Template talk:Cite web

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Template:Cite web is permanently protected from editing, as it is a heavily used or visible template.

Substantial changes should be proposed here, and made by administrators if the proposal is uncontroversial, or has been discussed and is supported by consensus. Use {{editprotected}} to attract the attention of an administrator in such cases.
Any contributor may edit the template's documentation to add usage notes, categories or interwiki links.
F.Y.I. This template is one of several templates used to provide or request sources for articles.
Archive
Archives

Contents


[edit] This template spreads U.S. centrism across British English articles

This template should be deleted as it is U.S. centric. It requires people to enter dates in U.S. numerical format (month first), which can lead to errors, and it displays dates in U.S. format, which is insensitive and a violation of the principle that British English has equality. Unless these issues can be completely overcome, it should be deleted. Postlebury 10:15, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

So is there a speedy delete tag? What is the process for getting rid of this template? Tony 10:42, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
In fact, the day-month-year format is not British, it is used all over the world except in the United States. Still, I don't see the problem, because you can change the way of displaying dates by going to your preferences. Melsaran (talk) 10:59, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, you're wrong. None of the three numerical dates (date=, accessdate=, and archivedate=) require the format you mention nor do they force a US display style. The accessdate= and archivedate= parameters must be entered in yyyy-mm-dd format and are displayed according to the reader's preferences. The date= parameter is displayed exactly as entered by the editor, and can be formatted according to the reader's preference at the editor's discretion. RossPatterson 12:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)
He appears to believe that because "year-month-day" is a US format because it contains "month-day", despite it being an international standard, the US format being "month/day/year", and YMD order in everyday usage being primarily the case in eastern european and asian countries rather than north america --—Random832

[edit] Should support omitting url

url should not be a required parameter when archiveurl is provided, to allow to cite sources that are no longer available except from the archive. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Random832 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

But even on archive sites, it'll tell you what the original URL was, right? Besides, you never know when the original page might come back online. --zenohockey 22:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
But what if the domain name is gone (i.e. now owned by spammers, etc), so we would not want to link to it? —Random832 18:15, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I think a better solution would be to not activate the _URL_ link when _archiveurl_ is present. In other words, for _Cite web_ only one link to the source should be active - URL or ARCHIVEURL. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:44, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hanging indent proposal

For a proposal to add an optional formatting parameter to this and related citation templates, which would allow display as a hanging indent, see this discussion. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AGAIN: Redundant word "on" before the date

Someone has wrongly archived my query about this glitch (it's right at the end of the most recent archive).

Here is the previous text.

I wonder whether someone here can remove this word from the template; it's appearing in the thousands all over the place, and is quite unnecessary (= irritating). This issue has come up in the FAC room. Tony 13:49, 28 August 2007 (UTC) This may be a minor issue to some, but as I am currently suffering in said FAC room, here is my tuppence worth. WP:CITE#Embedded Links suggests the format: Accessed [[October 27]] [[2005]]., which is of course what many editors choose to do (although 'Retrieved' seems to be the standard verb at present). If an article ends up with a mixture of reference types those using 'citeweb' will say 'Retrieved on' and those using the standard embedded link will say 'Retrieved'. Editors accused of inconsistency thus have to amend all the standard ref tags, or remove all the citeweb templates, which is a nuisance (=very irritating). My conclusion is that the template is in minor breach of WP:CITE and that one or other of them should be changed. Ben MacDui (Talk) 09:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep, the template needs to be changed. Inconsistency is bad, and so is a redundant word, especially when repeated ad infinitum through a work list. I have no option but to discourage the use of the template unless this change is made. Tony 09:45, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I ask again why this template should not be deleted, since no one seems willing to fix up this redundant word that is now scattered through WP's reference lists, inconsistently within lists, of course, since manual entries are usually required as well.

Can we have some action on this? It can't be very hard. Tony (talk) 02:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess your question 'why shouldn't this be deleted' is more a rhetorical one borne of irritation, than a serious proposal to delete a template used across many thousands of articles on the basis of a possibly unnecessary word. I don't quite see the inconsistency, given that it seems that all of the various templates commonly used for formatting references that have this field ({{cite journal}}, {{cite news}}, {{cite conference}}, and a few others listed at WP:CITET) display as "Retrieved on [date]". The example given for the embedded link at WP:CITE would itself appear to be the odd-one-out. IMO, I don't think that example's formatting is meant to be definitive, just illustrative. If there are issues arising at FAC because references which are manually formatted don't exactly match those that are generated by one of the templates, then why wouldn't the remedy be to make the manually coded match the templates' outputs? Or, if typographical consistency is a dealbreaker there, why not convert the discrepant embedded links-style references to the appropriate template? --cjllw ʘ TALK 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Because the word on is redundant. Yes, it certainly is irritating. Why can't someone fix it? Does it take more than two minutes? Tony (talk) 15:05, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

You will perhaps forgive my confusion here. WP:CITE is a guideline that "is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow." This template and others does something that produces a result different from that guideline. This in turn means that you expect me to waste my time amending references so that either they contradict WP:CITE or that this template is removed from the article in question. This is an absurd, even Kafkaesque situation that is not acceptable. Two solutions make sense to me. Either the template (and the others if necessary) should be changed, or we can agree to continue the discussion at WP:CITE. The idea that a template should de facto over-rule a style guideline is absurd. Ben MacDui (Talk) 20:59, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

