anything pending, unresolved or now relevant (date formating in particular) left here (see tidyup). David Ruben Talk 19:06, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Bug in pre-Jan. 2, 1970 date parsing?[edit]

I find that using ISO YYYY-MM-DD format for date= does not work for dates earlier than January 2 1970. As an example, for the desired date December 30 1969, entering date=1969-12-30 yields only the numeric result "1969-12-30". Are you aware of this apparent bug? Is it necessary to use the bracketed dates for pre-Jan. 2, 1970 dates as a workaround? JGHowes talk 03:46, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

This is a known issue with the ParserFunctions. —Dispenser (talk) 10:34, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, OK. Many thanks for pointing that out. JGHowes talk 17:22, 19 January 2008 (UTC)


  • This being the case, it is proposed that the following modification be made to instructions (change rubricated):

Date: Date of publication. The ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format is recommended, and will be automatically wikilinked to enable date user preferences if used. If the whole date is known and another date format is used, it should be wikilinked (e.g., date=[[3 December]] [[2007]]). (Note: for dates earlier than January 2, 1970, ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD automatic wikilinking will not work; instead, wikilink using [[3 December]] [[1969]] format)

Thanks, JGHowes talk 21:20, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The instructions aren't protected, if you want them changed just change them at Template:Cite news/doc. RossPatterson (talk) 23:55, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Thx for clearing that up. It's done. JGHowes talk 00:31, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Are the MediaWiki folks working on this? Since it's using four-digit years, seems like this is fixable...—Chowbok 03:25, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

work= vs. publisher=[edit]

Have long-standing confusion on when to use these two parameters.

  • If I'm citing a simple newspaper article, do I use work=[[The Washington Post]] and no publisher= ? This will italicize the name of the paper, which is correct.
  • If I'm citing a simple written story on a television news organization's website, do I use publisher=[[CNN]] and no work= ? This will not italicize the name of the news organization, which is correct. But it's very asymmetrical to the first. They are both news providers, and it's not clear why one's a "publisher" and one's a "work".
  • Or should I only use publisher= for both, and add the italics markup in the newspaper case myself?

I understand there are some cases where both can be used together, e.g. work=[[NewsHour]] | publisher=[[PBS]], but I'm confused about the straightforward cases above. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

The publisher is often not the same as the work although similar in many cases. I try to list both. -23:05, 23 January 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by JodyB (talkcontribs)
Meaning what? work=[[The Washington Post]] | publisher=[[The Washington Post Company]]? That's pointless repetiton. work=[[CNN]] | publisher=[[Time Warner]] puts CNN into italics (wrong) and gives an ownership that usually isn't relevant. I still don't get it. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:21, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I am still puzzled. What about a situation with a local newspaper (say St. Petersburg Times) publishing a story from Reuters. Would work=Reuters and publisher=St. Petersburg Times? Or would "publisher=" be the company name of the publisher and "work=" be the magazine/newspaper name? The documentation is not clear. I can't come up with other cases where "work=" would be relevant. — fnielsen (talk) 10:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

For a situation like that, I would put author = Reuters and work = Saint Petersburg Times. If it were written by a named Reuters reporter, say John Smith, I would put author = John Smith, Reuters and still leave the work as before. For many news outlets the "publisher" parameter in this template is redundant. It's quite pedantic to list that the Upper Switchville Gazette is published by the Upper Switchville Gazette Company; in cases like that its silly. The "publisher" parameter is important if one were to cite something from a publication called Save our planet and it were published by, say, Exxon-Mobil. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:17, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. So for a citation to a NYT article the intended use should be "work=The New York Times". However, with the 2008 March Wikipedia dump I have at hand as far as I can skim the "publisher=New York Times" is the most used. A few times I see "work=The New York Times | publisher=The New York Times Company". In a single case "work = New York Times | publisher = REUTERS"… It seems a lot of authors including myself get confused over the work/publisher field. Perhaps the naming of these field is not good. — fnielsen (talk) 17:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
It's pretty simple: use "work" for the originator of the story, and "publisher" for where it ends up. If they coincide, use only "work". So if the NYT uses a Reuters story, work=Reuters & publisher=NYT. If, in addition, you happen to know the name of the Reuters journalist, mention that too. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:06, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

The New York Times[edit]

Now that The New York Times has kindly put their archives on-line, I find myself using their older articles on a frequent basis. I do find that the URL is quite unwieldy and proper access depends on how you are logged in. To get around these issues, I created {{nytquery}}. Please let me know on the talk page if this is useful or if there are any issues. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 01:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

How to specify URL for a preprint of the article?[edit]

What is the best way to specify an url for the article preprint, assuming that url= is already used for linking to the published version of the paper? It is often the case that a published version of the paper requires a paid subscription, whereas a preprint (or the author's version) of the same paper is available free of charge. In this case, it really makes to give links to both the published version and the preprint but there is only one url= field... Maxal (talk) 14:36, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


Should we add a subtitle? For instance, what do I do with [1] (in German)? The title is „Ich kann einfach nicht aufhören“, but the (much more relevant) subtitle is Haribo-Chef Hans Riegel über Gummibären, Gottschalk und die Generationenfolge im eigenen Unternehmen, which indicates that it is an interview.

