Wikipedia talk:Citation templates

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7

based on the application number and publication number ????

Can it be available for wiki contributor in the future??? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.190.192.130 (talk) 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Try {{Patent}}, {{Cite patent}}, and {{US patent}}.--Srleffler (talk) 04:09, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I propose adding a "machine translation" field to the cite web template for non-English websites. SharkD (talk) 06:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly would it contain? --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 22:25, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd presume, parameters to generate a link to a machine-translated copy. For example,

{{cite web|url=http://www.babyeinstein.com/cn/OurProducts.shtml|title=产品介绍 ("Product Introduction")|accessdate=2008-08-22|transfrom=zh-CN|transto=en}}

might generate something like:

[http://www.babyeinstein.com/cn/OurProducts.shtml 产品介绍 ("Product Introduction")]. Retrieved on [[2008-08-22]]; ([http://translate.google.com/translate_c?hl=en&sl=zh-CN&tl=en&u=http://www.babyeinstein.com/cn/OurProducts.shtml automated translation])

yielding:

产品介绍 ("Product Introduction"). Retrieved on 2008-08-22; (automated translation)

TJRC (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This user also made the proposal over at Template talk:Cite web, where it was not received with enthusiasm. The gist of the negative opinions (mine included) was that citations must be to references actually used, not to translations of them. RossPatterson (talk) 01:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I frequently find myself wanting to use a book as a citation for than once for the same article. (You know - books - they're like the internet except printed on dead trees and with a really crappy search function). I'm a huge fan of resuing refs with the <ref name=book1 /> tag, but the problem is I also want to be as specific as possible in my ref, and that means inserting the page number. I don't want to redo the entire ref again because that just seems like a waste of space and not a very robust solution (reinventing the wheel and all that), but I don't see a better way of doing it. Is there anything in place (or could something developed) that would allow this to happen? For example, I could do <ref name=book>{{cite book...</ref> and then later when I wanted to cite a different page in the same book do something like <ref name=book|page=2 />. --Bachrach44 (talk) 03:05, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do what you want would be to do <ref>{{cite book|parameters}} Page 2</ref> --Lightsup55 ( T | C ) 03:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is one way. See Wikipedia:Citing sources/Example edits for different methods for some others. -- Boracay Bill (talk) 04:07, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Rp puts the page number after the footnote.^[1]: 10 Alternatively, you can use <sup> tags to do the same thing. American Medical Association style doesn't use the basic colon number, but instead does it like this^[1](p10) or like this.^[2](pp20)

How is using that affected when you bring in other book references? LamontCranston (talk) 08:59, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice that User:Fainites has mentioned this before (Another template please), but he got no response. When dealing with scholarly works that are edited collections of essays by various authors - anthologies or compendiums if you like - there is no {{cite xxx}} template that fully allows this. The {{Citation}} template covers this, by distinguishing between "contribution" and "title", and by allowing for editors to be listed. But there should also be the option of doing this with {{cite xxx}}, preferably {{cite book}}. I'd include these parameters myself, but I'm not exactly sure how, or if it would require talk page consensus. Lampman (talk) 14:31, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, at closer scrutiny I realised there's the possibility to use "chapter". Maybe this should be included on the template as it's presented here though. I also realise now that there's room for editors, but only one space even if there are multiple editors. Lampman (talk) 14:43, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

{{cite book}} also works, again using the "chapter" field for the name of the chapter (or article or paper). You can put as many editors as needed into the "editors" field.--Srleffler (talk) 04:12, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have also not found it possible to reference a chapter in a historical primary source (many works use internal numbering such as ch. 34.9 to refer to specific paragraphs.) The closest match for this is the chapter tag mentioned above, but since it's meant to be used for headings it encloses it in inverted commas ("34.9") which is incorrect I think. fluoronaut (talk) 09:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually looking at the template again I think {{cite book | pages = 34.9 | nopp = 1}} is probably the way forward. Seems a bit clunky though. fluoronaut (talk) 09:20, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• These two families produce different citation styles. For example, the {Cite xxx} family separates elements with a full stop, while the {Citation} template separates elements with a comma. Thus, these two families should not be mixed in the same article.