WP:CITE points to Wikipedia:Embedded citations "[f]or more details". Wikipedia:Embedded citations has two examples, one hand-coded and the other generated by {{cite news}}. Both say "Retrieved on". RossPatterson 01:55, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, why is removing the errant word "on" anything to do with following a standard or guideline? Where is the code, so I can do it myself? Tony (talk) 01:31, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
The code is right here in this template. However, it has been protected so that only an admin can edit it. Pagrashtak 19:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Even admins don't edit this template much. It is used extremely often, so it takes along time for a change here to move through the job queue, which is a nuisance for other editors. And a change here changes thousands of articles, so there has to be very clear consensus for the cite templates to be changed. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:54, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The word "on" is not redundant, it's proper grammar. Just like how you say "I went to the store on 9 September" and not "I went to the store 9 September". Melsaran (talk) 19:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

In the context of a list of external references, between "Retrieved" and "[date]", it most certainly is redundant. It's irritating to read scores of them in a row. Tony (talk) 07:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Tony's complaint is that it is ungrammatical, just not necessary. And yes, it would be a relatively trivial change mechanically, but if done should also be done for all of the half-dozen or more templates which are presently phrased that way. I don't know when or what prompted the template standardisation to "Retrieved on", but it would probably be best to propose said change at somewhere more central like Wikipedia talk:Citing sources as other templates would be involved, and FAIK others may take a different view. --cjllw ʘ TALK 04:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's necessary, it's proper grammar. "Retrieved 9 September" is not proper English, at best it could be considered telegram style. Melsaran (talk) 17:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Rubbish: particularly in AmEng, on is typically absence even before days of the week (We finished the job Tuesday). While I would not use that phrase, I would certainly remove on as quite unnecessary to the sense here in the context of a list of web cites, which is in the category of short text in any case (titles, headlines, notices, etc). Are you telling me that the meaning is unclear without on? No. It is not ungrammatical, as you seem to think. It has to go. Tony (talk) 00:50, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
With "retrieved on 9 September", we mean "This reference was retrieved on 9 September". "Retrieved 9 September" (without the "on") could also mean "9 September was retrieved". Just like how "retrieved my lost possessions" means "my lost possessions were retrieved". Although it's not really confusing in this context, this is another example that illustrates why "Retrieved 9 September" is bad grammar. Melsaran (talk) 22:55, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Don't confuse ambiguity with "bad grammar": they're very different. Grammar is not at issue here. Who on earth would take it as meaning that the editors were retrieving 9 September? How ridiculous. There's no ambiguity in the context of a huge list of retrieval dates for weblinks.
If people are so offended by the removal of "on", why not clean up the wording by changing it completely: "Retrieval date 9 September 1980"? But the shorter and simpler "Retrieved" is preferable. Tony (talk) 03:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] date not wiki linked

Out of curiosity why is the accessdate automatically wikilinked but not the date? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  04:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a good question that I've wonder as well. The only thing I can think of is if the full date is not available, like it's just the year, or month-year, something like that. I have found that adding the [[ ]]s works, but it would be nice if it did it automatically. (Guyinblack25 talk 14:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC))

{{editprotected}}

Could someone make the date= field auto wiki linked? -- Argash  |  talk  |  contribs  14:28, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
No - please don't. This will break all the existing uses of this template. This proposal needs wider discussion as it affects all cite * templates and they should all be updated, if deemed necessary, with a bot fixing the broken links. → AA (talk) — 14:48, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
I'm disabling the editprotected. Changes to the cite templates are made only when there is clear agreement. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Fundamentally the date fields should allow variety, including the unlinked "October 2007". It would help, however,if all the links occurred in the parameter rather than the template, as it creates special cases that should/shouldn't be linked normally. Rich Farmbrough, 09:37 7 November 2007 (GMT).

[edit] Please remove the word "on" from this and all similar templates

{{editprotected}}

As discussed here and on the related talk page, this word is redundant, and should be simply removed so that tens of thousands of "ons" are no longer scattered through lists of external links. Thus: "Retrieved on [date]" should simply be "Retrieved [date]". Tony (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

This was discussed above and there doesn't appear to be any consensus in making this change. As per my comments on the above proposal, this change would also break existing uses where a mixture of cite * and manually added ref entries (conforming to the cite format) have been used. It needs wider discussion. → AA (talk) — 15:25, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It will require very clear consensus to change the cite template this way, since the change will affect thousands of articles. For now I am disabling the editprotected tag. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:51, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
In which case, I'll advise everyone I come into contact with at FAC, FAR/C and elsewhere not to use the template. Tony (talk) 15:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Considering that I don't see any strong opposition, I'd suggest you first discuss at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources as suggested in the earlier section and see if you can get consensus to change all citation templates. Pagrashtak 16:11, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
Agree. The main opposition is that thousands of articles which have used these templates that also have manually added references where "Retrieved on" has been used, will need to be updated to remove the "on". Not a difficult task for a bot. I would suggest seeing if one of the bots (User:MetsBot seems appropriate) is willing to take on this task. If you can show that a bot has been lined up to fix the manual entries, then there shouldn't be any opposition. → AA (talk) — 16:18, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
It's quite petty for you to advise people not to use this template over one word. -- tariqabjotu 18:36, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
That's as maybe, but what is quite extraordinary is that there does not seem to be any sane way to codify Wikipedia's house style without recourse to obtaining separate sets of 'consensus' on disparate pages. Candidly I don't much care whether the 'on' is used or not, but it is patently absurd for it to be required by one system whilst omitted on another. I tend to avoid using citeweb, but its ten to one that just as I am preparing an article for some kind of review a well meaning editor will come along and add a few citeweb refs or change some existing one to use the template. This results in a quite unnecessary mess. In my view what is requited is a 'style committee' of some sort to deal with these issues and create a coherent set or protocols, rather than a set of semi-independent referencing mini-empires. Ben MacDui (Talk) 19:38, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
AA, I first noticed inconsistency because many users omit "on" in their manual entries, creating inconsistency with their citeweb entries. Better to remove the errant "on" altogether. I don't understand why it should be a bureacratic nightmare to to this. Tony (talk) 23:17, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Remove parameter list