So I'd like to have either a subtitle parameter, or an "explanation" kind of parameter, where I could write "Interview with Hans Riegel" to describe the source. Do you think this is sensible? Any ideas/suggestions? -- Lea (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Quotes and comma[edit]

I think the quotations marks and comma surrounding the rendered link are odd-looking and extraneous and should be eliminated. {{Cite web}} does not have them, and the resulting refs look better; plus, I should think our two major ref templates should be consistent with each other. --CrazyLegsKC 06:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

It's also somewhat problematic for the comma to come after the quotation marks. That's bad style in North America. Not sure how to resolve the issue aside from removing quotes altogether. Or not. I guess WP:PUNC has made the opposite decision on this already. – TheMightyQuill (talk) 13:06, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

In doc examples, put title first[edit]

Because "title" is the only required parameter, and also (appropriately) the parameter first discussed in the descriptions of the parameters, I suggest that it be the first listed parameter in the three example templates. This makes it easier for editors to copy the examples, and fill out or delete the parameters while following down the documentation. TJRC (talk) 20:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

If an admin would update the documentation to use {{documentation}}, then doc tweaks could be made by any editor. --— Gadget850 (Ed) talk 20:14, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I can edit Template:Cite news/doc; but for such a widely-used template, I didn't want to do so in case there's some good reason for the present order I didn't see. TJRC (talk) 20:22, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Instructions tweak suggestion[edit]

For work, instead of "Do not italicize", it would be clearer if it read something more like "the template will automatically italicize this value". BuddingJournalist 17:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Bolding language= output[edit]

{{editprotected}} If language= is specified, it is added to the citation in parentheses and gray. However, so as to be more consistent with {{Languageicon}}, the parentheses and language name should also be bolded.

« D. Trebbien (talk) 16:50 2008 April 13 (UTC)

I converted it to use {{languageicon}} as a meta-template, so it will always be synchronised with the formatting there. Happymelon 09:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

license status? attribution? what is involved in porting?[edit]

I ported some material I contributed here to another wiki -- one that doesn't currently have any support for {{cite}} templates. Does any one here know:

  1. who wrote these templates?
  2. how are they liscensed? are they available for re-use under the {{GFDL}}? if so, how should the authors' work be attributed?
  3. how much work would porting and installing the {{cite}} templates be? Do they depend on a bunch of other templates?

Similarly, this other wiki doesn't have support for the <ref> </ref> <references/> set of tags.

Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 22:42, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate should not be linked[edit]

The accessdate parameter should not be automatically wikilinked. What this often does is to produce links to unneeded pages such as January 31, 2007. Black Falcon (Talk) 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Huh? How are you getting that? When I use accessdate, I get January 31, 2007. —Chowbok 00:34, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I assume you're typing |accessdate=2007-01-31. If a user types |accessdate=January 31, 2007, the full date is wikilinked. Black Falcon (Talk) 00:48, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, then they're misusing the template. It says specifically to use ISO-8601 formatting.—Chowbok 01:18, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, wait... Removing the wikilinks would cause problems with ISO-8601 dates, wouldn't it...? Never mind, then; I guess the dates will just have to be updated manually in the articles... Black Falcon (Talk) 02:07, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Pre-epoch parsing[edit]

It'd be nice if we could get this fixed. I was fooling around with it but it's a bit over my head. Couldn't we use something like Template:dts2 in place of Template:date?—Chowbok 00:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

italicize publication titles[edit]

I believe this template is incorrect. Titles of publications, when entered, are normally italicized. Dr. Cash (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Hide the access date[edit]

We have a consensus that access dates for online copies of offline sources, while helpful as a comment in the source, should be hidden from the reader. Could somebody who is competent to adapt the citation templates please do so? The idea is to keep the access date as a template parameter but remove the code that displays it. Thanks, --EnOreg (talk) 09:28, 5 June 2008 (UTC) {{editprotected}} All it takes is to comment out these two lines:

 }}{{#if: {{{accessdate|}}}
   | . Retrieved on [[{{{accessdate}}}]].

--EnOreg (talk) 11:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I understand where you're coming from with this, but a problem with this particular template is that it is sometimes used in cases where the source is online-only (and has never been available offline). For those cases, we don't want the accessdate hidden. I'm not sure how widespread this usage is, nor whether this is how the template is meant to be used. --- RockMFR 14:05, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
Wouldn't an online-only news report still have a publication date provided by the date parameter? My concern is that showing two dates for one source is more confusing than helpful... --EnOreg (talk) 15:35, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I think we should keep all discussion about this in the thread linked above. — Omegatron (talk) 17:30, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
I've wrapped the "retrieved on..." in CSS like the other cite templates. See comment at the discussion linked above. Happymelon 18:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure which discussion you mean ... could you spell out what this change does? Thx. Wasted Time R (talk) 18:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


Is it just me or are the authors listed with "coauthors =" not displayed? Plrk (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It's just you :-) Seriously, coauthors= works, at least if you specify author= or last= as required by the template documentation. For example:
{{cite news | first=John | last=Doe | coauthors=Richard Roe | title=News | url=http://www.example.org/ | work=Encyclopedia of Things | publisher=News co. | pages= 37–39 | date=[[2005-11-21]] | id={{ISSN|0028–0836}} | accessdate=2005-12-11 }}
Doe, John (2005-11-21). "News". Encyclopedia of Things. News co. pp. 37–39. ISSN 0028–0836. Retrieved 2005-12-11.  Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
RossPatterson (talk) 00:29, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Right, I have to specify an author. I missed that. I'll get to it. Plrk (talk) 00:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Article date after the author please[edit]

