This template was considered for deletion on 2019 April 18. The result of the discussion was "Move patent citations out of ((Citation)) and into ((Cite patent)), deprecate the dedicated code in ((Citation)) for patents". |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Citation template. |
|
Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
To-do list for Template:Citation:
|
|
|||||||||
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
I have found an odd situation: The book Gifts of Power: The Writings of Rebecca Jackson, Black Visionary, Shaker Eldress is a collection of autobiographical writings compiled and edited by Jean McMahon Humez. Where this gets complicated is that one of the original autobiographical writings was also edited and annotated for publication. Is it possible to distinguish between the editor of the autobiography (since he is a primary source), and the editor who put the collection together as an academic publication?--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:59, 20 August 2019 (UTC)
This template still lists deadurl= in the "Template parameters" table, about four-fifths of the way down the page. It is deprecated. Should it be removed from the table? —RCraig09 (talk) 16:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
How should these be dealt with, now that the dead-url parameter has been deprecated?--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:15, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
|dead-url=yes
with |url-status=dead
, for example. There is more complete documentation at Template:Cite web#URL. – Jonesey95 (talk) 20:47, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
no output?
|url-status=
omitted so |url=
is presumed to be dead:
|url-status=dead
explicitly states that |url=
is dead:
|url-status=live
explicitly states that |url=
is live:
Well, In Predator (franchise) article I tagged cite #10 as a deadlink, yet there is no output. Govvy (talk) 18:26, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
|url-status=dead
. Read the documentation for that parameter. Without |archive-url=
with a value, |url-status=
is ignored.((dead link))
per the instructions in that template's doc page.Thats kind of stupid, an editor should be able to tag citations either as live or dead and that should have an output regardless of an archive url. Govvy (talk) 11:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
Here is a link to the discussions regarding the recent edits that are causing millions of redlinks to appear:
There is also a brief VPT discussion (here) that points to the longer AN discussion linked above. Mathglot (talk) 06:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
I just spent 20 minutes trying to figure out why |date=March–April
throws an error. Turns out only hyphen is accepted, not ndash. I don't want to trigger anyone's hyphen-ndash PTSD, but ndash is actually correct, and while I don't suggest rejecting hyphen, ndash really should be accepted. EEng 02:03, 8 September 2019 (UTC)
–
. Yep, that does not work but the ndash character does:
((cite book |title=Title |date=March–April 2019))
((cite book))
: Check date values in: |date=
(help)((cite book |title=Title |date=March–April 2019))
((cite book |title=Title |date=March-ndash;April 2019))
((cite book))
: CS1 maint: date format (link)Is there any good way at all to do something like this:[cc 1][cc 2][cc 3]
References
(and somehow position the closing quotation mark at the end of line #2)? The actual example I'm looking at has <br />
elements with manual numbering on a single line (which avoids the "line feed character" warning), e.g.
quote = Rules:<br />1. You do not talk about Fight Club.<br />2. You do not talk about Fight Club.
whereas I'd like to get away from that. The actual text of each numbered line is long enough to wrap around, so left-margin (relative to the numbers) becomes a factor. ―cobaltcigs 21:10, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
<q>...</q>
tags so that css can be used to render quote marks appropriate to the language of the wiki where the cs1|2 module suite is used (Module:Citation/CS1/styles.css).))
and the reference's </ref>
– quote marks can be omitted then or manually added as necessary.Agreed, and it wasn't my idea to put it there. Just trying to cleanup the output without upsetting whoever did put it there. I guess I'll put it after the template as suggested. ―cobaltcigs 22:21, 27 September 2019 (UTC)
I see a new nag has appeared in citations across Wikipedia overnight, resplendent in reprimanding red: "Italic or bold markup not allowed "
. Whatever the reasoning here, would it not be a simpler solution to strip out unwanted markup either at edit submission or at runtime? This error now relies on editors with the time and motivation to go around manually correcting it - if there is a Bot doing this job, I have yet to see it. Cnbrb (talk) 14:01, 28 September 2019 (UTC)
((cite news))
something like:
|publisher=''The New York Times''
|newspaper=The New York Times
((cite journal))
, ((cite magazine))
, ((cite news))
, and ((cite web))
) produce COinS metadata using that standard's journal object. The journal object does not have support for publisher metadata (though cs1|2 can and does display the value assigned to |publisher=
). When editors misuse |publisher=
to hold the periodical name, they do a disservice to readers who consume cs1|2 citations by way of the metadata because those readers do not get the (rather important) periodical name with the rest of the citation's bibliographic detail.Pursuant to a request by the closer:
There is a request for comment to definitively determine how widely the RFC Italics of websites in citations and references – request for comment should be applied. Please contribute.
—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)
See screenshot. Apparently avoiding a line-break between the abbreviation "ISBN" and the first digit was deemed more critical than avoiding a line-break between digits. Seeing a partial ISBN at the end of the line seems a lot worse than seeing a complete ISBN at the beginning of the line (and not immediately realizing it's an ISBN).
Recommend something like:
[[International Standard Book Number|ISBN]] <span class="isbn">[[Special:BookSources/978-0-520-04128-8|978-0-520-04128-8]]</span> ↑ (regular space) with css: span.isbn { white-space: nowrap; }
―cobaltcigs 03:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Shouldn't a period be rendered at the end by default, as in Template:Cite book etc.?--Hildeoc (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Hildeoc (talk) 19:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
((citation))
template. If you want a dot at the end of a ((citation))
template (in cs2 mode), here are two possibilities:
((citation |title=Title)).
→ Title. – this form is quite common((citation |title=Title |postscript=.))
→ Title. – this form not so common((edit fully-protected))
; particularly the first paragraph. ((edit fully-protected))
should not be used until there is consensus for the proposed change and at least a rudimentary road-map on what edit(s) is / are required to achieve that consensus.harmonizationbetween
((citation))
and the cs1 templates, use only cs1 templates or only ((citation))
or, in a mixed environment, in ((citation))
, set |mode=cs1
(or in the cs1 templates set |mode=cs2
). I don't know the exact reason for cs2's lack of terminal punctuation but I believe that there are those who believe that bibliographic listings made using ((citation))
are more grammatically correct than making the same listing using cs1 with its terminal punctuation. I could be wholly wrong about this. ((citation))
was developed more-or-less separately from the cs1 templates. Perhaps if you troll through this talk page's archives, you will discover the answer to the question. If you do, post that answer here.The 'free' value is throwing (has been throwing for some time) an validation problem against the CS-1 check engine. At Help:CS1_errors#invalid_param_val, 'free' is not included as a valid parameter, yet it appears in many documentation pages for templates. Is there a plan to either a) include 'free' as an option which is supported by the CS-1 check engine, or b) update documentation to remove this from the viable options? I'd be willing to pitch in to either effort (though really qualified only for the second). Regards --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 01:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
|url-access=free
is supported? It is not, and has never been. If there is some place that says that it is supported, that place needs to be corrected.The argument for not deleting the "language = English" parameter is that it makes easier copying and translating articles into Wikipedia sections in other languages. On the other hand, some editors do not like the extra page code. Is there any opinion formed on this subject? (plz ping me in case of answer) ·Carn !? 14:18, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
|language=
parameter should not be used, because the "English" is not shown anyways. I have been removing it for a very long time when adding and/or fixing references that come in English language, but the user who started this discussion, started bothering me with it out of the blue. Therefore, I will ask you a clearer question – is it acceptable to not use or remove the "English" tag from the |language=
parameter when the source is in English? – Sabbatino (talk) 17:16, 29 November 2019 (UTC)