{{editprotected}} An ugly orange box for the not-enough-parameters error was added to this template via the archived discussion here. Apparently the reason for this was to encourage people to fix the broken templates. Now we have Category:Articles with broken citations, however, which currently contains no articles from mainspace. The category is a sane and not jarring way of getting broken templates fixed, in my opinion, and we should replace

<div style="border:1px solid red; background-color:#ffdab9; display:table;">
You must specify  '''''title = ''''' and '''''url = ''''' when using {{tl|cite web}}.  Available parameters:
{{Cite web/doc/parameterlist}}
</div>

with

Error on call to [[Template:cite web]]: Parameters '''archiveurl''' and '''archivedate''' must be both specified or both omitted

which was there before. If this has consensus, I would appreciate if the same change could be made to {{cite news}}. GracenotesT § 19:33, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

At a minimum, the current text should be retained, rather than reverting to the older "Error on call ..." garbage (I can call it that, I wrote both texts :-) ). RossPatterson 22:40, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
On review, I can't say I disagree with your name for the earlier version. The text (You must [...] {{cite web}}) currently there is fine, just without the box and the parameter list. Really, whichever text is fine; I merely disagree with the presentation. GracenotesT § 02:13, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Could an admin implement the above changes (remove the div and parameter list), unless there is further discussion? Also, please substitute all instances of {{tl}} in this template: no need to have it transcluded when the code will work fine by itself. GracenotesT § 02:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Done. --- RockMFR 23:12, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Thank you. GracenotesT § 18:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Error category should only be applied in article namespace

{{editprotected}} After policing Category:Articles with broken citations for a few months, I've come to the conclusion that only articles should be placed in that category. I think it's still a good idea to display the error messages ("You must specify ...") any time the template is used incorrectly, but there's no need to flag things like user-page examples or talk-page samples for repair. I've made the necessary modifications and put the result in User:RossPatterson/cite web, could an admin please replace this template with that copy? RossPatterson 16:54, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable proposal -- article space is the only one we really need to be presentable to the public, and so the most pressing concern. On such a widely used template, of course, discussion prior to changes is probably a good idea. I see this is also requested at Template talk:Cite news, I'll drop off a link there. Feedback or opinions, anyone? – Luna Santin (talk) 04:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Agree - talk/user pages should not be listed in the category. → AA (talk) — 09:31, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

There seems to be agreement for this, but no actual code. Editprotected requests are for changes that have general agreement and can be put in place immediately. For complex highly-used templates such as this, someone needs to write and test the code first, before it is is made live. If you need help doing that, you can ask at Wikipedia:Requested templates. Once there is agreement on a particular solution to this issue, please make a new editprotected request and the code will be made live. — Carl (CBM · talk) 16:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

The code has already been written and tested. It's at User:RossPatterson/cite web as noted above, and it passes all the examples in Template:cite web/doc including an error-generation test case that I added and temporarily disabled until the editprotected is done. It's ready to go. If you prefer to see the code change, it is simply replacing the two occurrances of [[Category:Articles with broken citations]] with {{#if: {{NAMESPACE}}|| [[Category:Articles with broken citations]]}}. RossPatterson 02:22, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] ISSN

Shouldn't there be a parameter for ISSNs? Lurker (said · done) 13:10, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Automatic date wikilinking

It's really counterintuitive how the current version of this template requires that the date parameter be wikilinked (for example, date=[[2007-11-08]]), but the accessdate parameter must not be wikilinked (for example, accessdate=2007-11-08). I propose that we fix this by automatically wikilinking the date parameter if it is not passed in wikilinked. This would allow for the parameter to be passed in easily as date=2007-11-08 while not breaking the old-style date=[[2007-11-08]].

To do this, we would change the two lines that read:

    |  ({{{date}}})

To read:

    |  ({{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|Error: invalid time|{{{date}}}|[[{{{date}}}]]}})

For now, you can try out these changes using User:Remember the dot/Sandbox. Here are a couple of examples of how it would work:


{{cite web
|url=http://www.markschenk.com/opera/history.html
|title=Opera browser version history
|last=Schenk
|first=Mark
|date=2007-01-06
|accessdate=2007-10-24
}}

Schenk, Mark (2007-01-06). Opera browser version history. Retrieved on 2007-10-24.


{{cite web
|url=http://www.markschenk.com/opera/history.html
|title=Opera browser version history
|last=Schenk
|first=Mark
|date=[[2007-01-06]]
|accessdate=2007-10-24
}}

Schenk, Mark ([[2007-01-06]]). Opera browser version history. Retrieved on 2007-10-24.


In time, all the old instances of date=[[2007-11-08]] would be transitioned to date=2007-11-08 (this could perhaps be done by bot) and then we could simplify the code further by removing the backwards-compatibility for date=[[2007-11-08]].