"Cite news" puts the article date after the publisher, while "cite web", "cite journal", etc., put it right after the author. For consistency, please add the article date after the author. --Phenylalanine (talk) 12:56, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

 Done with some tweaks to separating punctuation as per these edits David Ruben Talk 22:57, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Location parameter[edit]

How does one get the location parameter to actually display in a reference? I used the parameter in a couple of notes in David Bale but I don't see the locations actually displayed there. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your citations also use work=, and the template only displays location= when work= is not specified. I can't see any logical reason for that, I think it's an error. RossPatterson (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I hope someone will fix this, because it would be very unusual, at least for me, to create a citation using {{Cite news}} without work, because that will tell what publication the source comes from. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Omitting "archivedate=" parameter[edit]

I guess the code for when archivedate= is omitted might need to be fixed, as it ends that Template documentation box early, e.g. on Template:Cite web (it's the last example). (Looking at the source code, </li> </ul></div> are too early, and make the box stop too early, but that's as far as I can go).

Could I also ask whether the statement:

You must specify archiveurl= and archivedate= when using {{cite news}}. Available parameters:

be clarified? I'm slightly confused - isn't it rather that when using one of those two parameters, then the other can't be missed out? It seems to a simpleton like me that I have to use both whenever I use {{cite news}}.

Thanks very much, and well done for all your work on the template, Drum guy (talk) 22:08, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it should say "You must specify both archiveurl= and archivedate= when using either of them with {{cite news}}". That's what it means. RossPatterson (talk) 04:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
If you use an archive like proquest or high beam, I don't think there is an archive date, only an archive url. Can it be optional? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 23:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ditto. What's the point of the archivedate anyway? --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:14, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting glitch[edit]

Can anyone suggest why this citation doesn't format correctly?

Is it a result of the pdf link, or have I made a typo? Is there a bug in the template? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:54, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe this is a bug, yes. Not that I have any idea on how to correct it. Plrk (talk) 21:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No, it was a typo. There was an embedded line-break in the title of the reference. The Wikipedia software (MediaWiki) doesn't like external links with line-breaks in the page name. I've fixed the reference. RossPatterson (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it Ross! Will keep an eye out for line breaks in title fields in future. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 17:54, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits altering appearance(?)[edit]


Can someone please the revert the recent edits to {{Cite news}} that seem to have broken the output? Previously, if the news source cited did not have an author—as many news articles historically haven't had—the date appeared after the title (and work, if I recall correctly). Now, when there is no author, the date is appearing in parentheses first. This template is transcluded so widely, changes of this sort should have been more thoroughly tested before implementation. — Bellhalla (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Ah, it's not just me then, I thought I'd done something wrong. Request echoed. Mr Stephen (talk) 23:24, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Request thirded. It really looks horrible without an author. — MusicMaker5376 02:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 Done = Sorry, mea culpa - I overlooked that possibility. With author in place, date after the author is as per other cite XXX templates (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smith609/Citation coordination example working on {{citation}}). But I agree on need relocate date to previous place if no author provided, coded to be located depending if author/last details given. As a check, with and without author details:
  • Fred, Fred (July 2008). "His only work". Anyville news. 
  • "His only work". Anyville news. July 2008. 
David Ruben Talk 03:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Thank you. — Bellhalla (talk) 03:47, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Date parameter[edit]

The instruction is not clear. It says: If the ISO 8601 YYYY-MM-DD format is used it will be automatically wikilinked to enable date user preferences if used. while the example given below the page looks like this: "Doe, John ('''2005-11-21'''). "News". Encyclopedia of Things. News co. pp. 37–39. ISSN 0028–0836. Retrieved 2005-12-11.  Check date values in: |date= (help)". What is the proper formatting? {{Cite web}} does not require wikilinking anymore; it will automatically link and also adds the parenthesis. --Efe (talk) 03:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Standardising with other templates[edit]

A few suggestions comparing this to the othe rcite XXX templates:

  • All the other cite XXX templates place accessdate at the very end. {{cite web}} also has Archived detail parameters and these therefore appear before the accessdate. Therefore Archived and accessdate coding should be switched over in order ?
  • PS {{cite web}} has pages details after the "work" parameter and before the publisher, but that is out of keeping with cite journal and cite book and citation templates which all have, like this template, journal/publisher before the pages. David Ruben Talk 03:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • {{cite web}} & {{cite news}} place after the title "(format) (in language)", whilst {{cite journal}} & {{citation}} order these two as "(in language) (format)" - which is better ? David Ruben Talk 03:39, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Cite web option for editor-set date styles[edit]

See Template talk:Cite web#Working version and final discussion re proposed new parameter of datestyle. As a default it leaves date/accessdate/archive date as wikified dates as is the current case. However if specified it would show dates as "=dmy" 23 October 2007 as "=mdy" October 23, 2007 or as "=ymd" 2007 October 23. Given ideally cite template should be consistant, should such a proposal be implemented here too ? Please discuss at the above link. David Ruben Talk 19:27, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Date in parenthesis[edit]

The new date format looks terrible, there should be consensus on the talk page for such a major change. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 03:52, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Discussion on some standardising does seem agreed as per discussion at {{citation}} (for which there is a merge tag at the top of this talk page - merging not agreed to, but standardisation was). The location of date after author if specified, else after the title detailis is now the same as per all other cite XXX templates. Likewise for date in brackets, so that articles using variety of sources and cite XXX templates now have consistant display. See examples at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Smith609/Citation
Other layout issues options I've set up relevant discussion thread on relevant cite XXX templates. David Ruben Talk 12:46, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Please STOP[edit]