Is there a good reason for having two incompatible families of citation templates? Many citation tools only offer output in one or the other family. So this means, for example, giving up either Zotero or the Universal reference formatter. To make matter worse, I'm not aware of any tool for converting between families. Can't we simply decide to use either commas or full stops for both? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 01:32, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that there should be a uniform style. I don't see the point of the two families in the first place and personally would purge the "cite xxx" series. But in any case, I think it's a really bad idea to have to sets of templates that produce different style for exactly the same thing being cited. Jason Quinn (talk) 16:54, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I have sources from Newspaper articles, but the articles are old, so the links are not online. How would I cite the newspaper without the link to a URL? Thanks! CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:26, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Use {{cite news}} with the URL field blank. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 02:29, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ooh thank goodness! Thank you so much! :) CarpetCrawler (talk) 02:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many newspapers, such as the Los Angles Times and the New York Times, have searchable archives. The archived articles generally require a fee, but the abstracts can be viewed without a fee. The Los Angeles Times archive can be found at http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/advancedsearch.html --Dan Dassow (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style‎#Merging the zillions citation templates out there. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 17:48, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

can we get this pairing of parameters functional in {{cite map}}, {{cite press release}} and {{cite book}} as well? I use these three templates frequently in writing articles, and I'd like to completely switch the references all over to be consistent. (One of the sources I use publishes their book online.) Imzadi1979 (talk) 04:49, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

How do you site a page where the title is in an East-Asian language? Currently {{cite web}} doesn't support showing those characters as part of the title.Jinnai (talk) 07:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can you be more specific as to which language? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 14:45, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to cite Japanese, specifically hiragana characters for a title with {{cite web}}.Jinnai (talk) 03:37, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...we do a lot of citing of Japanese sites in the anime/manga project, and I haven't heard of any problems using it. They all show up fine for the ones I've used. Is there a specific article I can look at to see what its doing for the one you're trying to cite or can you post an example here? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 03:49, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can't recall which one I was talking about before, but the 2 I still have in mind are page or the one on the top link I was planning to use as well as page for a product review. When i use Japanese for the titles it doesn't display properlyunder sources.Jinnai (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:56, 26 October 2008 (UTC).[reply]

Testing:^[1][2]

both look correct to me? -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 05:01, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No. I'm saying when i cite them, in the references at the bottom of a page the title doesn't show up. Instead it's ignored and replaced with the url.Jinnai (talk) 05:34, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you're doing the template correctly? That test above replicates the same thing. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 06:13, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! I see what I missed. Thanks for the help.Jinnai (talk) 08:16, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Much to my own surprise, something I wrote years ago is cited as a source in Christmas Tree EXEC. I'm not particularly notable, certainly not deserving of an article. Is it appropriate to set |authorlink=User:RossPatterson on the citation template to point to my user page, or should I leave well enough alone? I'm not looking for credit or hype, I'm just wondering whether it's appropriate to link to a user's page when there is no article but the person is a WP editor. All advice is welcome, thanks. RossPatterson (talk) 01:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think so. That article could be improve with inline citations, btw. --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 01:27, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations. As far as I've ever seen, though, links from articles to userpages are discouraged. WP:USER actually says "never link from articles to userpages", although it's referring to content in userspace rather than because the user is the author of a work being cited so it might not actually apply. Anomie⚔ 04:15, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

In the discussion at Template_talk:Cite_web#Arbitrary_date_format_change a proposal has been outlined on how to standardize and show the dates in {{cite web}} by applying the following change. The change is worked out in a test template {{cite web3}} with examples, by using {{DATEtoMOS}}. Is this something we should applied to this template and or all other Citation templates? Nsaa (talk) 13:40, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now that we're not linking dates anymore, I think the format in the refs should be the same as the format in the rest of the article. لennavecia 05:11, 23 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