Any thoughts? —Remember the dot (talk) 20:22, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Considering the number of people that come by this page and "demand" that the accessdate be unwikilinked, getting the date parameter wikilinked is probably going to be a tough sell. Also, your code doesn't seem to properly account for the multitude of dates that are input as Month Day, Year or Day Month Year.
Schenk, Mark (6 January 2007). Opera browser version history. Retrieved on 2007-10-24.
A bot would definitely have to go through and force those through into ISO format. --Bobblehead (rants) 22:17, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Hmm, that is a problem. But still, we need to find a way to make the date and accessdate parameters behave the same way for consistency. Surely there's another way that would allow for a relatively easy transition to automatic wikilinking. Give me some time to experiment. —Remember the dot (talk) 23:21, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

The formats of the date values and the accessdate values are quite different. Accessdates can and should be in a consistent format throughout an article. The publication dates are quite different, as they should (arguably) be in the format used by the original publisher. Remember, most of the information in citations is to help readers find the sources. Consistency is preferred in format, but not in the actual data that is presented. --- RockMFR 03:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume you primarily mean not turning "January 2007" into some form of "January 1, 2007", right? A correctly-written citation for such a date wouldn't use date=January 2007 anyway, but rather month=January and year=2007. But you're absolutely correct about the purpose of all this! RossPatterson 04:21, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
No, that would not happen. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, how about if we change

    |  ({{{date}}})

To read:

    |  ({{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|{{{date}}}|[[{{{date}}}]]|{{{date}}}}})

That would automatically wikilink only dates that are in YYYY-MM-DD format, giving us consistency with the accessdate parameter while not breaking things like date=January 1, 2007. —Remember the dot (talk) 05:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

If it restricts auto-linking to only YYYY-MM-DD formats and ignores already linked or other format dates, then I think it won't break existing uses of the template and therefore should not be a problem. → AA (talk) — 10:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
That's a cute trick:
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|2007-01-02}} = "2007-01-02" which matches "2007-01-02" so we get "(2007-01-02)".
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|[[2007-01-02]]}} = "Error: invalid time" which doesn't match "[[2007-01-02]]", but it is already linked, so we get "(2007-01-02)".
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|January 2, 2007}} = "2007-01-02" which doesn't match "January 2, 2007", so we get "(January 2, 2007)".
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|January 2007}} = "2007-01-01" which doesn't match "January 2007", so we get "(January 2007)".
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|[[January 2]], [[2007]]}} = "Error: invalid time" which doesn't match "[[January 2]], [[2007]]", but it is already linked, so we get "(January 2, 2007)".
  • {{#time:Y-m-d|01/02/07}} = "2007-01-02" which doesn't match "01/02/07", so we get "(01/02/07)", which is still ambiguous but that's how it started.
I think it covers all the bases. RossPatterson 23:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Please note that date= is also used in various fashions, such as with qualifiers after the date, depending on various cases.

  • For instance, when there is no way to have any information about the date of a document (including HTTP Last-Modified), I'll just put "2007 online" (all I know is that the document exists now in 2007 and that's the version I've read for sourcing) or "2007 copyright" (if that's all the page gives for date). Same when I'm consulting a non-archivable database page such as Library of Congress, I'll put the date as "2007 online", in line with the more complete accessdate=.
In that case, you ought to simply provide accessdate and not date. "2007 online" implies that the document was modified in 2007, when what you really meant is given later in the citation: "Retrieved on 2007-11-10". —Remember the dot (talk) 17:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, when I can get an Archive.org or Webcite stable url, and I see the page has been non-trivially changed/revised many times, I will qualify the date with "[[YYYY-MM-DD]] revision" (if I could extract it from HTTP Last-modified) or maybe just "YYYY update" (if I don't have the exact date but only the "archive was updated" dates, or if I can stuff the full date in another field).
The archivedate= parameter is a better choice for that sort of date. RossPatterson 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • The qualifier is useful to inform that it comes from one revision of a mercurial online document. Also, my trying to always get a year (even if with qualifier) is to help with using Author-Year cites in <REF>: by at least labelling an undatable document "2007 online", I can make a <REF NAME="DOE-2007">Doe 2007</REF>.
This is another case where the archivedate= parameter might be a better choice. RossPatterson 15:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
  • Also, I've seen uses such as "date=YYYY, [[Month Day]]", which are identically intended to provide both the full date, and a more easily parsable list of "Author-Year" references: when you get an endnote such as "Foo 1994" and you have a long list of references, including 10 books by Foo, I think you are happy to see the year come first in the parentheses.