Please stop changing the template until there is consensus to do so, it is locked for a reason. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 05:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Year-month date[edit]

It would be great if it could parse "2003-04" as "April, 2003". —Ashley Y 07:00, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


I am trying to understand what is appropriate to put into work= and publisher= ... If Newsweek is put into work=, then does The Washington Post Company belong to publisher=? The attribute is defined, "The company or organization that publishes the news source." Can someone list a few examples of how to apply the template with some online newspaper articles and some online-only articles like this? —Erik (talkcontrib) - 17:05, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Work:The New York Times
Publisher:The New York Times Company
You don't need to add publisher if it causes any trouble (e.g. too difficult to identify the publisher of an online-only source). Squash Racket (talk) 08:39, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Doing this for a New York Times cite makes no sense, you're giving redundant information that just clutters up the reference. This has been discussed previously, see #work= vs. publisher= above, but no one has a really satisfactory answer. Wasted Time R (talk) 13:29, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Just gave an example how this works. BTW adding The New York Times Company is definitely not redundant as most people don't know the name of the company that publishes The New York Times. Squash Racket (talk) 14:25, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
  • I tried finding the publisher of some of the newspapers, and it takes too long and sometimes is not available in the Wikipedia article on the newspaper. Maybe [[transclusion]] would help like it does for dates. For example, if work={{The New York Times}}, then the citation could appear as though you entered work=[[The New York Times]]|publisher=[[The New York Times Company]]. Also, work={{South Florida Sun-Sentinel}} could be the same as entering work=[[South Florida Sun-Sentinel]]|publisher=[[Howard Greenberg]]. I guess that only works for the time period when Howard Greenberg is the publisher of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. If the citation is to a 1940s South Florida Sun-Sentinel article, there should be an automatic way to transclude the publisher of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel during the 1940s. Suntag (talk) 16:57, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The work/publisher duo is for stories received from wire services; like when a paper reprints an article from Reuters, AFP, AP. In that case, the wire service goes into "work" and the paper goes into "publisher". The duo is not intended for stories originating from the paper itself, in which case you should only use "work". --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:18, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I think http:// only makes it complicated to copy the url into the template, so these should be removed. Squash Racket (talk) 08:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

What if the url begins with something else, like ftp://? --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Then again it's better to remove http:// from the full version of the template, otherwise you first have to delete it before inserting the title starting with ftp:// ... Squash Racket (talk) 13:15, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
A really bad idea, me thinks - looks like that would prevent en:Wikipedia's and WikiMedia's Spam Blacklists from protecting against banned websites. See MediaWiki:Spam-blacklisting "Remove any remaining urls from articles and remove the http:// from discussion pages (archived or urls on non active pages need not be removed". So the "http://" prefix seems critical for the system wide protection. Editors should therefore be required to submit edits with the full urls (http, ftp or whatever prefixed) and let the Spam Blacklists vet the edit. David Ruben Talk 13:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, to avoid further misunderstanding:
{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= |coauthors= |title= |url=http:// |format= |work= |publisher= |location= |id= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate=2008-07-10 |language= |quote= |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}
Remove http:// (you can see it now at "url="), so that the full urls will be easier copy and pasted into this full version of the template. Understand my proposal now?
The vertical format doesn't have the prefix in it, so why does the horizontal include it? The result would look like this:
{{cite news |first= |last= |authorlink= |author= |coauthors= |title= |url= |format= |work= |publisher= |location= |id= |pages= |page= |date= |accessdate=2008-07-10 |language= |quote= |archiveurl= |archivedate= }}
Squash Racket (talk) 14:01, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Ah, remove from the blank copy&paste documentation template example (vs remove from "template:cite news") - yes that makes good sense :-) Documentation page not protected - just be bold and do it ;-) David Ruben Talk 20:34, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Done, hopefully everyone agrees. Squash Racket (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Staff writer[edit]

When an article (like this one) is credited to an unnamed staff writer, what's the common practice for citation? Should one put "Staff writer" in the author field, or "Daily Mail Reporter" (as the source page has it), or leave the field blank? —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 21:53, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I tend to put simply Staff in the author field rather than Staff writer; I chose this in order not to lock into the 'one writer' assumption that the latter implies as we don't know if there were one, two or more writers involved. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 00:55, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Parameter request: Section[edit]

Is it possible to add a section= parameter for newspaper citations (e.g., page=5, section=sports)? Also, it would be nice to have a comment= parameter to allow the user to freely add additional information that may aid in the citation (e.g., comment=This story was picked up by xxx. comment=See also source xxx.) Thanks. Suntag (talk) 16:44, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

The 'work' parameter could be used for this; the description of this field is
work: The publication that ran the item, e.g. Newsweek. Can also be used for the name of a column or subpart of an issue. Do not italicize.
As an example, the sports section of USA Today could be rendered as USA Today:Sports or USA Today (Sports section). If this solution is taken, though, I would strongly urge for a stern guideline that is potentially bot-enforced; from an informatics point-of-view, including two pieces of information in one field without use of a consistent delimiter is a mortal sin.
However, if the consensus is to add a 'section' parameter, I would suggest using the parameter name 'work-section'. Personally, I am using {{Citation}} rather than {{Cite news}} now. In order to maintain consistency between the two templates, I would further suggest that the parameter 'publication-section' be added to the Citation template.
P.S. I am wondering whether this topic has come up before and what the outcome of that prior discussion might have been.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:21, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