So dates should always be entered as yyyy-mm-dd in template fields? 87.254.83.229 (talk) 23:05, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I used to do, but now the output is inconsistent:

{{Cite news|title=Lorem ipsum|date=2008-12-23|accessdate=2008-12-23|archivedate=2008-12-23|url=http://invalid.org/|archiveurl=http://invalid.com/}} gives:

"Lorem ipsum". 2008-12-23. Archived from the original on 2008-12-23. Retrieved 2008-12-23.

(The dates above appear here^{[n 1]} as: (2008-12-23) … 23 December 2008 … 23 December 2008)

Note the format of "date" is different to the other two. I suggest you use an explicit date format —other than ISO— which you judge to be consistent with the article, e.g.:

{{Cite news|title=Lorem ipsum|date=December 23, 2008|accessdate=December 23, 2008|archivedate=December 23, 2008|url=http://invalid.org/|archiveurl=http://invalid.com/}} gives:

"Lorem ipsum". December 23, 2008. Archived from the original on December 23, 2008. Retrieved December 23, 2008.

(The dates above appear here as: (December 23, 2008) … December 23, 2008 … December 23, 2008)

I prefer this format, feeding ISO dates into {{Date}}:

{{Cite news|title=Lorem ipsum|date={{Date|2008-12-23}}|accessdate={{Date|2008-12-23}}|archivedate={{Date|2008-12-23}}|url=http://invalid.org/|archiveurl=http://invalid.com/}} which gives:

"Lorem ipsum". 23 December 2008. Archived from the original on 23 December 2008. Retrieved 23 December 2008.

(The dates above appear here as: (23 December 2008) … 23 December 2008 … 23 December 2008)

Michael Bednarek (talk) 03:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What template should be used for citing material from a CD and/or its liner notes? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:31, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Check out {{cite album-notes}}. RossPatterson (talk) 02:05, 20 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Some templates end with a full stop / period, while others don't. This needs to be standardized. My concern is that these periods look ugly when I also use the quote field, resulting in citations that sometimes end like .". --Adoniscik^{(t, c)} 04:56, 25 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone help me. I'm trying to cite a speech which is reprinted in a Historical Society Journal. In specific, the one at this link: [1]. The speech is given by a historian, Charles Francis Adams, Jr., entitled "Wessagussett and Weymouth" and was given July 4, 1874. (The bicentennial of the town.) I can do that just as-is. But the problem is what I'm really doing is a reprint of a speech and not the speech itself, so the correct template may be a journal-style citation with the author as "Weymouth Historical Society" and the title as it is given is then "Wessagussett and Weymouth, a Historical Address by Charles Francis Adams, Jr." and the publication date is 1905. I suspect that this is the best I can do, a mixture of the two, but maybe there is a better way to cite a reprint?

Citation
 | last = Adams, Jr. 
 | first = Charles Francis
 | author-link = 
 | title = Wessagusset and Weymouth
 | journal =
 | volume = vol. 3
 | issue = 
 | pages = 
 | date = 
 | year = 1905
 | url = http://books.google.com/books?id=aT4WAAAAYAAJ
 | publisher = Weymouth Historical Society
 | doi = 
 | id = 