Anyway, it looks like the proposal above by RossPatterson won't break those cases, but it's better if y'all are aware they also exist. — Komusou talk @ 07:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It's Remember the dot's proposal, not mine, but I like it :-) RossPatterson 15:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Since it's been a few days and there do not appear to be any objections, I propose that this change be implemented. For reference, the two lines that read

    |  ({{{date}}})

Should be changed to:

    |  ({{#ifeq:{{#time:Y-m-d|{{{date}}}}}|{{{date}}}|[[{{{date}}}]]|{{{date}}}}})

—Remember the dot (talk) 19:17, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Because this is the type of thing that has drawn large amounts of complaints before, I think it would be prudent to announce it at the proposals village pump first. This is not a comment on the merits of the change, only the voice of caution from experience. It does seem reasonable the dates formats should match. — Carl (CBM · talk) 01:59, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
I think previous complaints were due to the proposed changes "breaking" existing uses of the template. This proposal is fully "backwards compatible" and therefore is uncontroversial. However, it is nevertheless worth publicising in the village pump so that editors are aware of the enhancement. → AA (talk) — 07:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
It has been publicized, both here and because of CBM's comment, here. Since, like you said, it's fully backwards-compatible, it shouldn't be too controversial. —Remember the dot (talk) 07:51, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

Still no complaints. Would it be all right if we implemented the change now? —Remember the dot (talk) 21:52, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd go ahead and do it, personally. --Bobblehead (rants) 20:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Y Done — Coren (talk) 04:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Order of display

How come full publication dates are displayed just after the author's name instead of after the title and publisher (as is already done with partial dates)? It look odd and does not fit any citation standards I am aware of.
For Example:

  • Lambert, David (11/12/2007). Stingray - Cover Art for Cannell's Complete Series. TVshowsOnDVD.com. Retrieved on 2007-11-14.
    would look much better as:
  • Lambert, David. Stingray - Cover Art for Cannell's Complete Series. TVshowsOnDVD.com. (11/12/2007) Retrieved on 2007-11-14.
    —MJBurrage • TALK • 22:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hmm... /doc not visible

All of the sudden the transcluded /doc page is not showing up, but it is there can can be edited, and can be viewed on its own page. I skimmed the code and didn't see anything obvious, like a stray noinclude. Weird. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 00:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Why is the date wikilinked?

There is an editor opposed to using this citation template for the sole reason that it automatically wikilinks the date. So I have two questions:

  • Why is the date automatically wikilinked?
  • Is there some way to turn off the automatic wikilinking of dates?

–panda (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The date and accessdate are wikilinked so that users can have the date displayed according to their preferences. According to the Manual of Style, all dates with a day, month and year should be wikilinked. See also this page. There is no way to turn off this feature as far as I know, and it shouldn't be turned off as it is useful and mandated by the MOS. Lurker (said · done) 16:41, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it seems you can create a non-wikilinked retrieval date using the fields accessmonthday (or accessdaymonth) and accessyear and a non-wikilinked date using the fields month and year (although this doesn't allow you to put the day in). See the template page for instructions on how to do this. Quite why you'd do this is beyond me- it means users would not be able to choose how these dates are displayed. And it goes against the MOS. However, if it is important that you have a full non-wikilinked publication date, I'm sure a monthday and daymonth field could be added. Lurker (said · done) 16:59, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
It would be much nicer to have a flag that allows you to turn off auto wikilinking of dates. At any rate, I'll see if bringing up the MOS changes this other editor's mind about wikilinking dates. –panda (talk) 17:21, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
I mentioned your points and the editor doesn't seem convinced. Could you please make a comment about this in Talk:Swedish language? –panda (talk) 20:02, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Could we get som sense into this discussion? For one thing, the MoS is clearly supposed to regulate article content, not notations concerning when some Wikipedian checked a certain website, and it's not something that has to be slavishly obeyed unless everyone accepts a written counter-mandating guideline (a rather good example of instruction creep). The dates in references (even the publishing dates) are without almost any exceptions non-notable events with zero relevance to the article topic or the events that are listed in the articles of individual dates or years.
Moreover, the idea that the incessant linking of any full date anyone can find in an article would somehow lead to readers being able to choose not to have those links displayed is patently ridiculous. Most readers aren't registered users, and out of the very few registered users only a small percentage will probably ever bother to tweak the preferences. For all practical purposes, it's something that only concerns established Wikipedians, and this is certainly a group of individuals who could certainly be bothered with the vexing task of typing in a date in the search field manually.
Peter Isotalo 14:26, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
There's plenty of sense in WP:OVERLINK#Dates and WP:DATE#Autoformatting and linking already. Painting "consistent use of date autoformatting markup" as "incessant linking" misses the point. If the benefit is limited to a small percentage, that is still a reason to use it, for that (perhaps small) benefit, unless the detriment outweighs it. And there is no apparent detriment. Nobody's being yelled at for including dates without the formatting markup, but there is no reason to get into an edit war when another editor includes the markup. -- JHunterJ (talk) 15:46, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
Linking the dates that some Wikipedian retrieved a web reference is not in any way significant to any article. It has no encyclopedic relevance whatsoever. As for no reason into getting into an edit war over an issue like this: WP:KETTLE.
Peter Isotalo 12:00, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Speaking of kitchenware... this looks like a tempest in a teapot. I don't see why linked dates in this template are something to make a big deal about. If there is some editor who refuses to use these templates due to those date links... well... fine. I think that's a petty reason to not use this template at all, but (s)he can do whatever (s)he wants. Many believe there should be some way to format dates without linking them, but this is not an issue specific to this template. -- tariqabjotu 15:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This issue has now been brought up in Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Linking full dates. –panda (talk) 17:50, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Lurker, you say it's done that way so that users can display the date according to their preferences. All right. As a user, it's my preference to display dates as plain, black text without any link to irrelevant pages about Gregorian calendars that I might click by mistake hoping I'm going to load an online copy of an article. How do I set it up to display it like that on all pages that use that format? --Coppertwig (talk) 00:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Petition the Wiki programmers to add that option to "my preferences". -- JHunterJ (talk) 03:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Pages parameter

pages: pp. 5–7: first page and optional last page. This is for listing the pages relevant to the citation, not the total number of pages in the book.