See #Section parameter needed? --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:19, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Parameter request: agency[edit]

It would be nice, visually and for metadata purposes, if reports received from news agencies did not have to be shoehorned into the author field. Such articles could be shown as "TITLE" (DATA) AGENCY via WORK ... --Adoniscik(t, c) 00:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I am not a periodical editor, but I would speculate that there are four types of uses for the wire services:
  • direct reprints
  • direct reprints with additional material to provide location or topic context relevant to the scope of the periodical
  • direct reprints that have had sections or text removed
  • use of the material in a new composition
Rather than adding an 'Agency' parameter, I would suggest adding three parameters (this seems the minimum required for the described use case): 'Reprint', 'Orig-source' and 'Orig-date'. For 'Reprint', three suggested values could be provided in documentation "Yes", "No" and "Partial"; "No" would be the default value. The 'Orig-source' parameter would take the same value as the aforesuggested 'Agency' parameter. The 'Orig-date' parameter would take the standard 'YYYY-MM-DD' parameter.
Conditional formatting would be used so that the following effects would ensue depending upon the parameter values provided (umm, I am not a template editing wizard - so shoot me if this is not possible):
  • Reprint=No→no change to the current template output
  • Reprint=Yes | Orig-source=ΔΔΔ News | Orig-date=1978-07-28→appending after current citation output (after 'retrieved' statement) Reprinted from original: ΔΔΔ News (28 July 1978). Another example of output, different parametersReprinted from original: Associated Press (8 January 2007).
  • Reprint=Partial | Orig-source=ΔΔΔ News | Orig-date=1978-07-28→appending after current citation output as above Some material reprinted from original: ΔΔΔ News (28 July 1978).
Thanks for considering these suggestions.
--User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:54, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I can't speak to possible metadata uses, but for presentation, I simply use the publisher field, such as
publisher=AFP]] via Google News
--Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 10:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I realized my mistake, thanks. This is exactly what the work/publisher fields are for. --Adoniscik(t, c) 04:20, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


I don't think this is correct. Work is for the name of the paper, which appears in italics. Publisher is for the company that publishes the paper (not necessary for papers like the New York Times, but useful for more obscure papers where the name of the publisher adds credibility). The wire service goes between the title and the work with a period at the end, but not in quotes or italics or underlined, and not first as an author, according to NoodleTools and Wiki Answers. This requires a separate field be added to this template. Dhaluza (talk) 00:30, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
I've created a {{cite news2}} copy to show the code that needs to be added. It formats the example from Wikianswers like this:
  • "No Provision for Newswires". Tri City Herald. Associated Press. 9 Mar. 2008. p. A1.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
--Dhaluza (talk) 13:35, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
The requested changes are shown in this diff. Dhaluza (talk) 09:32, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. Cheers. --MZMcBride (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. I've changed the {{cite news2}} to a redirect to {{cite news}}. Dhaluza (talk) 00:09, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Automatic linking of dates[edit]

This template is being used in the article Dancing Plague of 1518. For some reason, the date 1931-09-28 is not being automatically converted to a link, and therefore the date is not formatted to a user's preference. From some experiments, I think that any date before 1970-01-02 does not automatically link, but from 1970-01-02 on, the template works properly.

As a side note, if the date is wikilinked manually (as discouraged by the template documentation), it will work correctly. − Twas Now ( talkcontribse-mail ) 06:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The date formats used in the cite templates are under discussion at Template talk:Cite web. Mr Stephen (talk) 09:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved on...[edit]

The Signpost says that Wikipedia:Citing sources was recently changed to recommend that access dates be placed in invisible comments, rather than in text visible to readers. I suppose this template should be changed in accordance with the new guideline, but I don't have the syntax skills. —Josiah Rowe (talkcontribs) 02:36, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't see this in either the Signpost nor in Citing sources. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 19:57, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Accessdates destroyed again[edit]