Thanks for any help you can provide. JRP (talk) 04:10, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have a booklet published by the Yolo County Historical Society which has invaluable information about ghost towns and unincorporated areas in Yolo County. I just don't know how to cite it. It has the publication year, city, and a title for the booklet (Three Maps of Yolo County) but no author. I think it was a collective effort by the Society. How would I cite it? For now I'm going to just use the "cite book" template and just put in parameters that the booklet gives. My question is this: should (or could) I just put the Society's name in for one of the author name parameters? Killiondude (talk) 05:56, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you should list the society as the author. لennavecia 14:03, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Under Harvard citation examples, the rows in the two columns don't match up with each other. Could someone fix the formatting? Thank you--Funandtrvl (talk) 00:36, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Any article which currently using accessmonthday/accessdaymonth together with accessyear in a reference is only displaying the year, but is missing the day and month. Anyone able to investigate and fix? --TimTay (talk) 08:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most journal articles are now indicating if an article has "free full-text" available, and so is PubMed. It would be nice if we did the same. A simple parameter could generate a link at the end for "Free full-text", where the hyperlink would be placed (this might be to the journal page, or to the PubMedCentral page, or whatever the free full-text URL is). In these cases, the title would automatically not be hyperlinked. Currently all URLs default to linking the title; sometimes these are available, sometimes they aren't. II | (t - c) 18:28, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw someone do something which accomplishes this by putting "Subscription required" in the format field [2]. Still interested in settling on an effective way to display this. II | (t - c) 16:47, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PubMed now uses a new PMCID code that pulls up any free full text content. The Diberri tool will search for the PMCID associated with any PMID. The Cite Journal template automatically links the article name to the free-text. I think this works for article over the past few years, but it seems like that Journals want to charge for viewing older content. Also, a lot of journals are only allowing the free text for a few months, then it disappears, so we'll have to watch it. If Subscription is required, I never use the URL, because it's frustrating when you think there's going to be an article, and then all you get is a statement that you have to pay for it. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 17:11, 12 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is a one way to handle it, and it's definitely a good start. I just wonder if it's obvious enough to the reader. An experienced reader of Wikipedia will know that many times the URL does not lead to a full-text article because most Wikipedia editors (including myself) are not as prudent about the URLs as you are. That's why I'd rather have something obvious which says "Free full-text", similar to the way PubMed works, or the way it's telegraphed in some peer-reviewed journals. II | (t - c) 22:01, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recently I added an article in PMC to lead poisoning (ref 45). However, it's not displaying the PMC link. For a properly displayed PMC link, see water fluoridation (ref 16). II | (t - c) 18:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They're both books AND web links. BW95 (talk) 15:29, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I use {{cite book}} with the url parameter pointing to the Google Books page. TJRC (talk) 16:27, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yep. You are not citing Google Books, you are citing the book in question with a convenience link to Google Books. --—— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk - 17:19, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is consistent with the discussion at template talk:Cite book/Archive 6#Google book id, too. TJRC (talk) 19:40, 6 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, everyone. BW95 (talk) 00:01, 7 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

i would like a citation to read as follows?

author first author last, "title". publication, date.