I don't quite understand what is the proper way to insert the page number in the "pages" parameter. Am I suppose to enter only the corresponding page number into the pages parameter, such as "12", or am I suppose to enter "pp. 12" or "p. 12", following the example given? --Silver Edge (talk) 03:27, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If you want "p. 12" or "pp. 5–7" to show up, enter exactly that. If you just enter "12", there will be no "p.". Whether the "p." is desired or not is a matter of style. Anomie⚔ 14:01, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Interesting template problem

I am having an interesting (or weird depending on your perspective) problem with the cite web template. The author name refuses to display the first word. Here is an example:

[Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)]. Standard Report Hieracium caespitosum (HTML). Retrieved on 2007-12-15.

Which should look like:

[Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS)]. Standard Report Hieracium caespitosum (HTML). Retrieved on 2007-12-15.

Thanks for your attention (when I get it) -- carol 13:00, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

"authorlink" is not for external links, but to links to the author's Wikipedia entry:
Integrated Taxonomic Information System (ITIS). Standard Report Hieracium caespitosum (HTML). Retrieved on 2007-12-15. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Well, that is quite interesting and possibly a pain for fixing where I have used it wrongly ;)
I actually dislike that kind of link in most places I have accidentally encountered it -- I think the last time I noticed that I did not like that quality was when I wanted to get to wiktionary or wikispecies quickly and wondered the reason my searches kept landing me here again.
So, I hacked the template then? Heh, not if the examples above are how mine are working. Eek! -- carol 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fix formatting

{{Editprotected}}

Per all normal citation style guidelines and the MOS, and {{Cite book}} and other templates in this series, please fix this template to put "double quotes" around the "title=" value. This should be done in the code so that it puts the quotation marks about only the value, not the entire URL-plus-title, or the quotations marks will accidentally end up including the "external link icon". I.e. the rendered result should be <a href="URL HERE">"TITLE HERE"</a>, not "<a href="URL HERE">TITLE HERE</a>" (underlining emphasis added for clarity; obviously, the underlining would not be in the actual code). — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 02:24, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Hrm, a quick Google search turns up at least as many style guidelines that suggest italics as it does guidelines that suggest quotes. I'm also not sure what {{Cite book}} has to do with it, and I don't see webpage titles mentioned at all on MOS:TITLE. Anomie⚔ 13:54, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
According to "Citing Web resources", Chicago and MLA would use quotes, APA would use no quotes or italics. What guideline specifies italics? I would agree that the titles should be quoted here. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I suppose it depends on whether the title parameter to this template is being used for the "document title" or the "web site title"; all three there use italics for the "web site title". Sometimes it makes sense to have a separate "document title" and "web site title" (in which case work is used for the "web site title"), while other times there is only one title involved (in which case title must be used). Anomie⚔ 17:01, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

This is controversial, so I've disabled the request. You might also want to consider current usages which already use quotes, which obviously would be messed up by such a change. --- RockMFR 17:56, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In-text cites?

{{editprotected}} There are a number of warning signs that refer to the lack of in-text cites on an article. However, nothing on this page refers to in-text cites. Could that be clarified on the page please? If not, please tell me WTF they are.

Slamlander (talk) 16:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Disabling the request, as this appears to be a request for a change to the documentation, which is not protected. If this is in error, please reinstate the request with a more specific description. If you show me an example of the warning to which you refer, I might be able to answer your question. Pagrashtak 17:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Publisher field should NOT be italicized

the "publisher" field should not be ital. due to publishers being either companies and/or individuals. miranda 05:39, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct; the work field should be italicized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
{{#if: {{{work|}}}
  | . ''{{{work}}}''
}}{{#if: {{{pages|}}}
  |  {{{pages}}}
}}{{#if: {{{publisher|}}}
  | . {{{publisher}}}{{#if: {{{author|}}}{{{last|}}}
    | 
    | {{#if: {{{date|}}}{{{year|}}}{{{month|}}} || }}
  }}

This appears to be the relevant bit, if I'm understanding you correctly. If I'm reading it right, it appears to be set up as SandyGeorgia described. Is there a particular case where this isn't working right? – Luna Santin (talk) 08:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I guess I was confused about the "work" field. I am wondering if we can change the "work" field to something like "newspaper" for the field? Lessens on the confusion. Thanks for your efforts. miranda 12:35, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I see. Adding an alternate parameter name might be confusing, but shouldn't be too difficult on the template end; changing the variable name outright would require that we check/update an awful lot of transclusions (possible with AWB, but difficult to tell how much work that'd be). Any opinions on that, anybody? – Luna Santin (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Format for video clips

What is the correct value of the parameter "format=" for video clips, such as at Common Cold Unit? Thanks—G716 <T·C> 09:13, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

For video files, I think the format would always be the file extension (e.g. MIDI or MP3). However, I hope someone with more authority than I have will confirm/deny this, as it could be a related concept, like the MIME type.--Jesdisciple (talk) 11:58, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] {{cite news}} vs. {{cite web}} - Why not just use {{cite web}}?