On July 25th, all of the accessdates at Ima Hogg displayed correctly with accessmontday and accessyear. Now they're missing. Where was the change made, and please fix it. Ima Hogg is a featured article, and dates were completely and consistently formatted as of July 25th; what changed? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Sandy: I don't see that this template ever supported accessmonthday. I just did a search using WikiBlame and just don't see it. I even searched for changes to the doc page. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 20:12, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
It did ... I used it at Ima Hogg, and it was working. I thoroughly checked that article to make sure I had a complete example of consistent date formatting and linking. Unless I lost my mind ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
checked the edit history at Ima Hogg, initially I had fiddled the accessdate outside the template (on July 24) to make it format consistently, then a day later I moved it in, with accessmonthday. I swore I checked it thoroughly then and it was working. Could be wrong ... or ... let's put it this way ... it should work so I can consistently format delinked accessdates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:23, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
Definitely should work, in this entire family of templates. While it is most useful in {{Cite web}}, it is valuable metadata, regardless, and one of the easiest ways to tell in a block of text (esp. about a living person or extant organization) whether newer source material needs to be sought and a section updated. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Further, why aren't all of the cite xxx family of templates consistent? Why should something work on one and not on another? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
This template only supports the accessdate field and never supported accessmonthday or accessyear as best I can tell. After I finish with reflist (probably a month or so at the current hyperspeed) my next crusade is cite templates (that might give us a Christmas present). --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 02:48, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Allright, thanks for looking ... <sigh> ... I'll add them manually outside of the (faulty) cite template. Gadget, if you think of it, please ping me when you turn your attn to the cite templates, because the inconsistencies are crazy making. That I should have to manually add a field outside of the template to achieve consistency is wacky. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:09, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Sandy, I've been saying for some time that all of these templates need to be standardized, and generated by a meta-template, the way all the inline cleanup/dispute templates ({{Fact}}, {{Clarifyme}}, etc.) are. I should be able to switch something from {{Cite web}} to {{Cite journal}} without having to rename any fields, or losing any date information, only adding or subtracting fields on the basis of relevance to the selected medium. Drop me a line if you'd be interested in helping on this. I think what we need to do is (in sandbox) create a new {{Cite}} that supports every parameter (and their synonyms) of every Cite-family template, and then provide drop-in replacement code for every single one of those templates based on the new meta-template (and document how to do so for other media - if someone wants to c create a {{Cite product-packaging}}, for example, they should be able to do so pretty easily), such that any time a new field is desired, it is discussed at Template talk:Cite, and (if there's consensus for it) implemented there, not willy-nilly in {{Cite comic}} or {{Cite book}} or whatever, so that any template based on the meta-template can make use of the new field, and it will render consistently, no matter what cite template is used. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 06:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Great minds think alike. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 11:44, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Count me in. Who knows, maybe I'll try and knock something up in the next few days. Go watchlist Template:Cite meta :D Happymelon 12:17, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Citation Task Force. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) talk - 13:14, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
I know Happy-Melon and SandyGeorgia know about it, but for anyone looking into this concept, the relationship between {{Citation}} and {{Citation/core}} is a good model. The only thing I'd criticize is placing the decisions about what to link when and where inside {{Citation/core}} - it seems to lead to conflict among the various usage patterns of {{Citation}}. RossPatterson (talk) 13:37, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
In the interim before any future meta template implementation, is there any reason why this template couldn't be changed so that accessdate behaves like date? That way, non-ISO dates in "accessdate" won't be linked. Some examples of current functionality:
  • ISO-format in date: {{cite news | title = A very good article | work = The Daily Press | date = 1982-03-28 }}
    • "A very good article". The Daily Press. 1982-03-28. 
  • Non-ISO-format in date: {{cite news | title = A very good article | work = The Daily Press | date = 28 March 1982 }}
    • "A very good article". The Daily Press. 28 March 1982. 
"Accessdate" examples:
  • ISO-format in accessdate: {{cite news | title = A very good article | work = The Daily Press | accessdate = 1982-03-28 }}
    • "A very good article". The Daily Press.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help);
  • Non-ISO-format in accessdate: {{cite news | title = A very good article | work = The Daily Press | accessdate = 28 March 1982 }}
    • "A very good article". The Daily Press.  Check date values in: |access-date= (help);
Bellhalla (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
See also suggestion for a datestyle parameter use in {{cite web}} (Template talk:Cite web#Proposal to go #2), and long discussion about not over wikilinking dates. If that works there then suugestion to role out across Cite XXX family. David Ruben Talk 22:51, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the discussion pointers, but I am well aware of the many discussions and the often-contentious date-linking debate. What I was suggesting was something that wouldn't take until Christmas or require reinventing the wheel (as mentioned about one option above) and wouldn't require hand-coding dates (per SandyGeorgia). Would the functionality I suggested, however short-term it may end up being, break anything about the template? — Bellhalla (talk) 02:15, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
Short answer is no problem, provided everyone is happy to drop wikilinking of ISO-style dates (code just changes from "Retreived on [[{{{accessdate}}}]]" to "Retreived on {{{accessdate}}}" and anyone can enter whatever they like for the accessdate parameter). Discussion at cite web was for leaving display unchanged as a default, unless an editor decision to display in a fixed format. However it seems that subsequent WP:MOSNUM discussion seems to have moved to a harder possition of removing all date linking.
However longterm I fear this may make things harder. With the new numerical method of handling yyyy-mm-dd style dates, as most recently covered at Template talk:Cite web#Use of this template in other language versions, we have a method of coping with all dates and so are not limited by #time parameter limitations of pre-1970 and pre-1900 (only issue is Julian/Gregorian that Gerry Ashton has highlighted). However if we allow accessdate to be entered as a fully expanded date, #time issues may restrict us from later reverting back to yyyy-mm-dd or even from being able to convert between American & International styles. Therefore from a coding point of view, it would be easier and more flexible to have all date parameters (i.e. 'date' as well as 'accessdate') moved over to yyyy-mm-dd style - but I appreciate a mountain to pursuade people to so switch 'date' parameters !. David Ruben Talk 17:59, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Accessdate formatting[edit]

Can the templates be fixed so that they allow the form "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as an alternative to "Retrieved on 2008-01-01"? If I indicate the article date as June 1, 2007, for consistency, I prefer to use the same date style for the accessdate: "Retrieved on January 1, 2008" as opposed to "Retrieved on 2008-01-01". Also, I would prefer it if wikilinking the accessdates was optional (requiring the use of brackets). Thanks. --Phenylalanine (talk) 06:07, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