Steve Ipsorum, "The quick brown fox". New York Times, Aug. 28, 2004. Lucky dog (talk) 02:20, 16 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the examples all use ISO style dates (such as 2009-03-24). Is there a reason for this? I happen to think they look ugly and are less easy to understand than the regular date formats (24 March 2009 or March 24, 2009). Is there any reason these human-style dates cannot be used in reference templates? Thanks for your attention. --John (talk) 17:16, 24 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to assume the lack of response means nobody is bothered. I am going to implement my idea of using human readable dates instead of ISO in one particular article I am working on. I may also edit the examples on this page to reflect this, if nobody objects. --John (talk) 22:48, 25 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The best way to display dates is under debate. For a flavour, see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration under 'Date delinking', and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Date delinking#Temporary injunction. Mr Stephen (talk) 00:06, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe any date format can be used in the citation templates; my long-time favourite is {{Date|yyyy-mm-dd}} (which I understand renders the date according to user preferences, or, if none are set, as "dd Month yyyy"). I suspect the use of ISO dates in the documentation is a) a left-over from the requirements of previous versions of these templates; b) an attempt to avoid US/UK issues. Michael Bednarek (talk) 02:48, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I think aesthetically it looks much more professional if all the dates are rendered consistently, even for users without date preferences set. I'd support having the dates in citations as either dd mmmmm yyyy or mmmm dd, yyyy, depending on the style in the article. --John (talk) 05:43, 26 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Once upon a time, dates in the templates were linked so that they were autoformatted. Several templates encouraged the use of ISO dates as a standard, letting the software show them as the reader desired. After the first round of date delinking started, date linking in the templates was removed, but nothing was added to fix those thousands of citations using ISO dates and now showing as ISO. We now have a {{#formatdate}} magic word that could be used to format the dates without linking, but no fix has been implemented. --Gadget850 (talk) 20:16, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a consensus to remove empty parameters from templates when they are being used in articles, to save space and make editing easier? I ask because my request to have them removed as part of AWB has been put on hold to see if there is a consensus before implementation. Thanks! –Drilnoth (T • C) 16:46, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have always considered it a good practice. No citation template will ever use every parameter. --Gadget850 (talk) 18:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have proposed that Citation bot amends pages using a mixture of 'Cite xxx' and 'Citation' templates so that only one family of templates is used. I would welcome comments on this suggestion here. Thanks, Martin (Smith609 – Talk) 20:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How would I go about using the {{cite book}} to cite a book that has been translated into english from another language? Where would I put the translator if the |last and |first are already taken up with original author? AngelFire3423 (talk) 16:55, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Best to ask at Template talk:Cite book, but the 'others' parameter is the way to go. Something along the lines of:

{{cite book | title = Non-English work | language = Foreign language | author = A Mann | others = (trans. A Cleverman)}}

A Mann. Non-English work (in Foreign language). (trans. A Cleverman).{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: unrecognized language (link)

Mr Stephen (talk) 17:47, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks alot, I didn't notice the others parameter. AngelFire3423 (talk) 18:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The date delinking issue started late last year; in November, the date fields for all of the citation templateswere delinked, resulting in the removal of formatting. This left thousands of dates in ISO and other formats.

We now have a technical fix to format dates without linking by the use of the new magic word. Examples:

{{#formatdate:2009-04-29}}

gives 2009-04-29 using your preferences. You can also set the style with:

{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}}

29 April 2009

{{#formatdate:2009-04-29|ymd}}

2009 April 29

This does work inside a ref tag:

<ref group=note>
{{cite news
| title = xxx
| url = http://xx.xx
| accessdate = {{#formatdate:2009-04-29|dmy}}
}}</ref>

^{[note 1]}

Is there any consensus on getting this into the core and implementing in in the templates? ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 21:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(Links are nice)

And what's the advantage of this new magical word {{#formatdate:}} when compared to the template {{Date}}, or indeed to writing the desired date text by hand? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 04:07, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It honors the user date preference. Before November 2008, we had a technical way to format dates using linking that was embedded in the citation templates. After a long discussion on date linking, it was removed from all of the citation templates, leaving articles with all sorts of formats. Notably, accessdates in a lot of articles are in ISO format. Using either {{#formatdate:} or {{date}}, we can implement a technical fix to date formatting. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 09:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the explanation — appreciated. Do I understand correctly then that those two mechanisms are equivalent? Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:04, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Other than supporting user preferences, then yes. ---— Gadget850 (Ed) ^talk 12:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a lot to be done re standardising templates... many templates are missing some paramaters (eg. quote), others use some different syntax... ··gracefool☺ 02:02, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Some publications have 2 ISSNs, one for the print version and one for online. It would be great if this was supported by Wikipedia. Here's an example publication that has both. Regional Monetary Integration in the Member States of the Gulf Cooperation Council

Rigimoni (talk) 07:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be useful to have a template available on Wikipedia for speeches, lectures and addresses. APA & MLA styles for these are provided here [3]. A speech example that requires this style is, Global Economic Integration: What's New and What's Not?

Rigimoni (talk) 10:42, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]