I was just wondering why {{cite web}} should only be used for non-news sources. Doesn't {{cite news}} have very similar fields? Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 21:24, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you. I have used {{cite web}} for news sources. There is no need for {{cite news}}. I think the two templates should be merged. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:47, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Reminder: url and title are mandatory fields in {{cite web}}. Not all news citations will have a url. {{cite web}} could be merged into {{cite news}}, but not the other way around, unless the url field in web citations was no longer mandatory. And that would be odd. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for replying :)
I think that before considering whether to merge (although it's good to consider it!), it would be brilliant to think about what's written on the template documentation. At the moment, it clearly, unarguably says that the template mustn't be used for citing news sources, and to use {{cite news}} for that. If we have consensus to change that, then I think that should be our first step :) ¡Muchas gracias, Drum guy (talk) 23:09, 4 March 2008 (UTC)!
Regardless of whether the use of _cite web_ is expanded to include news articles or not, the point made about "not all news citations will have a url" (I agree with this) puts a full-stop on the notion of deprecating _cite news_ ... a merger of the two would be counter productive. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I concur that "cite news" must not be deprecated. It's exactly the wrong direction to go. Professionally published news, on average, is a far better, more reliable source than mere web pages. The news template also contains more specific information (like pages) that are missing from the web template. The net result is that "cite news" conveys more serious weight to its cited sources, which is abetted by the fact that "cite web" is often used to paste in any old page found on the web, with no regard to the reliability of the publishers behind it. This is not a fatal error for "cite web" — we can, after all, aspire to be do better — but merging "news" into "web" is like merging a professional weekly paper into a tabloid. (Not that that probably hasn't been done, but we must avoid a similar travesty if we want to be taken seriously as an encyclopedia.) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 03:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
I certainly agree about the comparative reliability of some news organs, but that derives from their name and reputation, not from the template used to cite them. Similarly, some web sites also are well known and reputable, e.g., Salon.com, The Register, heck, even in its own way The Onion. And on top of that, those who only read the artible don't know which template is being used, if any. RossPatterson (talk) 00:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
The Register is among those websites that it would be reasonable to use _cite news_ for rather than _cite web_. The distinction in using _cite news_ is one of journalistic standards, not the medium used to communicate the work. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 02:05, 6 March 2008 (UTC)
So what can we say?
Are we saying that we can never use {{cite web}} for news sources, but if it's possible to use exactly the same fields but just change the word 'web' to 'news', can we add that in the template documentation? Are there more things (e.g. other necessary fields) that we need to know? Thanks, Drum guy (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
Not quite. For instance, the URL field is mandatory for _Cite web_ and one point above is that not all news items have associated URLs. There are other differences, but this is the first that comes to mind. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
OK, but can we add to the documentation that to cite a news source, all you have to do is change the word 'news' to 'web', and that, although there are differences, the same fields can be used? Drum guy (talk) 21:11, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Language field producing extra brackets

The language brackets are producing extra brackets when used with {{Languageicon}}. Jappalang (talk) 23:40, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

These extra brackets are appearing even with a straight: title|url|accessdate format. See:Philosophical_views_of_suicide#References, ref. #1. Is it me? Am I mis-applying the parameters? ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 16:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm having a similar problem @ Handchime. I've done everything I can think of to the parameters, and nothing gets rid of the brakets or makes the link apply to the title instead of being written out (which is seriously ugly). Any help? Godofbiscuits 21:47, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I fixed the reference problem in both the Philosophical views of suicide[1] and Handchime[2] articles. Instead of the "space key", the "enter key" was pressed after the colon (:) used in the title of both references, which caused the problem. --Silver Edge (talk) 03:30, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, Silver Edge! Godofbiscuits 16:42, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the language parameter of this template was made to be used with {{Languageicon}}. For example: Wikipedia (English). Wikipedia ((English)). --Silver Edge (talk) 03:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Could this template be made to work with the {{Languageicon}}? Is there any reason it should not? papageno (talk) 03:05, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
The {{Cite news}} template appears to be taking the language parameter and converting to the language icon. See the "Radio Okapi" references at 2008_Hewa_Bora_Airways_crash. papageno (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
I propose that the language parameter be used to invoke a language icon, just as done with {{Cite news}}. papageno (talk) 18:26, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Rm "other"

{{editprotected}} Under the "All parameters" heading, pls remove the word "other" from the following sub-heading:

All other parameters, horizontal format (delete the ones you don't need)

The word "other" makes that sub-heading incorrect, as it implies that the listed parameters don't include the ones listed previously. It should read:

All parameters, horizontal format (delete the ones you don't need)

Another change that would be worthwhile, but not necessary, is to remove the parenthetical text "(delete the ones you don't need)" and put it above that sub-heading, to show that it applies to both the horizontal and vertical formats. E.g., it could be moved intact to the end of the "All parameters" heading, or it could be converted to an explanatory, unbolded sentence immediately below the "All parameters" heading.

Thank you, --Rich Janis (talk) 02:07, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

The template documentation is at Template:Cite web/doc which is unprotected and you are welcome to edit yourself. mattbr 10:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Syntax

I need to find out what I'm doing wrong... I'm using this syntax:

{{cite web title=Example.com - Home |url=http://www.example.com/ |accessdate=2008-03-14}}

And I get this: Template:Cite web title=Example.com - Home Why? Thanks! --Jesdisciple (talk) 12:14, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

You need a | after the template name, ie {{cite web | title=Example.com - Home | url=http://www.example.com/ | accessdate=2008-03-14}}. mattbr 12:20, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks! I wish I had a 'WikiLint'... --Jesdisciple (talk) 13:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion: case sensitivity and parameter tags