User:Anomie at Template talk:Fix/Archive 1#Accessdate formatting says that this is the correct page for the present discussion. --Phenylalanine (talk) 00:11, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
First, you might want to check out Template:Citation. It is a single template which handles multiple different types of references. As I understand it, one of the primary reasons it hasn't been merged with the various 'cite-<whatever>' templates is due to disputes about how to handle the 'accessdate'. Note, that date formatting is also an ongoing conflict across Wikipedia in general as can be seen at Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style_(dates_and_numbers)#Date_wars_revived. That said, allow me to copy and paste your text above; '...so that they allow the form "Retrieved on 2008-01-01" as an alternative to "Retrieved on 2008-01-01"?'.
You'll notice that it shows 2008-01-01 in both places. That is actually what my screen displays. I can only determine that the first was meant to be 'January 1, 2008' by editing the page. That is because Wikipedia automatically converts any linked date to the user's preferred format. So, what you really need to do is click the 'My preferences' link at the top of your screen, go to the Date and Time tab, and change your default date format. At least until the ongoing disputes about date formatting get resolved. --CBD 10:17, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
Two notes of relevance here:
  1. However it is formatted, it should be formatted identically in all {{Cite}}-family templates.
  2. WP:MOSNUM (finally; this has been building up for several years now) has deprecated the wikilinking of dates for autoformatting purposes, so this all other {{Cite}}-family templates need to stop doing that. There may be other repercussions as well, the most obvious being that some of them use separate day=, month= and year= fields, and put them in a particular order which will no longer agree with WP:MOSNUM. There's no huge hurry in changing this, as the current wording is still under discussion and being fine-tuned, but expect to change it eventually. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 15:53, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Request that location parameter be displayed[edit]

I would like to reiterate my request from earlier on this page that the "location" parameter be displayed in notes when it is supplied -- not just when there is no "work" parameter specified. There should always be a "work" parameter specified in this template anyway. The purpose of using the "work" and "location" paramters together, I would normally think, would be to specify the location of a publication where there are multiple publications in different locations with the same title. Examples:

Preferably the location should appear in parentheses after the title of the work.

So if anyone is familiar with editing templates such as this, I would really appreciate it if they would set up the template to display locations when they are specified. Thanks for your help. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:36, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

It works, provided that also the publisher is specified. I added an example on the template page.--Patrick (talk) 07:32, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I appreciate the information, but I still believe that the location parameter ought to be modified as I have described above. After all, this {{Cite news}} template is often used for citations to newspapers, which generally are not identified in citations by their publisher, but often are identified by their location of publication (when the title of the newspaper is ambiguous). See also MLA style#Newspaper articles for one citation style manual's illustration of this. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 08:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
How about just adding the location to the work-parameter, like in [2]? The location parameter is currently for the location of the publisher.--Patrick (talk) 08:52, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
I used that as a work-around in Mac (rapper), to distinguish The Advocate (Baton Rouge) from The Advocate, but I'd rather see the template actually fixed. This isn't {{Cite book}}, where the publisher would be likely to be noted. For this particular template, {{Cite news}} the publisher is much less important than the place of publication. Also, adding the location to the "work" parameter means that the location will be italicized, although I suppose I could work around that as well by surrounding the location with '' and ''. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2008 (UTC) Follow-up: It turns out that surrounding the location with '' and '' didn't work exactly right either, as it resulted in the rest of the footnote appearing in boldface. [3] --Metropolitan90 (talk) 09:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
Ok, the location parameter refers to the work parameter now.--Patrick (talk) 11:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
If publisher is also specified (and I do specify publisher and location when I use this template, if that data is available) then it should be done as location: publisher just like {{Cite book}} and others do it. I understand the unusual needs of the newspaper case, but satisfying those needs should not make it physically impossible to use this template to generate complete reference citations for non-newspapers! — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 22:18, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps we need two location parameters. Can you give an example where the location of the publisher is needed when citing news?--Patrick (talk) 07:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Need to unlink dates[edit]


The wikilinking of dates is now depreciated, so dates in this template should not be automatically linked. Dates are no longer linked in the main {{citation}} template. Dhaluza (talk) 00:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Please update the template with this version of Template:Cite news/sandbox, (omitting the sandbox template notice at the top). The diff for the changes should match this diff of the sandbox. Please see Template:Cite news/testcases for examples of the changes. The changes are only to add the optional accessdaymonth, accessmonthday, and accessyear parameters to allow unlinked retrieval dates. These are the same parameter names in use on Template:Cite web to provide unlinked retrieval dates with that template. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:03, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Changes to allow the option of unlinked retrieval dates have been discussed above in several places. The code in the sandbox has been adapted from Template:Cite web where these retrieval date options have been implemented since February 2007. The making of these changes will not break any "legal" uses of the template anywhere it's currently in use, nor will they preclude any future modifications of this template. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
 Done, please check that I've done it right. Stifle (talk) 09:17, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Looks good! Thanks! — Bellhalla (talk) 12:15, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
No, I still see both the publication and access dates wikilinked where {{cite news}} is used. Dhaluza (talk) 07:14, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
I see the publication date not wikilinked, but the access date is. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 17:06, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
The changes made above don't automagically unlink all dates. Doing so would leave a rash of articles with unlinked, ISO-style dates, which would end up exchanging one style 'problem' for another. The changes made are parallel to the setup at {{cite web}} where the parameters "accessdaymonth" or "accessmonthday" coupled with "accessyear" provide the ability for unlinked retrieval dates. I don't know the status of the discussions (referenced in several sections above) to completely rework {{cite X}} family templates but results of that effort should provide for a more standardized handling of unlinked dates, formats, etc. — Bellhalla (talk) 17:44, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
Providing the ability for unlinked retrieval dates ≠ "The wikilinking of dates is now depreciated." All dates shown by this template need to be shown as unlinked. -- Suntag 16:37, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
Ah, but linking of dates is not prohibited, it is just recommended against. I fear what these most recent changes have done is, rather than a leaving "sea of blue" have created a sea of ISO-formatted dates that are inconsistent with most articles' date formats. — Bellhalla (talk) 15:49, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
No, there has always been a sea of blue YYYY-MM-DD formatted dates, which the preferences menu falsely implied conformed to ISO 8601. Now there is a sea of black YYYY-MM-DD dates. Since the number of readers who had accounts, were logged in, and had set a date preference, was so small, how the articles appeared to them can be ignored. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 16:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
Agree. Linking of dates for autoformatting has been abandoned. All dates should be unlinked. As it stands, this template creates a sea of useless blue links that distract from the useful links to the referenced content. Dhaluza (talk) 11:52, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
  • I posted the template at 16:21, 10 October 2008 at DRV and it has the Retrieved on date linked. Please fix so the Retrieved on date no longer is linked for new uses of the template. Thanks. -- Suntag 16:27, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I fully support this. The automatic date linking must be removed the sooner, the better. Punkmorten (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
    • I also support this. Linked dates is ugly, stupid and distracting. The automatic date linking must be removed at earliest possible juncture. Jerry delusional ¤ kangaroo 19:26, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

