United States Template‑class | |||||||
|
I removed <includeonly>[[Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from public domain works of the United States Government]]</includeonly>
because some templates (see ((Bioguide)) for example) includes a subcategory. This template should not add articles to the cat. Templates that use this template (sub-templates?) should add articles to cats.—G716 <T·C> 03:23, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
((editprotected))
See Template:Include-USGov/Sandbox for proposed change. --- when I wrote the doc subpage, I noticed that the word "document" was not italicized. Please note that Sandbox does not include <noinclude></noinclude> material, which should be preserved in real template. Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 17:00, 19 April 2009 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The trend over the last couple of years has been for the removal of italics on stand-alone article notices (see Category:Attribution templates). Please remove the italics from this template. -- PBS (talk) 10:13, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
((editprotected))
For WP:ACCESSIBILITY by visually impaired readers, the purely decorative image that this template generates should have "|link=
" as per WP:ALT #Purely decorative images. To do this, please install the obvious sandbox patch. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
((editprotected))
|alt=
as well as a |link=
. Please install this further sandbox patch to accommodate this. I discovered the problem when reviewing the alt text for the featured article candidate Smedley Butler. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 23:55, 24 January 2010 (UTC)
Sometimes federal government documents (especially press releases or other announcements) include the date that they were issued. Could a date parameter be included in this template? Eastmain (talk • contribs) 18:37, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please copy Template:Include-USGov/sandbox to Template:Include-USGov. This will accomplish three things:
Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 00:10, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
There's an extraneous paragraph break being introduced, I think by the sub-template ((GSA building)). See Union Station (Tacoma, Washington)#Attribution for an example. Mackensen (talk) 16:02, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
This seems like a sort of template that should be editable by people with templateeditor rights. Can an admin change it? Thanks! —hike395 (talk) 09:22, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
It looks like this template and its derivates are often placed in the References section, like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telecommunications_in_Bosnia_and_Herzegovina#References. But it doesn't look so good. It looks kind of messy to mix different kinds of lists that are about different things into one big list. Is there an official best practice of where to place this form of information? A special section in which to place them, for instance? --Jhertel (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shelbystripes modified the sandbox so that the accessdate is a standalone sentence at the end of the transclusion, rather than a parenthetical phrase. I think it looks better this new proposed way! Thanks for doing this! —hike395 (talk) 06:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
<span class="reference-accessdate"></span>
so that the text is excluded for users that hide the accessdate. I would appreciate a reviewer copying Template:Include-USGov/sandbox to Template:Include-USGov to incorporate these changes. Shelbystripes (talk) 06:40, 31 December 2017 (UTC)
The template needs the hatnote class; the page popup will display the template as raw text and ignore other content and the formatting looks off. elijahpepe@wikipedia 23:04, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes the text from a USGov work that was copied into a Wikipedia article has over time been edited in such a way that although the summary text still relies on the USGov, the content of the work, it no longer needs the PD notice to meet the plagiarism guideline. As in the case of the template ((CIA World Factbook))
the template wrapper is still useful (for example displaying the correct archived version), and converting the current information displayed wrapper template into the same display using just ((cite web))
would be time consuming, I think it would be useful to have a boolean parameter called no-prescript which if set stops the display of the prescript. -- PBS (talk) PBS (talk) 09:48, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
|article=
and |url=
are both set, there isn't a ((cite web))
template that is wrapped. To take a common case, consider ((Include-USGov|agency=[[Men in black]]))
, which produces
|no-prefix=
could return anything like a standalone citation in this case.((CIA World Factbook))
that does not have a PD prefix, may I suggest ((CIA World Factbook link))? It has the same country / archiving logic. — hike395 (talk) 03:49, 29 September 2022 (UTC)((CIA World Factbook))
but other templates for example like ((US government sources))
(another one I am familiar with). Indeed your example of ((CIA World Factbook link)) is another good example, because if a |no-prefix=
existed then ((CIA World Factbook link)) could wrap around ((CIA World Factbook)) with no-prefix=y
set reducing the need to code two different templates (which I see you have been doing to keep them synchronised).((Include-USGov|agency=[[Men in black]]))
is better done with the template ((source-attribution)), ((source-attribution|[[Men in black]]))
(as described in the plagiarism guideline):((USGS))
, ((NPS.Gov))
), both as a display and inline as a citation. At this point, adding logic to sometimes strip away the PD prefix and otherwise warn would be major template surgery. I think the whole template needs to be ported to Lua, and if we're going to do that, the design should be carefully rethought. I'll think about this and come back with a proposal. — hike395 (talk) 15:48, 29 September 2022 (UTC)As part of a refactoring of this template (which I'll propose shortly), I created ((Cite USGov)). I think it will fulfill your needs: it is a template that accepts all of the same arguments as ((Include-USGov)), but produces a CS1 citation:
((Cite USGov|agency=United States Department|article=Reference document|url=http://www.agency.gov/doc.html|author=John Q. Public|access-date=2022-10-01))
→ John Q. Public. Reference document. United States Department. Retrieved 2022-10-01.We can add documentation to this template to suggest use of ((Cite USGov)) when the material is no longer included verbatim, but needs to be cited anyway. — hike395 (talk) 17:14, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm proposing simplifying and refactoring the template for three reasons:
((USGS|work=USGS|title=Geology of Something|url=https://usgs.gov/something.html))
→ This article incorporates public domain material from "Geology of Something". USGS. United States Geological Survey.These issues are now solved in the sandbox, see test cases for new behavior.
What I've done is push as much information into the citation as possible. That means not mentioning the PD source in the preamble. The preamble will consist simply of:
and then is followed by the generated citation. For example:
((Include-USGov|agency=USGS|article=Reference document|url=http://www.usgs.gov/doc.html|first=John Q.|last=Public|accessdate=2022-08-08))
→ This article incorporates public domain material from Public, John Q. Reference document. USGS. Retrieved 2022-08-08.The code is now very simple: it produces the preamble, and then generates a citation (if there is any information at all), or else will fall back to a generic statement (e.g., "websites or documents of the USGS"). The citation generation template is now available at ((Cite USGov)).
Comments? Thoughts? Suggestions? — hike395 (talk) 04:10, 3 October 2022 (UTC)