The url parameter should not be case-sensitive; at the very least,

{{cite web | URL=http://example.net | title=your example document}}

should not display the annoying error, "You must specify title = and url = when using {{cite web}}." 69.140.152.55 (talk) 04:16, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; case sensitivity in parameter tags is a problem. However, I think this is a MediaWiki 'feature', isn't it? --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 13:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
Correct. Parameters are case-sensitive, therefore the error message was not displayed in error. It may have been annoying, but it caused you to fix your template call, so you should be happy you got it. Shinobu (talk) 23:02, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date wikilinking bug

Because

{{#time:Y-m-d|1935-09-15}}

evaluates to

1970-01-01

the template refuses to automatically wikilink all dates before 1970. This is problematic for material which originated before this date (e.g. historical documents) and were later put on the web. Shinobu (talk) 22:58, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Fixed: p (1965-04-30)..--Patrick (talk) 00:12, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Just an FYI to everyone, this is a technical limitation and is further explained at Unix time. Gary King (talk) 21:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I suspected it might have something to do with the Unix era. :-) Link to the diff for reference. Thanks for fixing! Shinobu (talk) 22:46, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] adding funding= parameter

{{editprotected}}

Adding a "funding=" parameter so that we can add the funding source for the study. This was brought up because of multiple sources being suspected of having funding from the same company on Water memory. The "publisher=" parameter is not adequate for this since people think that I am talkng about the editor and change it, see [[3]].

We have been arguing for the need of specifying the funding on studies suspected of POV and which studies need the funding specified and which don't, but it's all moot unless we have the technical means to specify funding on the first place (aka "funding="). The whole discussion is spread over Talk:Homeopathy/Article_probation/Incidents#pushing_articles_on_talk_pages and Talk:Arsenicum_album#More_info_on_the_human_trial.

Another solution would be creating "Template:Cite_study" with a funding parameter, on the line of "Template:Cite_news", but, as it stands now, +95% of the params would be identical to citeweb, and citeweb is already used everywhere for studies with no problem except this recent problem --Enric Naval (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

Funding isn't the sort of thing that is normally included in citation information. I think the best solution to this problem would be to not use templates in cases where you wish to specify this additional information. --- RockMFR 15:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Since this information is only going to be required in a very few instances, I would recommend you create {{cite study}} rather than adding to the 19th most-transcluded-template on Wikipedia. That way, you can customise the fields to display exactly what you need. Be careful to keep the formatting consistent with the other citation templates. Happy‑melon 15:57, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, I'll create that one --Enric Naval (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Common form for cases where little is known about authorship of the page

Would it be fair to say that editors shouldn't actually be adding links to pages where "little is known about the authorship"? Given that this is first off the top, might we be encouraging bad links? It doesn't have the publisher field, for instance, and you can't ascertain reliability without finding a publisher. Can it go? Marskell (talk) 16:57, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Date linking

In [4], why does the accessyear field not require a link (if it is linked, the "[[]]" appear in the text), while accessdaymonth does require linking? Thanks, –Outriggr § 01:08, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

Accessdaymonth is used for non-wikilinked dates.
accessdate=2005-07-06 will yield a formatted, wikilinked date: 6 July 2005.
accessmonthday=July 6|accessyear=2005 will yield a non-formatted date, with only the year linked: July 6, 2005.
accessmonthday=[[July 6]]|accessyear=2005 will yield a formatted, wikilinked date: 6 July 2005, the same as when using accessdate.
By the way, I really don't understand why we would support having non-wikilinked dates here in the first place. It's just a crude way of overriding the user's settings, which strikes me as a very impolite thing to do, the message it conveys is approximately "my settings are better than yours, so I will force them upon you." I think we should either abandon accessmonthday or link it just like in the accessdate version. Shinobu (talk) 23:06, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
If I follow you, I agree. This is very unintuitive and unexpected behaviour. Template parameter names should be as self-explanatory as possible; accessdaymonth vs accessmonthday, seriously?? It seems every time I find myself working with a date in a citation template, I have to make an informed guess about whether to link the field; and I'm usually wrong. I don't understand how wiki's most widely used citation templates end up this way. –Outriggr § 23:51, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Oops, I misinterpreted; I thought one of those parameters linked and one didn't. (Although my point about explanatory naming is still kinda valid; who wouldn't expect access(day|month) to link, unless you deduced the reason that they are separate parameters, but since the reason they are separate seems poor, you wouldn't deduce it...) So I still agree with you - deprecate them. –Outriggr § 23:57, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WebCite and archiveurl

I've just tried to use WebCite to document references. For example this editin the Julian Lincoln Simon article. Is there a reason not to use WebCite on every web source you document? Maybe WebCite should have it's own parameter and always be included (automaticly if possible)? Nsaa (talk) 21:03, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit requested

{{editprotected}}

The formatting of dates using accessdaymonth and accessmonthday violates the manual of style: They should look like this (when used with accessyear, which there is no situation that they should not be):

respectively

But actually look like this:

This is wrong, and the incorrect comma in the first is hard-coded.

I have fixed the problem on temp-page {{cite web2}} - you may delete redirect that here that when you're done with it. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:53, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

According to the documentation (and how the template was until a few months ago), nothing should be wikilinked if accessdaymonth/accessmonthday is used. Just having the year linked is obviously wrong, as it is now, so I'm changing it back to how it was a few months ago. --- RockMFR 18:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:MOSDATE the whole thing should be linked, as two halves. Shoemaker's Holiday (talk) 16:59, 24 May 2008 (UTC)