 Done please check to make sure I did not miss any. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 22:20, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


Please restore the template to the previous version. Although auto-formatted dates are, indeed, deprecated (not depreciated), deprecation means "recommended against", not "prohibited". The last changes made to {{cite news}} merely replace one style problem, linked dates, with another, a huge number of ISO-formatted dates. Changes of this magnitude with a template used as widely as {{cite news}} shouldn't be done without a much wider discussion. Also, there is an active effort to rework the various {{cite NNN}} templates and address date links at that time. — Bellhalla (talk) 16:07, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

No, wikilinking dates for autoformatting is depreciated, as in now considered to be of little value, not deprecated which means to be worthy of ridicule, although that may also be true to some extent. And what is the "problem" with ISO formatted dates? As long as the style is consistent, there is no problem. The changes are meant to bring this template in line with the other templates as well as current practice. The old version you prefer creates a sea of useless, depreciated blue links in dates that have no usefulness, and detract from the usefulness of links to the referenced content. Dhaluza (talk) 23:47, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
If the word is intended to be depreciated then MOS:NUM needs to be changed from the current deprecated (linked as in the original). As it stands now with the word deprecated, my point is still valid: auto-formatted dates are recommended against, but not prohibited. Yes, I am aware of the many reasons for not linking dates. And contrary to what others may think, I'm not in favor of linking dates. But unless auto-formatted dates are prohibited, there's no reason to capriciously change this template when (a) there were provisions for having unlinked dates in this template, and (b), there are efforts underway to address the date linking issue in a systematic way (rather than a perhaps reactionary manner) with a revision of all {{cite nnn}} family templates. As far as I am aware, {{cite web}}, {{cite encyclopedia}}, and {{cite journal}} have not made this same change, and {{cite web}} has the exact same provisions for unlinked dates as this template (It's where I copied some of the code for this template). — Bellhalla (talk) 03:17, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
That whole point (deprecated vs prohibited) is irrelevant to be honest - because this is a template and enforces conditions. Enforcing a situation which is not compliant with MOS from a widely used template can hardly be considered an ideal situation. Nor for that matter is enforcing a situation which for the majority of readers leaves two different date formats in an article for no reason but compliance with the parameters of a template. We should be thinking of our readers here. What would make a lot of sense is having a separate parameter to raw link a date in much the way we have the "date" parameter now, and leave the existing accessdate parameter as is. It's a pain that the original one was coded this way to begin with and left us with the problem we now have (i.e. ISO dates which are incompatible with date fields sprinkled all over Wikipedia) but it should be fixed now before the problem gets bigger with continued growth and compliance to citation conventions. Orderinchaos 04:00, 15 October 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the date is still linked, is it not? GrszX 03:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

They shouldn't be, I thought I got them all. You may need to purge your cache to see the change. ~ L'Aquatique[talk] 08:33, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
Is it still linked [[4]]? GrszX 16:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
That's {{cite web}} - a different template. Punkmorten (talk) 20:25, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
The article date is still linked. For example, see the extensive {{cite news}} citations in 2008 Chatsworth train collision. Dhaluza (talk) 09:31, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

at least with the linked dates, 99% of citations were being filled out with YYYY-MM-DD dates, now that the templates aren't doing anything with the dates if they're in that format, i'm afraid that everyone will enter the dates in their own favorite way and we'll have a mess very soon. i don't care about the linking. that can come or go. but the automatic reformatting was really great.  —Chris Capoccia TC 15:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

Autoformatting is an illusion. Most readers don't even have accounts, so most readers do not experience autoformatting. --Gerry Ashton (talk) 19:11, 16 October 2008 (UTC)
The dates should be formatted consistently within an article. It is not important that they be consistent betweeen articles, as long as each is internally consistent. If the dates in the citations are formatted differently, that can be corrected through normal clean-up type editing. Dhaluza (talk) 09:27, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
Done Stifle (talk) 10:05, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
No! This is a step backwards. Now all dates are linked again. We needed to unlink the article date, not link the access date! Dhaluza (talk) 10:08, 20 October 2008 (UTC)